Upton Sinclair said it best: (Reply #64)

In the discussion thread: US rejects 'diplomatic asylum' for Assange [View all]

Response to leveymg (Reply #62)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 12:21 PM

backscatter712 (25,248 posts)

64. Upton Sinclair said it best:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

79 replies	Author	Time	Post
US rejects 'diplomatic asylum' for Assange [View all]	Lars77	Aug 2012	OP
K&R	Cleita	Aug 2012	#1
this country is a rogue state in a lot of ways.	datasuspect	Aug 2012	#2
Sadly, I'm believing that more and more as time passes. It won't last. Trust me the gig is about	Purveyor	Aug 2012	#3
Since 1954?	Nuclear Unicorn	Aug 2012	#4
nah. i'd say since JFK had the temerity to think he ran shit.	datasuspect	Aug 2012	#14
Ding, ding, ding!	hifiguy	Aug 2012	#35
No country apart from those in Latin America party to the OAS Convention recognises it.	Spider Jerusalem	Aug 2012	#10
good thing we can do summary executions without trials anywhere on the globe then.	datasuspect	Aug 2012	#12
Fang Lizh and Chen Guangcheng used it at the US embassy.	Ichingcarpenter	Aug 2012	#18
No, actually, they didn't	Spider Jerusalem	Aug 2012	#24
Tell that to Cardinal József Mindszenty who spent 15 years at the US Embassy in Budapest.	leveymg	Aug 2012	#20
There appears to be a difference between political and diplomatic asylum	hack89	Aug 2012	#31
The right to asylum is conferred under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. No distinction	leveymg	Aug 2012	#41
Then why is the OAS the only group that appears to recognize diplomatic asylum?	hack89	Aug 2012	#43
It's the only group to recognize a difference that doesn't otherwise exist in refugee law.	leveymg	Aug 2012	#45
CNN has just posted a primer on the matter	hack89	Aug 2012	#47
That predates the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. Moot. Sorry.	leveymg	Aug 2012	#50
There doesn't appear to be an international consensus forming around your theory	hack89	Aug 2012	#51
That's because the 800lb gorilla still dominates that consensus, and others keep their mouths shut	leveymg	Aug 2012	#52
That's right. You only have the right to asylum if the US likes you. n/t	backscatter712	Aug 2012	#53
OK nt.	hack89	Aug 2012	#56
But the accords also have specific definitions of what a refugee is and is not	hack89	Aug 2012	#54
Ah, that explains why the UK gave up Pinochet to Spain!	backscatter712	Aug 2012	#59
Pinochet never claimed refugee status or asylum from any country	hack89	Aug 2012	#61
Again, you are wrong. Pinochet's immunity claim was rejected.	leveymg	Aug 2012	#66
Since I never claimed it was accepted, how can I be wrong?	hack89	Aug 2012	#70
Your point was misleading. Made it seem that Pinochet had immunity, which he didn't.	leveymg	Aug 2012	#72
Since I merely said that he "claimed immunity"	hack89	Aug 2012	#74
I've already explained that to you, hack. You're simply wrong on all counts.	leveymg	Aug 2012	#62
Upton Sinclair said it best:	backscatter712	Aug 2012	#64
Considering how no one else seems to agree with you	hack89	Aug 2012	#69
Aside from CNN, you've cited no sources. What are they?	leveymg	Aug 2012	#73
Time will tell. nt	hack89	Aug 2012	#75
Luis Posada	tama	Aug 2012	#39
Way to go Hillary, you Goldwater girl you.	byeya	Aug 2012	#5
Tough shit. Ecuador is a soverign nation	hifiguy	Aug 2012	#6
so was Iraq	datasuspect	Aug 2012	#8
so was Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958) . . .	leveymg	Aug 2012	#25
I laugh, but only ironically.	hifiguy	Aug 2012	#27
U.S. foreign policy has been in reruns so long, it's broadcast in black-and-white.	leveymg	Aug 2012	#29
If all it was was a case of "date rape" or a "broken condom", the US wouldn't give a shit.	backscatter712	Aug 2012	#7
some super important wealthy people ended up with egg on their face	datasuspect	Aug 2012	#9
Revenge	RobertEarl	Aug 2012	#22
Revenge, possibly, but I tend to think it is a case of	tsuki	Aug 2012	#32
Yep. And if they get him	hifiguy	Aug 2012	#15
yep.	datasuspect	Aug 2012	#17
Why Our Government Thinks It Has Any Say In This, Sir, Mystifies Me....	The Magistrate	Aug 2012	#11
UHHHMERICA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!!	datasuspect	Aug 2012	#13
Number One In Bestness, Sir	The Magistrate	Aug 2012	#16
Because they are a member of the Organization of American States?	hack89	Aug 2012	#30
Evidently, Sir, We Do Not Consider Its Conventions Binding On Us....	The Magistrate	Aug 2012	#34
Since we specifically did not sign that convention in 1954	hack89	Aug 2012	#44
... "We believe this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom and that	struggle4progress	Aug 2012	#40
Oh, that's right, the OAS has no say, only the US does! n/t	backscatter712	Aug 2012	#55
The OAS plans a meeting on Ecuador's asylum; the US belong to the OAS; so the US is asked	struggle4progress	Aug 2012	#67
Things that make you go hmmmmm	Marrah_G	Aug 2012	#42
Let's be frank: the US doesn't recognize international law, period	kenny blankenship	Aug 2012	#19
the problems with other countries is that the are ummmmm independent?????	dembotoz	Aug 2012	#21
Send out the drones.	Downwinder	Aug 2012	#23
Oh well THAT'S going to go over well with the Central and Latin American countries	riderinthestorm	Aug 2012	#26
Like I keep saying, this is an International Incident	lunatica	Aug 2012	#28
Huh then why did they let that blind guy from China hide in the US Embassy	malaise	Aug 2012	#33
See post 24. n/t	tammywammy	Aug 2012	#37
That the US felt it had to weigh in on this AT ALL says everything	riderinthestorm	Aug 2012	#36
Exactly - the US has made it clear they're very interested in this case.	backscatter712	Aug 2012	#60
What the US says is becoming irrelevent	fascisthunter	Aug 2012	#38
I googled pics of the embassy	flobee1	Aug 2012	#46
Not likely - London cops are everywhere in that area, specifically looking for him.	backscatter712	Aug 2012	#68
The Ecuadorian embassy is only one flat in that building	struggle4progress	Aug 2012	#77
So, the state who housed Cardinal Mindszenty for decades in its Budapest embassy	Jack Rabbit	Aug 2012	#48
The Hungarian government had the legal high ground in that particular case	hack89	Aug 2012	#49
As Emil Zola said, "The law is an ass."	Jack Rabbit	Aug 2012	#57
So who was right in that case - the US or the Hungarians? nt	hack89	Aug 2012	#58
If one is a lawyer, the Hungarians at least had a case	Jack Rabbit	Aug 2012	#63
Under the '51 UN Convention, the US could grant asylum to the Cardinal. Certainly, today, Ecuador	leveymg	Aug 2012	#65
Is this the face the Obama Administration really wants to show to World?	99Forever	Aug 2012	#71
The US won't take sides in the disagreement between the UK and Ecuador! Quick! Fetch my salts!	struggle4progress	Aug 2012	#78
9/11 gave us the right to any fucking thing we want	Ezlivin	Aug 2012	#76
DU rages as US stays out of bilateral dispute! News at 11 or whenever our meds kick in!	struggle4progress	Aug 2012	#79

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.