<div>Ginger,</div><div> </div><div>the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we can't decide.</div><div>The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse to jail him for good and throw away the key.</div>
<div>After all, that's what the US want.</div><div> </div><div>My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter</div><div>but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him.</div>
<div>One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies.</div><div> </div><div>Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here?</div>
<div> </div><div>Aldo</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><br><br> </div><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ginger@paque.net" target="_blank">ginger@paque.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and legal details. <br>
<br>It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a well-founded allegation.<br>
<br>There is a summary and discussion '<span style="font:small/normal arial;text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important;white-space:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">The Assange asylum case: possible solutions and probable consequences'</span> (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on at: <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences" target="_blank">http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences</a><br>
<br>I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying?<br><br>
Cheers, Ginger<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this.<br>
<br>
Mawaki<br>
<br>
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob <<a href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com" target="_blank">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> America's vassal acts decisively and illegally<br>
><br>
> Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was<br>
> British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector<br>
> of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/" target="_blank">http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
><br>
> I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from<br>
> within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense<br>
> pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and<br>
> seize Julian Assange.<br>
><br>
> This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention<br>
> of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes<br>
> the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled<br>
> diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most<br>
> subscribed single international treaty in the world.<br>
><br>
> The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises<br>
> are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or<br>
> qualification elsewhere in the treaty.<br>
><br>
> Article 22<br>
><br>
> 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the<br>
> receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of<br>
> the mission.<br>
> 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps<br>
> to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and<br>
> to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its<br>
> dignity.<br>
> 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon<br>
> and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search,<br>
> requisition, attachment or execution.<br>
><br>
> Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the<br>
> Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War,<br>
> defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies.<br>
> Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to<br>
> help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result<br>
> in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.<br>
><br>
> The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong<br>
> enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the<br>
> “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the<br>
> neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.<br>
><br>
> The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation.<br>
> But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in<br>
> international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the<br>
> government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the<br>
> Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave<br>
> British diplomats with no protection worldwide.<br>
><br>
> I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US<br>
> administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the<br>
> concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move<br>
> against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in<br>
> Number 10.<br>
><br>
> There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats.<br>
> That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in<br>
> any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and<br>
> privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to<br>
> these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for<br>
> over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.<br>
><br>
> ***<br>
><br>
> Published on The Nation (<a href="http://www.thenation.com" target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span>)<br>
><br>
> The Geopolitics of Asylum<br>
><br>
> Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012<br>
><br>
> The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange from<br>
> Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted political<br>
> asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human rights<br>
> lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made it<br>
> into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president of the<br>
> Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today.<br>
> Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a week in<br>
> Ecuador for discussions of the case.<br>
><br>
> The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or by<br>
> the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my memory,<br>
> no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone who has<br>
> been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in<br>
> returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political<br>
> reasons.<br>
><br>
> Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian<br>
> diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the British<br>
> and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United<br>
> States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such<br>
> guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo<br>
> Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to<br>
> “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” Patiño<br>
> added.<br>
><br>
> British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his government<br>
> will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what may be<br>
> a prolonged showdown.<br>
><br>
> The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange and<br>
> ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane<br>
> Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for<br>
> Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections from<br>
> civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer to<br>
> avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with the<br>
> UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden.<br>
><br>
> Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict becomes<br>
> one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off against<br>
> the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave of new<br>
> nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the traditional US<br>
> dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa joined<br>
> the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June 2009,<br>
> and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His government<br>
> fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in a<br>
> case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the country.”<br>
> He survived a coup attempt in 2010.<br>
><br>
> It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without<br>
> consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction by the<br>
> British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify Latin<br>
> American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in relations<br>
> with the United States.<br>
><br>
> Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the Obama<br>
> administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in<br>
> another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. Shortly<br>
> after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, Dan<br>
> Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama administration.<br>
> Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States and<br>
> the region.<br>
><br>
> ***<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm" target="_blank">http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
><br>
><br>
> Victoria Nuland<br>
><br>
> Spokesperson<br>
><br>
> Daily Press Briefing<br>
><br>
> Washington, DC<br>
><br>
> August 16, 2012<br>
><br>
> TRANSCRIPT:<br>
><br>
> 12:44 p.m. EDT<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on your<br>
> minds.<br>
><br>
> Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant<br>
> diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes.<br>
> I don't have anything particular to add.<br>
><br>
> Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a<br>
> completely neutral, independent observer of it?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an<br>
> issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject<br>
> ourselves.<br>
><br>
> Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he<br>
> may end up going, no.<br>
><br>
> Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits<br>
> to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him.<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to<br>
> that at all.<br>
><br>
> Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not<br>
> recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States recognizes<br>
> diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty<br>
> which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, presumably,<br>
> within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize<br>
> diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer to<br>
> the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers.<br>
><br>
> Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic<br>
> asylum.<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the<br>
> statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on<br>
> British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans,<br>
> not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our legal<br>
> position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get back to<br>
> you.<br>
><br>
> Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of the --<br>
> of the OAS and those signatories.<br>
><br>
> And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest that<br>
> you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed<br>
> from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that<br>
> you're not aware of it?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this.<br>
> If that is not correct, we'll get back to you.<br>
><br>
> [...]<br>
><br>
><br>
> Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that the<br>
> Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- they<br>
> agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution --<br>
> government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United States<br>
> under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a credible<br>
> argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in<br>
> the United States?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: No.<br>
><br>
> Q: No?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: No.<br>
><br>
> Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the<br>
> grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country<br>
> guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show up in<br>
> the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you don't<br>
> view that as --<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought<br>
> process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to<br>
> persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no.<br>
><br>
> Q: OK.<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: OK?<br>
><br>
> Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face<br>
> prosecution?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not headed<br>
> to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get into<br>
> all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his<br>
> future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission.<br>
><br>
> But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I<br>
> reject that completely.<br>
><br>
> Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does<br>
> rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal<br>
> niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the intention<br>
> was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face<br>
> prosecution in the United States?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we were<br>
> all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that<br>
> when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right?<br>
> Obviously, we have --<br>
><br>
> Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden.<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going to<br>
> send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK?<br>
><br>
> Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against him.<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved<br>
> with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on what<br>
> their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade into<br>
> it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right?<br>
><br>
> Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it doesn't<br>
> involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and that<br>
> kind of thing.<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Right.<br>
><br>
> Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved yourselves<br>
> at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was going to<br>
> raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other country,<br>
> you would find that to be unacceptable, correct?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: As I said --<br>
><br>
> Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in Beijing<br>
> to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to<br>
> that, correct?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have cited<br>
> British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential<br>
> future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law,<br>
> international -- as compared to international law.<br>
><br>
> So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether they<br>
> have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under British<br>
> law, I'm going to send you to them.<br>
><br>
> Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there is<br>
> international law here too, and presumably the United State would oppose or<br>
> would condemn or at least express concerns about any government entering or<br>
> violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the world,<br>
> no?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on<br>
> vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to what the<br>
> status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the moment is.<br>
> So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we are<br>
> on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK?<br>
><br>
> Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in 1979,<br>
> presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a<br>
> Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of this<br>
> on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK?<br>
><br>
> Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the<br>
> Justice Department. Does that include --<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is<br>
> working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to what<br>
> Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice.<br>
><br>
> Q: Is there a U.S. case against him?<br>
><br>
> MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't have<br>
> the details. OK? Thanks, guys.<br>
><br>
> (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.)<br>
><br>
> DPB #146<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><span style="width:16px;padding-right:16px;min-height:16px"></span><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Aldo Matteucci<br>65, Pourtalèsstr.<br>CH 3074 MURI b. Bern<br>Switzerland<br><a href="mailto:aldo.matteucci@gmail.com">aldo.matteucci@gmail.com</a><br><br>