News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The country where he is located Ecuador. That's how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil and should be allowed to leave for Ecuador.
That is not true, though it's a common misconception. Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are granted specific legal protections by treaty by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that prevents the host country's law enforcement from entering and arresting people, but the territory on which they are located does not belong to the guest country.
The ability to provide asylum in an embassy is based on this text:
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
The only case I can think of off-the-cuff where territory was explicitly made extraterritorial was during World War II. The Dutch royal family had fled abroad due to the Netherlands being occupied by the Nazis, and Princess Margriet was born there. I vaguely recall that there is some restriction in Dutch law that requires a member of the royal family to be born on native Dutch soil to remain in the line of royal succession or something like that.
The Canadian parliament passed a law to, for a brief period of time, render the maternity ward of the hospital in which Princess Margriet was to be born, Dutch territory.
googles
Actually, looks like I misremembered that. According to Wikipedia, even in that case, they didn't declare it to be Dutch territory, just to not be part of Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands
And stayed at the embassy until he couldn't any more and was arrested by the Brits. I still don't see what's unfair.
Again, the unfair part was not allowing him to leave for Ecuador. His Ecuadorian citizenship got revoked when the British arrested him, but he should not have been arrested because he was an asylum seeker granted Ecuadorian citizenship.
Would you also oppose Jews seeking asylum in foreign consulates in pre-WWII Germany and Italy being taken out of Germany and Italy? One of those people was Albert Einstein.
Or is Assange somehow a special case when it comes to seeking asylum.
This isn't even about Assange personally or whether or not he deserves to be prosecuted for what he did. This is about how the U.S. and Britain can get away with ignoring someone who has both been granted asylum and citizenship of a third country. And I don't care if you are guilty or innocent of your crimes, that is simply wrong.
That's not how it works. In order to leave the embassy he would have to set foot on Brit soil, and he had an arrest warrant. He was not granted asylum by Britain, only Ecuador. As I remember, they were the only country to say yes. They changed government, and there you go.
And in order to leave the American embassy, Einstein had to cross German soil. He was allowed to because he was granted asylum.
Sorry but untrue
Weird, because William H. Geist famously refused to give Einstein a visa and public outcry forced him to flip on that. And then he was taken to the U.S.
Do you think the plane took off from the embassy?
I think Einstein didn't have a warrant out for his arrest.
True. He was just Jewish. And yet the Germans let him leave anyway. You do know that they didn't let any Jew who wanted to leave without a visa, right?
Visas are for entering countries, not leaving them.
Oh?
https://www.holocaustcenterseattle.org/exit-visas-docent-training
Other than Einstein being just like Assange, but not. What you got? Oh, Nazi paperwork? OK. But, I think you have have diluted your argument sufficiently
You made a false claim. I showed you the claim was false. I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that.
I'm still not sure why you think Assange was treated unfairly when the law was followed. So I guess we're even.
No, we're not even. I gave an opinion. You made an incorrect statement you tried to pass off as factual.
Any time you want to admit you were factually in error, go for it.
But I won't be holding my breath. This is the internet. Dishonesty rules.
That's pretty funny. You can't support your fantasy but blame me. Typical.
Any time you want to admit you said something false, feel free. I realize that saying "I was wrong" is the worst thing a person can possibly do... but maybe don't have that particular conservative mode of thinking and have some humility?
I gave an opinion. Was that opinion based on incorrect information? Possibly. So far you have not demonstrated that to be the case.
On the other hand, you stated something as a fact. You were shown to be factually incorrect. You refuse to admit it.
Apparently you, like many conservatives, even though you are supposedly not a conservative, think that ever admitting you were wrong shows that you are weak. It doesn't.
I am guessing next up will you be trying to gaslight by insisting that you didn't make a basic factual error.
I see...
Your opinion is not based on anything but a feeling.
There are ramifications for actions. Trump will find his. Assange will find his. You'll only cry for one of them.
Yes, again, I understand that you think admitting you were wrong is a form of weakness.
It still isn't.
And even if my opinion was based only on a feeling, you were still factually incorrect and you still won't just do the adult thing and admit it. My god, what do you think will happen if you just say, "I was wrong." Do you think the world will laugh at you and you'll have to live like a hermit in shame or something? Is it really that scary that you can't just say those three words?
Hang onto to your feeling of being right. Gawd knows you need to.
Why are you being such a coward about this?
Kind of pitiful to start calling names, don't you think?
No, I'd say what's pitiful is being too cowardly to say the words "I was wrong."