[governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Sat Aug 18 19:17:31 EDT 2012
meant to say *from various extradition treaties
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had already
> laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin to make
> demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations stemming
> from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has been served
> on the person and the usual summons to attend trial.
>
> Question is were charges laid against Assange?
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120819/9fd443cc/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list