<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks this is interesting, but misses my point that I made in
response to Adam's post. So I take the New Statesman and the
Guardian's legal eagle (J Rozenberg, 10 Apr 2012) with a pinch of
salt at best. I simply cannot fathom the conflation of the rape
allegations with whistleblower protection and risk of torture (even
those who are guilty can claim asylum). But we can agree to
disagree. I however do prefer classical liberal views.<br>
<br>
None of these New Statesman's claims is important as far as a claim
for asylum based on a well founded fear of persecution. Solitary
confinement (as practised by the US in Super Max prisons and in
particular for those who "challenge" the security establishment),
and other cruel, inhumane of degrading treatment (like no clothes
for Manning etc, see further James Ball (UK Guardian 29 Nov 2011))
are sufficient to sustain a claim for asylum. The European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) in one the MOST dastardly of decisions (in
process and substance, with undermining of even the 'separation of
powers' doctrine - independence of the judiciary - undermined as
intimated publicly by a senior legal British official) ruled
favourably in extradition involving muslims Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha
Ahsan and Adel Bary et al (I do not condone nor support any of the
actions of these individuals, but this is a matter of precedent and
sanctity of the law). Not even the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
was able to lead evidence on the treatment to be expected if
extradition was granted. The court also relied upon the long
democratic tradition of the US (hearing only flowery governmental
representations) implying US Exceptionalism. What this means is the
almost ANY European can be extradited to the US now without regard
for the treatment he may receive. And what is clear is whether state
action is valid in these circumstances, as against a grundnorm. The
soldiers and mercenaries implicated (by Wikileaks) in the most
heinous crimes as revealed by Wikileaks tend to get away with the
'few bad apples' justification with token judgements against them in
the rare instances where action was taken. Sweden and Britain are
implicated in extraordinary renditions, that Human Rights Watch rep
said was ok. So, for me, some perspective is in order. <br>
<br>
Perhaps the dialogue in “A Man for Seasons” (by Robert Bolt) on the
'spurious' conviction of Sir Thomas More with his accuser is
relevant:<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">William Roper:</b>
So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Sir Thomas More:</b>
Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
after the Devil?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">William Roper:</b>
Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify"><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Sir Thomas More:</b> Oh? And
when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you,
where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country
is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not
God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it,
do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would
blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own
safety's sake!<br>
<br>
But, we can agree to disagree. This is a fork in the road, where
judgements and motives differ... <br>
<br>
On 2012/08/22 12:35 PM, Roland Perry wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:Ego4K3K6XLNQFAxr@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In message <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kFngzIdDI7MQFAfr@internetpolicyagency.com"><kFngzIdDI7MQFAfr@internetpolicyagency.com></a>, at 17:06:27 on
Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Roland Perry <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><roland@internetpolicyagency.com></a> writes
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor
Sven-Erik Alhem views, who testified that the decision to extradite
Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and
disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
A different view from a different lawyer.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
A good article here, which explains the "where he can be interviewed"
thing, plus the ongoing "zombie facts" issue which afflicts this case:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition"><http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-
myths-about-assange-extradition></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>