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

Sat Aug 18 18:53:00 EDT 2012

> facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges

Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions from Assange

I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself

This is a very particular case in Sweden   legislation I guess...

Carlos Vera
Enviado desde mi iPhone

El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> escribió:

> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120818/7df9a4f7/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