[lbo-talk] UK threatens to storm Ecuadorean Embassy, kidnap Assange

[// ravi]

On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:41:44 -0400
> // ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> 
>>> a discussion that is able to derive a meaningful interpretation of
>>> protecting Pinochet but not Assange has to be necessarily
>>> technical, yes?
> 
> I would have said that a *meaningful* interpretation would be 
> necessarily political rather than technical. A technical interpretation
> might be interesting to practitioners but otherwise inconsequential. 

My sentence is more than a bit awkward. What I meant is that the ins and outs of what some Vienna Convention or what not agreement means in Section 1, Subsection C means in the context of British jurisprudence, so on… that’s the technical stuff. And yes, I am claiming that is primarily of interest to practitioners (though probably quite consequential for the real outcomes). Everyone else, I think, would just find it puzzling, if not outright bizarre, to follow the reasoning of how the UK could “logically” (i.e., technically) protect Pinochet while assisting the transfer of Assange to Gitmo.

	—ravi