[governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally

[Ginger Paque]

Aldo,
I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the
sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or
imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter.

But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible:
1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges,
when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct.
2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges,
because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case.
**3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is
using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily
be settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't
think rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a
chance to face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is
guilty.

As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to
Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically
in another post). Possible strategies:
--Questioning in the UK.
--Video questioning.
--Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom.
I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and workable
options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and clearly
aired, without endangering Assange's political rights.

I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks
work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated
harassment or charge.
I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing
charges of rape if the are legitimate.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is
important.

Ginger







On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci <aldo.matteucci at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ginger,
>
> the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we
> can't decide.
> The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse to
> jail him for good and throw away the key.
> After all, that's what the US want.
>
> My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter
> but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the usual
> discretionary possibilities will be denied to him.
> One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies.
>
> 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?
>
> Aldo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>
>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and
>> legal details.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible
>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going
>> on at:
>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Cheers, Ginger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this.
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally
>>> >
>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He
>>> was
>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and
>>> Rector
>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/
>>> >
>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation
>>> from
>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after
>>> immense
>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean
>>> Embassy and
>>> > seize Julian Assange.
>>> >
>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna
>>> Convention
>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which
>>> encodes
>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled
>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most
>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world.
>>> >
>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic
>>> premises
>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification
>>> or
>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty.
>>> >
>>> > Article 22
>>> >
>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the
>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the
>>> head of
>>> > the mission.
>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate
>>> steps
>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage
>>> and
>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment
>>> of its
>>> > dignity.
>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property
>>> thereon
>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search,
>>> > requisition, attachment or execution.
>>> >
>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to
>>> arrest the
>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold
>>> War,
>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies.
>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British
>>> Embassy to
>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will
>>> result
>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.
>>> >
>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a
>>> strong
>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of
>>> the
>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of
>>> the
>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international
>>> law.
>>> >
>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British
>>> legislation.
>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its
>>> obligations in
>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the
>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the
>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would
>>> leave
>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide.
>>> >
>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US
>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the
>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing
>>> the move
>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken
>>> in
>>> > Number 10.
>>> >
>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal
>>> Democrats.
>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact
>>> now in
>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government
>>> salaries and
>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any
>>> belief to
>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party
>>> for
>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had
>>> principles.
>>> >
>>> > ***
>>> >
>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com)
>>> >
>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum
>>> >
>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012
>>> >
>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange
>>> from
>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted
>>> political
>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human
>>> rights
>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and
>>> made it
>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president
>>> of the
>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation
>>> today.
>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a
>>> week in
>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case.
>>> >
>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations
>>> or by
>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my
>>> memory,
>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone
>>> who has
>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in
>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political
>>> > reasons.
>>> >
>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago,
>>> Ecuadorian
>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the
>>> British
>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the
>>> United
>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such
>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister,
>>> Ricardo
>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to
>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,”
>>> Patiño
>>> > added.
>>> >
>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his
>>> government
>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what
>>> may be
>>> > a prolonged showdown.
>>> >
>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict
>>> Assange and
>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator
>>> Diane
>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called
>>> for
>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections
>>> from
>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer
>>> to
>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with
>>> the
>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden.
>>> >
>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict
>>> becomes
>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off
>>> against
>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave
>>> of new
>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the
>>> traditional US
>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa
>>> joined
>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June
>>> 2009,
>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His
>>> government
>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest,
>>> in a
>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the
>>> country.”
>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010.
>>> >
>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without
>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction
>>> by the
>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify
>>> Latin
>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in
>>> relations
>>> > with the United States.
>>> >
>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the
>>> Obama
>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate
>>> in
>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba.
>>> Shortly
>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy
>>> chief, Dan
>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama
>>> administration.
>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United
>>> States and
>>> > the region.
>>> >
>>> > ***
>>> >
>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Victoria Nuland
>>> >
>>> > Spokesperson
>>> >
>>> > Daily Press Briefing
>>> >
>>> > Washington, DC
>>> >
>>> > August 16, 2012
>>> >
>>> > TRANSCRIPT:
>>> >
>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on
>>> your
>>> > minds.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant
>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the
>>> Swedes.
>>> > I don't have anything particular to add.
>>> >
>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a
>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it
>>> is an
>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject
>>> > ourselves.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or
>>> where he
>>> > may end up going, no.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the
>>> Brits
>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him.
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth
>>> to
>>> > that at all.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits
>>> do not
>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States
>>> recognizes
>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty
>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only,
>>> presumably,
>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S.
>>> recognize
>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer
>>> to
>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic
>>> > asylum.
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or
>>> the
>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning
>>> on
>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future
>>> plans,
>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our
>>> legal
>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get
>>> back to
>>> > you.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of
>>> the --
>>> > of the OAS and those signatories.
>>> >
>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest
>>> that
>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange
>>> removed
>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just
>>> that
>>> > you're not aware of it?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in
>>> this.
>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you.
>>> >
>>> > [...]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that
>>> the
>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that --
>>> they
>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution --
>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United
>>> States
>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a
>>> credible
>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government
>>> persecution in
>>> > the United States?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: No.
>>> >
>>> > Q: No?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: No.
>>> >
>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the
>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country
>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show
>>> up in
>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you
>>> don't
>>> > view that as --
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran
>>> thought
>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to
>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no.
>>> >
>>> > Q: OK.
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: OK?
>>> >
>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would
>>> face
>>> > prosecution?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not
>>> headed
>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get
>>> into
>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in
>>> his
>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission.
>>> >
>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting
>>> him, I
>>> > reject that completely.
>>> >
>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case
>>> does
>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal
>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the
>>> intention
>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face
>>> > prosecution in the United States?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that
>>> we were
>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think
>>> that
>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right?
>>> > Obviously, we have --
>>> >
>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden.
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm
>>> going to
>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK?
>>> >
>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against
>>> him.
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much
>>> involved
>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here
>>> on what
>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to
>>> wade into
>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right?
>>> >
>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it
>>> doesn't
>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies
>>> and that
>>> > kind of thing.
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Right.
>>> >
>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved
>>> yourselves
>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was
>>> going to
>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other
>>> country,
>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said --
>>> >
>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in
>>> Beijing
>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to
>>> > that, correct?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have
>>> cited
>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential
>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law,
>>> > international -- as compared to international law.
>>> >
>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether
>>> they
>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under
>>> British
>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there
>>> is
>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would
>>> oppose or
>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government
>>> entering or
>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the
>>> world,
>>> > no?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing
>>> on
>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to
>>> what the
>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the
>>> moment is.
>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where
>>> we are
>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK?
>>> >
>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in
>>> 1979,
>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a
>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of
>>> this
>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK?
>>> >
>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the
>>> > Justice Department. Does that include --
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is
>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to
>>> what
>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice.
>>> >
>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him?
>>> >
>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't
>>> have
>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys.
>>> >
>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.)
>>> >
>>> > DPB #146
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Aldo Matteucci
> 65, Pourtalèsstr.
> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern
> Switzerland
> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120818/8011c541/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t