|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What next for Assange and Wikileaks?
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
So now Julian Assange , the founder of Wikileaks, has been granted political asylum by the government of Ecuador, but the British Government say publicly that nevertheless they will have him arrested as soon as he steps outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
Presumably they are doing what their foreign-policy masters in Washington want them to do? Or do any shipmates still believe that the US is not preparing a case for extraditing him? Or that the UK will actually pursue a course of action not sanctioned by the USA?
Maybe the UK will quietly drop their guard and discover one morning that Assange left for Ecuador last night?
Despite US denials, Cables from the Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs quoted in some media there (leaked through Wikileaks, I think) strongly indicate that the Americans are just waiting for him to appear in Sweden (or in UK) so they can extradite him. Personally I suspect they would prefer to just grab him and send him directly to Guantanamo Bay without trial.
Ecuador may not be paradise but I'm sure it's nicer than Guantanamo!
And just to further sweeten the discussion,I offer the opinion that the Swedish accusations sound like "rape" only to a female prosecutor notorious for pursuing such cases. So maybe they beaten up on American urging.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
I do hope he likes Pizza (or whatever they deliver in Knitsbridge) and I hope the Ecuadorean Embassy has a shower.
This whole story doesn't reflect well on the British government (that hint that they reserved the right to send Police in) and it certainly doesn't reflect well on the Ecuadorean government (sheltering someone wanted for sexual assualt to score points against Uncle Sam.)The UK is suffering diplomatically in South America because of Argentine pressure on the Falklands so any diplomatic confrontation with Ecuador will make things even worse. As for Assange; I expect he'll try a midnight flit at some point.
[ 19. August 2012, 06:32: Message edited by: Matariki ]
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Despite US denials, Cables from the Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs quoted in some media there (leaked through Wikileaks, I think) strongly indicate that the Americans are just waiting for him to appear in Sweden (or in UK) so they can extradite him. Personally I suspect they would prefer to just grab him and send him directly to Guantanamo Bay without trial.
The thing that has seemed completely illogical throughout this whole affair is the suggestion that somehow he needs to go to Sweden before he can be taken to the US.
Why not from the UK to US directly? Indeed, I've read at least one article suggesting that a UK to US extradition is actually easier than a Sweden to US one. Yet there hasn't been the slightest sign that the US would ask the UK for extradition.
For that reason alone I'm highly sceptical of arguments that the Swedish are part of a conspiracy.
[ 19. August 2012, 06:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Ecuador may not be paradise
Well that's one very restrained way to put it.
Have you checked out their global status on press freedom (which is what the Wikileaks controversy is largely about) recently?
quote:
And just to further sweeten the discussion,I offer the opinion that the Swedish accusations sound like "rape" only to a female prosecutor notorious for pursuing such cases.
Bloody women!
They just ask for it, don't they Tukai?
Good to see that those feminists haven't pulled the wool over your eyes.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What I find odd, is that given he is wanted for interview only at this stage, that they won't interview him in the UK (possibly at the Ecuadorean embassy) as he has offered.
If their primary concern was justice for the alleged victims surely they would want to interview him as soon as possible, regardless of ongoing legal issues.
[ 19. August 2012, 08:25: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
He's supposed to be giving an interview outside the Ecuadorean embassy today. I'll be interested to see what happens: if he steps outside the embassy he's likely to be arrested.
However, realistically, he can't spend the rest of his life sleeping on a mattress in one of the rooms there, living on takeaways, and I think I read somewhere that it doesn't have a shower. It's a simple sort of building that's pretty much just office rooms.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Despite the best endeavours of the Sydney Morning Herald/Melbourne Age and the ABC, this is really a non-issue here. Mr Assange seems to think he is not subject to the laws which govern most individuals - let him think that if he can.
4 points:
a. If the US govt wanted him, why not apply in the usual way for extradition? The extradition treaty between the US and UK seems much looser than that between the US and Sweden.
b The cables quoted in the SMH/Age really do not support any conclusion that Aust diplomats think that Assange will end up in the US if he goes to Sweden.
c. Assange is probably much safer in Sweden that in Ecuador. If the US wanted to put him up for trial (or even kill him) it would be much easier to get to him in Ecuador than in Sweden.
d. Assange has really abused the trust placed in him by the court which granted him bail.
[ 19. August 2012, 10:20: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I suspect that he is worried that the moment he leaves the Embassy on the way to Sweden the British will suddenly discover an extradition order for the US and put him on the wrong plane.
British extradition treaty with the USA basically says that the British government will hand over anyone the Americans demand without trial or any public process whatsoever, but the Americans don't have to do anything the British ask for at all. Anyone trying to hide from the USA would probably be safer in Sweden than in Britain.
Probably safer than anywhere else on earth to be honest - Sweden is one of the very few countries with even stronger legal protection for free speech than the USA has, it has a tradition of not handing over prisoners to extradition, its enough of an ally to make it embarrassing for the US to send an assassin (as they might in some Latin American countries), and its military is high tech enough to shoot down US drones (as they might use in Pakistan or many Middle Eastern countries)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
... and further to my post above, the BBC site says:
"the corridors and lifts inside the building, which is shared with Colombia, are communal and not part of the Ecuadorean embassy so police stationed in these areas could arrest Mr Assange before he appears outside."
Statement expected at 2pm. Let's see what happens.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
parm
Shipmate
# 9287
|
Posted
So, the other interesting part about all this is that diplomatic immunity and all those rules about embassies being foreign soil and that sort of thing are quite complicated and subtle, and aren't some kind of trump card you can play and go "Aha! Diplomatic immunity, you can't touch me!" The presence of an embassy on foreign soil is pretty much entirely at the discretion of the host nation, and should the host nation decide that the embassy and/or the guest nation are taking the piss, they are more than welcome to suspend that embassy's diplomatic priveleges - hence the rather unfortunately blunt "We could send the police in if we wanted" thing in the press recently.
There's a really interesting piece by a former diplomat about the whole thing.
--------------------
Honestly, I have no idea.
Posts: 98 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I have a strangely unsettled feeling about all of this. My views are:
1. Wikileaks is a good site, and has done a lot to promote freedom of information, and getting details that should be in the public domain out there. Assange has done a Good Think in setting it up.
2. Assange is, but all reports, an arsehole, and there are accusations (not charges and not proven) that he behaved inappropriately in Sweden. These are serious charges, and he should be made to answer them. Maybe he is innocent, but his behaviour, and the reports about him, suggest not.
3. The US certainly want to extradite Assange, mainly because he is an embarrassment. I would suggest that they actually do not have enough evidence to pursue this currently, and want to build a case against him. They want to be sure he is secure until they can sort him out properly.
4. The British behaviour is reprehensible. You do NOT threaten another countries embassy. Especially not for the purposes of extraditing someone to another country - it is not even that he has broken our laws. We should deal with him on our land, but if the Swedes wish to pick a fight with the Ecuadoreans, they should do it.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I also feel unsettled by all this - and agree with everything Schroedinger's cat says.
Hasn't Assange effectively imprisoned himself?
Seems a weird thing to do. His speech from the balcony was odd in the extreme. He seems a cold fish to me.
I wouldn't be surprised if the British authorities simply sit it out and let him grow old there!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
4. The British behaviour is reprehensible. You do NOT threaten another countries embassy. Especially not for the purposes of extraditing someone to another country - it is not even that he has broken our laws.
Well, he's certainly breached his bail conditions, hasn't he? That's usually something that can get you arrested.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why not from the UK to US directly? Indeed, I've read at least one article suggesting that a UK to US extradition is actually easier than a Sweden to US one. Yet there hasn't been the slightest sign that the US would ask the UK for extradition.
For that reason alone I'm highly sceptical of arguments that the Swedish are part of a conspiracy.
That's not entirely reasonable. Given that Sweden does have some recent history of cooperating with the U.S. in questionable renditions, why wouldn't one be suspicious? It's rather like taking Egypt's (or the CIA's) word at face value when they assure you they're not going to torture extradited prisoners.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I wonder a lot of things about Assange and Wikileaks. Just to be clear on my stance:
(i) I generally support the concept and actions of Wikileaks. I believe in open source and free access. I run Linux on all computers (most are resurrected windows cast offs). Haven't paid for any software or operating systems in about 7 years and don't plan to any time soon. I believe in free access to information and to all types of media, and consider secrecy of governments-as-corporations one of the largest threats to democracy and equality on the planet. Thus, I support the publication of information in general, with the only caveat that it must not lead to harm or loss of life. I'm not aware that Wikileaks has caused either.
(ii) I am fully on the side of anyone who has been sexually assaulted in any way, shape or form. I do not accept any form of coercion, violence nor force in any human interactions. Those who do such things need to be charged and controlled so they don't do them again. I support long term jail and lifetime monitoring of confirmed sex offenders.
Some questions:
1. Could Assange have not remained anonymous while running wikileaks? Could he not have arranged for some other mechanism for policy statements? I have always been surprised that the IRA could have had an apparently legal political wing in Sinn Féin. If terrorists like the IRA can do it why not a world public news service like Wikileaks?
2. Could the sex investigation be separated from Wikileaks? Could Assange be separated from Wikileaks? My take on that is that Wikileaks must become separate from this one person.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
1. Could Assange have not remained anonymous while running wikileaks? Could he not have arranged for some other mechanism for policy statements? I have always been surprised that the IRA could have had an apparently legal political wing in Sinn Féin. If terrorists like the IRA can do it why not a world public news service like Wikileaks?
Any group which wants to interface with the wider public benefits from having a public face. This isn't just a matter of public relations. It's hard to know if someone truly speaks for an organization or if he's just some lone nut if all members of that organization are anonymous. Given Wikileaks' more recent strategy of working through traditional media sources, the need for verifiability becomes even greater.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
2. Could the sex investigation be separated from Wikileaks? Could Assange be separated from Wikileaks? My take on that is that Wikileaks must become separate from this one person.
Sure, but the larger issue (the U.S. government wanting to punish the leadership of Wikileaks) wouldn't be solved by simply selecting a new public face.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
You've got to hand it to the guy. It's not everyone who can make themselves a topic of discussion for no less than 5 national governments, with an option to add a large slice of Latin America.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I was rather disgusted that he made no mention of the rape allegations but was full of himself in the interview. Let's not forget that there are presently two Swedish complainants who are being denied justice largely IMO because of this individual's desire for self-aggrandisement.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Quite so. Which is why, at some point, Wikileaks stopped being about openness and freedom of information and somehow became all about Julian Assange. The sitation is this:
1. He was accused of two counts of rape. The allegations, if true, would constitute rape under the laws of just about all Western countries.
2. An arrest warrant was issued. Perfectly normal, given the offences alleged.
3. The Swedes sought extradition, as well they might.
4. He was granted bail on condition that he put up a bond. Again, quite normal.
5. Friends and sympathisers put up the bond money. Good for them.
6. Then he bolts to the embassy of a small Latin American state and claims political asylum, this forfeiting said bond.
7. In the meantime the Americans have taken no steps to seek his extradition, probably beause it really isn't clear that he's committed any crime under American law. This is despite the Americans apparently having the benefit of a one-sided extradition treaty with the UK.
And so:
quote:
(by Ken)
I suspect that he is worried that the moment he leaves the Embassy on the way to Sweden the British will suddenly discover an extradition order for the US and put him on the wrong plane.
In which case he is a twit. If he hadn't fought his extradition, he'd be in Sweden by now.
In any event, there are such things as urgent injunctions and whatnot. You phone your lawyer, said lawyer gets the deportation stopped, and then it can be argued in court. I think we can seriously doubt the likelihood of Assange getting spirited out the UK to the US.
quote:
by Schroedinger's Cat 4. The British behaviour is reprehensible. You do NOT threaten another countries embassy. Especially not for the purposes of extraditing someone to another country - it is not even that he has broken our laws. We should deal with him on our land, but if the Swedes wish to pick a fight with the Ecuadoreans, they should do it.
No. You do not abuse the notion of diplomatic immunity by using your embassy as a kind of Alsatia for accused criminals.
If you commit a crime under a country's laws, you can be prosecuted. If you run off, that country can ask for you to be arrested and brought back to stand trial. That is what the Swedes have done.
It obviously upholds the rule of law globally if states assist each other in this respect. By contrast, the Ecuadorian govenment, prefer to use it as a chance to stoke up a diplomatic stoush.
The UK govt's decision to allow his extradition was upheld by the UK Supreme Court. If there had been any indication that it was allowed for an improper motive Assange's lawyers would have crawled all over it and the decision would have been struck out.
It is just possible, you know, that Assange is a rapist. For Pete's sake, what he has been accused of constitutes rape under English law without question.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that Sweden does have some recent history of cooperating with the U.S. in questionable renditions, why wouldn't one be suspicious? It's rather like taking Egypt's (or the CIA's) word at face value when they assure you they're not going to torture extradited prisoners.
Rendition is appalling and, it goes without saying, illegal. It is also done in secret. Can it seriously be suggested that Assange faces secret rendition, perhaps followed by a spot of waterboarding and perhaps a spell in Guantanamo? I doubt it.
This stopped being about freedom of information some time ago. It is now about a vain bloke who doesn't want to face trial for alleged rape.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
For Pete's sake, what he has been accused of constitutes rape under English law without question.
Really?
Quite some time ago, in the early stages of this whole kerfuffle, I saw an explanation of Swedish rape law that indicated it was quite different from common law countries, and a good deal stricter, such that there are many situations which would NOT be rape under English and related law but would be rape under Swedish law.
And the clear indication in this explanation was that Assange probably wouldn't have fallen foul of the law in other countries. His alleged behaviour would have made him a cad, but not a criminal. The purpose of the explanation was to explain why the alleged behaviour would be criminal, when on its face to an English-speaking audience it would not seem to be criminal.
In one sense this is neither here nor there. When in Sweden, one must answer to Swedish law, and Sweden is completely entitled to enforce it, and it's not terribly relevant whether the same actions would be criminal in another country. I just thought it was worth querying this because what you've said is quite contrary to earlier commentary.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
The article parm linked to above is worth a read. I liked this quote about diplomatic bags:
quote:
If, now, a man-shaped diplomatic bag is seen emerging from the Ecuadorian Embassy and we prod it with a pitchfork to confirm that it contains only diplomatic items, a squeak of ‘Streeewth!’ would give us all the legal options we need to insist the Ecuadorian Embassy politely undo it and show us what or who is therein.
JtW
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
One is left feeling very uncomfortable about all this. Wikileaks has been so very inconvenient and without precedent not least to the governments of the UK and US, that one can almost believe any conspiracy theory.
It might even be the case that it is convenient for the US to blacken the name of this unattractive character even more, or even that the Swedish women are a couple of unscrupulous gold diggers either independent, or sponsored by those for whom he is a gross inconvenience. That might indeed be the case.
William Hague was badly advised, and undiplomatic even to give an impression of storming an embassy. It was a threat that has done much damage to resolving this situation.
It would seem that an answer might be allowing a video link between the Swedish prosecutor and Assage in the embassy.
I was surprised to see the otherwise cooly considerate Lord Carlisle using emotive language in his recent newpaper article on the subject. It seemed even more surprising that he chose to do it in the Daily Mail.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by parm:
So, the other interesting part about all this is that diplomatic immunity and all those rules about embassies being foreign soil and that sort of thing are quite complicated and subtle, and aren't some kind of trump card you can play and go "Aha! Diplomatic immunity, you can't touch me!" The presence of an embassy on foreign soil is pretty much entirely at the discretion of the host nation, and should the host nation decide that the embassy and/or the guest nation are taking the piss, they are more than welcome to suspend that embassy's diplomatic priveleges - hence the rather unfortunately blunt "We could send the police in if we wanted" thing in the press recently.
Very true - and also applies to British embassies overseas. Now I'm sure all British embassy staff worldwide, and the Foreign Office's policies and procedures, all conform to the relevant international laws and are squeakly clean. But y'know, things can be invented by unscrupulous types. It might be best not to set a precedent of removing immunity & storming in...
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If you commit a crime under a country's laws, you can be prosecuted. If you run off, that country can ask for you to be arrested and brought back to stand trial. That is what the Swedes have done.
It obviously upholds the rule of law globally if states assist each other in this respect. By contrast, the Ecuadorian govenment, prefer to use it as a chance to stoke up a diplomatic stoush.
I'm not sure this is something we'd consider universally applicable, particularly in regards to countries we don't like or consider repressive. For example, there have been a large number of North Koreans who have managed to, or attempted to, gain access to foreign embassies in Beijing (China is one of the few countries North Korea will even consider letting its citizens visit) and using that as step to defect/emmigrate. For obvious reasons the South Korean embassy is the preferred venue for this, but other sympathetic nations have been served this purpose as well.
All of this would seem to fit your description. The people in question are violating their country's laws, at least in regards to immigration and abusing their tourist visas, and using diplomatic immunity to evade justice.
So, was it a blow to "the rule of law globally" when China stopped handing the unsuccessful defectors over to the North Korean "justice" system? Or was it something that could easily be accommodated under a broader understanding of human rights?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I scarcely think that one can compare Sweden with North Korea.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I scarcely think that one can compare Sweden with North Korea.
But part of the problem of appealing to "the rule of law globally" is that for that phrase to have any meaning it has to apply across the board. Otherwise it's just preference or prejudice.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
quote:
Originally posted by parm:
So, the other interesting part about all this is that diplomatic immunity and all those rules about embassies being foreign soil and that sort of thing are quite complicated and subtle, and aren't some kind of trump card you can play and go "Aha! Diplomatic immunity, you can't touch me!" The presence of an embassy on foreign soil is pretty much entirely at the discretion of the host nation, and should the host nation decide that the embassy and/or the guest nation are taking the piss, they are more than welcome to suspend that embassy's diplomatic priveleges - hence the rather unfortunately blunt "We could send the police in if we wanted" thing in the press recently.
Very true - and also applies to British embassies overseas. Now I'm sure all British embassy staff worldwide, and the Foreign Office's policies and procedures, all conform to the relevant international laws and are squeakly clean. But y'know, things can be invented by unscrupulous types. It might be best not to set a precedent of removing immunity & storming in...
When international communication is made so easy the need for foreign embassies becomes less obvious. If, in addition, the privelege of having an embassy in London is going to be abused in the way that the Equadorians are abusing it, then it may make sense to close that embassy. If the Equadorians indulge in a tit for tat then so be it as I doubt having an embassy in Equador is an essential part of the diplomatic portfolio.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
When international communication is made so easy the need for foreign embassies becomes less obvious. If, in addition, the privelege of having an embassy in London is going to be abused in the way that the Equadorians are abusing it, then it may make sense to close that embassy.
It should be noted that seeking assylum for alleged human rights abuses (current or anticipated) is a well-recognized right, not an "abuse".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Croesos - your analogy makes no sense. Article 13 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that everybody has the right to leave and to return to their country at their will. We have been pressuring China (which is a signatory) for years on this matter, precisely because it is a matter of international rights law. North Korea obviously isn't a signatory.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
There's a very useful summary covering most of the issues brought up above, written by David Allen Green, a lawyer of some repute. It can be found here.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But, Croesos, this is a situation where it is far from made out that it is a human right that is being threatened. That was the conclusion of the court considering the extradition request and also that of one of the commentators in The Times today (I can't give you an online link as one has to have a subscription but I read it in the hardcopy version this morning)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
When international communication is made so easy the need for foreign embassies becomes less obvious. If, in addition, the privelege of having an embassy in London is going to be abused in the way that the Equadorians are abusing it, then it may make sense to close that embassy.
It should be noted that seeking assylum for alleged human rights abuses (current or anticipated) is a well-recognized right, not an "abuse".
Alleged human rights abuses? I was under the impression he had jumped bail and was avoiding being extradited to Sweden to face trial.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But, Croesos, this is a situation where it is far from made out that it is a human right that is being threatened. That was the conclusion of the court considering the extradition request and also that of one of the commentators in The Times today (I can't give you an online link as one has to have a subscription but I read it in the hardcopy version this morning)
There's another parallel with the North Korean case. Neither the Chinese Government nor the North Koreans consider the defectors in question to be in danger of having their human rights abused by being returned to North Korea. For obvious reasons the embassies to which they had fled did not see this as dispositive, but formed their own judgement of the situation.
For similar reasons, the government of Ecuador is not obligated to agree with the conclusions of a British, Swedish, or American court. I am not privy to their reasoning, but if I had to guess it would go something like this:
- Mr. Assange is a foreign national that the U.S. considers a threat to its national security, the exact category of person for whom it maintains the prison in Guantánamo and (formerly) a secret network of "black site" prisons.
- Even the U.S. State Department agrees that the Swedish government holds its judicial prisoners in conditions of exreme secrecy, making reasonable the fears that if Mr. Assange were re-extradited to the U.S. he would not have access to adequate legal countermeasures.
- Sweden has a recent history of assisting the U.S. in the illegal rendition of foreign nationals the U.S. considers a threat to its national security, a category into which (as mentioned previously) Mr. Assange falls.
Not an airtight case, I'll grant you, but reasonable enough to be convincing to someone operating on a "preponderance of evidence" basis.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Croesos - let me spin you an alternative yarn.
1. Neither the UK nor Sweden has received any approaches about Mr. Assange relating to extradition.
2. Both Sweden and the UK are bound by ECHR rules that forbid them from extraditing anyone to a country where they may face the death penalty.
3. Mysteriously and out of the blue, Ecuador offers Mr. Assange asylum on a human rights basis.
4. This would be the same government of Ecuador of which Human Rights Watch writes quote:
Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.
Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.
5. Ecuador is currently extraditing a blogger to whom it offered asylum in 2008 to Belarus, where he may face capital charges. For doing more or less what Julian Assange was doing in regard to whistleblowing.
6. Fill this one in yourself.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos - let me spin you an alternative yarn.
1. Neither the UK nor Sweden has received any approaches about Mr. Assange relating to extradition.
. . . that we know of. Given the Swedish government's penchant for secrecy in these matters this isn't dispositive. It's not even particularly relevant since there's no reason the Ecuadoran government can't consider likely future events.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
2. Both Sweden and the UK are bound by ECHR rules that forbid them from extraditing anyone to a country where they may face the death penalty.
. . . and yet Sweden was willing to do so in the case of two Egyptian terrorism suspects. Egypt still allows the death penalty for terrorism-related crimes. Sweden is likewise bound to not extradite anyone to a country where there is a good probability that they'll be tortured, but that doesn't seem to have stopped them. Relying on Sweden to follow rules it has demonstrated a willingness to break under the direction of the U.S. seems a foolish thing to do in this case.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
3. Mysteriously and out of the blue, Ecuador offers Mr. Assange asylum on a human rights basis.
Yes, I agree it was surprising to anyone not privy to the Ecuadoran diplomatic corps or the inner circle of Wikileaks. I'm not sure what's proved by the fact that it was surprising.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
4. This would be the same government of Ecuador of which Human Rights Watch writes
quote:
Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.
Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.
Yes, Ecuador has, at best, a mixed record on human rights. I'm not getting the sinister connection to this particular case though. Could you expand?
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
5. Ecuador is currently extraditing a blogger to whom it offered asylum in 2008 to Belarus, where he may face capital charges. For doing more or less what Julian Assange was doing in regard to whistleblowing.
Which shows that the Ecuadoran government is fickle in its grants of asylum. Again, so what? It may mean that it's unwise for Mr. Assange to put all his eggs in that particular basket, but it doesn't mean the whole idea of diplomatic asylum is therefore invalid.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Croesos -
I think the point of 4 & 5 together is that Ecuador is run on the basis that if Wikileaks had breathed a word against their government, JA would be languishing in some rat-infested hell-hole by now. It is a crime to even criticise any government institution or official, and the current government have passed a law enabling them to fire any non-compliant juror. Their press is heavily censored.
So any fond beliefs that Ecuador is run by a kind-hearted democracy ready to offer asylum to a warrior for the truth in the interests of fair play should ask themselves which planet they have been on these last few years.
I do not know what game Ecuador is playing, but playing one they certainly must be. Probably some S. American game is my guess. But on the evidence so far, Julian Assange must surely be expendable to them. In the medium term, the worst thing that could happen to him is that he be offered free passage to Ecuador.
(FWIW I thought Wikileaks a great idea. Their exposure of various scandals like Trafigura, the US military shootings of civilians in Iraq, etc etc, was a valuable corrective to governmental secrecy. But publishing what amounts to a blizzard of mundane diplomatic exchanges was just petty. Everybody can sympathise with the person who has had their mail intercepted and read.
Meanwhile there are two women who assert they have been either raped or sexually assaulted, and I think they deserve to have their case against JA heard.)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos -
I think the point of 4 & 5 together is that Ecuador is run on the basis that if Wikileaks had breathed a word against their government, JA would be languishing in some rat-infested hell-hole by now. It is a crime to even criticise any government institution or official, and the current government have passed a law enabling them to fire any non-compliant juror. Their press is heavily censored.
So any fond beliefs that Ecuador is run by a kind-hearted democracy ready to offer asylum to a warrior for the truth in the interests of fair play should ask themselves which planet they have been on these last few years.
I do not know what game Ecuador is playing, but playing one they certainly must be. Probably some S. American game is my guess. But on the evidence so far, Julian Assange must surely be expendable to them. In the medium term, the worst thing that could happen to him is that he be offered free passage to Ecuador.
Since when is purity of motive a requisite to either request or grant asylum? History indicates otherwise. If it offends your sense of narrative that this story doesn't have truly pure heroes battling against utterly blackhearted villains, I'd say the problem is more with your expectation of a scorecard to know who to root for than with reality for failing to provide one.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
(FWIW I thought Wikileaks a great idea. Their exposure of various scandals like Trafigura, the US military shootings of civilians in Iraq, etc etc, was a valuable corrective to governmental secrecy. But publishing what amounts to a blizzard of mundane diplomatic exchanges was just petty. Everybody can sympathise with the person who has had their mail intercepted and read.
I think you're making a category error when you characterize the United States government as "a person". Large, powerful governments should not have the same expectations to keep their dealings secret as private individuals, especially if they claim to be democratic in nature.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think the biggest flaw in the 'the Swedes might illegally render him' theory is the utterly MASSIVE uproar that would accompany such a move in a case that is so high profile.
Think about it. If Julian Assange's whereabouts become unknown for even a brief period, and if he ever turns up in the USA without having been through official, court-approved legal channels, the political hell would be enormous. Probably not in the USA, I grant you, but in Sweden, the UK and probably Australia as well.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
A few things to note:
1. This article from the New Statesman offers some clear and objective facts. If we strip away the emotion, hearsay and ‘zombie facts’ we’ll see the real story; A suspected sex criminal attempting to evade due legal process by using lots of smoke and big mirrors, tapping in to the current meme for distrusting leadership and authority, and everyone laps it up.
2. Anybody who has ever worked with or for the government will know very well that they struggle to manage normal business. They are not organised enough to run so called ‘conspiracies’. There is, and always has been and always will be, a need to keep some state owned information away from public distribution for the wider benefit of the state. Don’t confuse control of information with oppression, limiting free speech or a Police state. If you do think we live in an oppressive state, Google the 13 year old Pakistani girl with learning disabilities currently in prison for burning some Koran pages.
3. Julian Assange is picking and choosing which laws he wishes to abide by for his own interests. Eg: He is keen to remind the world about the laws of diplomatic protection, but not so keen on the terms of his bail or the legal process followed by Sweden.
4. Does he really have a persecution complex or is he just manipulating people. Either way, I guess 2 months living in a basement has made him the self absorbed, self important worm that we saw displayed on Sunday.
5. Maybe the Police should set the fire alarms off…………………….
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Most of what you stay Stoker is correct, but not the bit where you say : I guess 2 months living in a basement has made him the self absorbed, self important worm that we saw displayed on Sunday . He's really always been like that. Nothing new there.
I'm not going to argue against more open government, but ultimately I prefer that the decisions about what should and should not be kept secret are primarily those of the governments we elect and the courts those governments they establish and support. They should not be those of the self-appointed such as Assange, who are answerable to no-one but their own interests and pockets.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
no prophet: 2. Could the sex investigation be separated from Wikileaks?
This is the crucial issue for me. Yes, he should be tried for the rape accusations in Sweden. But this shouldn't automatically lead to his extradiction to the US, especially if he could face the death penalty for espionage.
Whether he's self-absorbed, self-important ... is juridically irrelevant.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
His self absorbtion is judicially irrelevant yes. But not totally irrevelant to the dicussion - it's the front he presents that is confusing and distracting from the real issues.
He's interesting really, a public microcosm of the human condition. Wanting truth and justice, but on his own terms, with himself as the arbiter. A pick 'n mix morality.
Incidently, does anyone else see the unintended irony of the guy on the right in this picture? What a tool!
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But, Croesos, this is a situation where it is far from made out that it is a human right that is being threatened. That was the conclusion of the court considering the extradition request and also that of one of the commentators in The Times today (I can't give you an online link as one has to have a subscription but I read it in the hardcopy version this morning)
There's another parallel with the North Korean case. Neither the Chinese Government nor the North Koreans consider the defectors in question to be in danger of having their human rights abused by being returned to North Korea.
Well, more fool them, then... quote:
For similar reasons, the government of Ecuador is not obligated to agree with the conclusions of a British, Swedish, or American court. I am not privy to their reasoning, but if I had to guess it would go something like this:
- Mr. Assange is a foreign national that the U.S. considers a threat to its national security, the exact category of person for whom it maintains the prison in Guantánamo and (formerly) a secret network of "black site" prisons.
- Even the U.S. State Department agrees that the Swedish government holds its judicial prisoners in conditions of exreme secrecy, making reasonable the fears that if Mr. Assange were re-extradited to the U.S. he would not have access to adequate legal countermeasures.
- Sweden has a recent history of assisting the U.S. in the illegal rendition of foreign nationals the U.S. considers a threat to its national security, a category into which (as mentioned previously) Mr. Assange falls.
Not an airtight case, I'll grant you, but reasonable enough to be convincing to someone operating on a "preponderance of evidence" basis. [/QB]
Except your list above smacks far more of paranoid conspiracy theories than the facts of the case.
What is a fact is that Wikileaks thumbed their nose at the US re the comments of the American ambassador to Ecuador, and were thus 'nice' to Ecuador at the US' expense. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the present offer of asylum to Assange by Ecuador.... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
5. Maybe the Police should set the fire alarms off…………………….
This thought crossed my mind. Fire, serious illness, broken bones etc could cause him to have to leave.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the biggest flaw in the 'the Swedes might illegally render him' theory is the utterly MASSIVE uproar that would accompany such a move in a case that is so high profile.
Think about it. If Julian Assange's whereabouts become unknown for even a brief period, and if he ever turns up in the USA without having been through official, court-approved legal channels, the political hell would be enormous. Probably not in the USA, I grant you, but in Sweden, the UK and probably Australia as well.
Orfeo, I've no time for Assange. I think he's a self obsessed, self appointed idiot, and the sooner he's sent to Sweden the better. But that's a silly argument.
Who cares that there's a "MASSIVE uproar" which has a "high profile". It's never made any difference with a lot more deserving causes. What different does any "MASSIVE uproar" make to those who are at the receiving end of the boot? It's 'who has power' and 'what they do with it' that matters. The "MASSIVE uproar" didn't inhibit Tony Blair and his chums sending our troops into Iraq.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Presumably they are doing what their foreign-policy masters in Washington want them to do? Or do any shipmates still believe that the US is not preparing a case for extraditing him? Or that the UK will actually pursue a course of action not sanctioned by the USA?
I have read more anti American diatribes, but not recently.
Mind you, you were equally as dismissive of the UK.
I gave some thought to calling you to Hell for this, but decided doing so would not help you understand how offensive you words are.
I will say this: If you want to make such accusations, why don't you find some fact, or facts, to back up your suspicions? Or, is it more fun to pull crap out of thin air?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
quote:
I will say this: If you want to make such accusations, why don't you find some fact, or facts, to back up your suspicions? Or, is it more fun to pull crap out of thin air? [/QB]
This is true for much of what is said on these boards! However, it reminds me of a quote from Homer Simpson: "It's a widely believed fact that....."
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
It's really the entanglement of the rape case with a possible Wikileaks extradiction that I don't like.
I'm a development worker not a lawyer, but I think that it's a juridical principle (or at least it should be) that when you're accused of a crime, you go to trial and the judge declares you innocent, that you shouldn't have any negative consequences of this trial.
Suppose that Assange is extradicted to Sweden, tried and the judge finds him innocent, but because of this trial he's extradicted to the US. That would violate this principle a bit, at least it would leave a foul taste in my mouth.
I can also imagine scenario's in which this could be abused. Suppose, there's a country A with strict laws against homosexuality, foreseeing a 20 year prison term for them. A citizen of country A who's a homosexual flees to Holland. Holland won't extradict him, because it doesn't agree with this law.
But the government of A found a loophole: there's also a country B that doesn't have strict laws about homosexuals, but doesn't have any qualms about extradicting them either. The government of A persuades a citizen of country B to falsely accuse this person of some other crime (e.g. rape).
Voilá. Holland extradicts him to country B. The judge of B declares him innocent, but he's extradicted to country A where he's put in jail for 20 years.
I don't know if there's a good way of disentangling both cases, but I believe there should be.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Presumably they are doing what their foreign-policy masters in Washington want them to do? Or do any shipmates still believe that the US is not preparing a case for extraditing him? Or that the UK will actually pursue a course of action not sanctioned by the USA?
I have read more anti American diatribes, but not recently.
Mind you, you were equally as dismissive of the UK.
I gave some thought to calling you to Hell for this, but decided doing so would not help you understand how offensive you words are.
I will say this: If you want to make such accusations, why don't you find some fact, or facts, to back up your suspicions? Or, is it more fun to pull crap out of thin air?
Tukai's comment concerns governments. They hate and fear Wikileaks and similar organisations that reveal what is done in our name. Governments have privileged access to the facts, so the duty should be on them to refute statements they do not agree with, rather than penalise citizens who do not have the same access to information.
If you ask almost anyone in Britain the nature of the 'Special Relationship' they will you that it is "'When the White House says 'jump', No 10 asks 'How high?'".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
LeRoc,
Starting a post with:
"I'm a X, not a Y, but I think....."
Is generally not going to help to make your point very strongly. You have then set out some absurd hypothetical case.
May I suggest that you read the New Stateman article I linked to a few posts ago. It sets out very clearly the facts around extradition, with the conclusion that it would be in fact harder to extradite him from Sweden to US as it would require UK agreement anyway.
While we're on the subject, can the conspiracy theorists outline, using facts if neccessery,why JA is more at risk from being extradited from Sweden to the US than from the UK.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
