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

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi Jovan,
Thanks so much for this very informative reply. That was really
useful. I just have to sit back now and watch this interesting
diplomatic poker game go on :)
Best,

Mawaki

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mawaki,
>
>
>
> Here is an attempt to answer your question on the international legality of
> the 1987 Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post.
>
>
>
> The short answer – Twitter – is that the 1987 UK Diplomatic and Consular
> Premises Act is in accordance with international law (the 1961 Vienna
> Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and international customary law).
> A bit longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in
> establishing diplomatic relations between states with three important
> moments:
>
>
>
> - First, states have to recognise each other.
> - Second, after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations.
>
> - Third, after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can open
> diplomatic missions.
>
>
>
> Here is how this sequence can apply to the Assange asylum case:
>
>
> The UK can sever diplomatic relations unilaterally. Diplomatic relations are
> concluded by mutual consent (Article 2 of VCDR). If consent is withdrawn,
> diplomatic relations cease to exist.
> After severing diplomatic relations, the UK would require Ecuador to close
> its embassy in London, and Ecuadorian diplomats to leave the territory of
> the United Kingdom within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable time’ is not
> specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in the case of the closure
> of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one month.  On this point
> Assange would remain alone in the Ecuadorian embassy. The VDRC does not
> specify how long the premises of the mission mission should preserve
> diplomatic status (remain inviolable).
> Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides the ‘reasonable time’ needed
> to protect and move the mission’s archives and property. The 1987 Act
> codifies this practice and specifies how to deal with this lacuna in the
> VCDR (time for closing the mission).
> Once the premises are no longer inviolable, the UK can enter the premises of
> the Embassy and arrest Assange if he is still there.
>
>
>
> It is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which the UK police could
> enter the Ecuadorian embassy without following the above described sequence
> – starting with the severing of diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Any other
> action would be a serious blow to the modern diplomatic system exposing –
> among others – the UK diplomatic missions worldwide, to high risks.
>
>
> While the UK has a legal basis for an action against the Ecuadorian embassy,
> its initiative could turn into a real diplomatic fiasco. It is surprising
> that UK diplomacy did not take into account the strong attachment of Latin
> American countries to the right of diplomatic asylum.  Even in the case of
> political conflicts among themselves, Latin American countries have
> supported diplomatic asylum. It is a well-established regional customary
> law, codified in a few conventions, including  1928 – Havana, 1933 –
> Montevideo, 1954 – Caracas. The right of asylum is also granted by Article
> 27 of the 1948 American Declaration on Human Rights.
>
>
> By accelerating the Assange asylum case, the UK – to use a football metaphor
> – put the ball into penalty and asked President Correa to strike without a
> goal-keeper. He could not miss such a chance. In a few days, President
> Correa will gather all LA ministers of foreign affairs as a symbol of unity
> against the UK action. Given his political situation, it is an unexpected
> and welcome gift.
>
>
>
> The Assange asylum case, like other similar cases, is likely to be solved
> through negotiations that will provide the UK with a face-saving exit
> strategy. Might the Swedish authorities be persuaded to conduct the hearing
> ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is likely to be long-term tenant
> of the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
>
>
> You can also see two texts with more detailed legal elaboration of this
> e-mail  and FAQs about diplomatic asylum.
>
>
> I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of this complex
> case.
>
> As ever, Jovan
>
>
> On 8/19/12 4:26 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that
> Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK
> authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that
> act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there
> is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the
> attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what
> could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law
> that came about more than a quarter century after an international
> convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody
> seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an
> amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of
> the convention?
>
> 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle
> possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and
> Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of
> their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary,
> surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct
> were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up
> again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have
> never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I
> was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any
> substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news
> as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised
> above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too
> (as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports
> that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations
> - revolved around Assange not using a protection during those
> encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that -
> the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect
> or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or
> official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already
> difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without
> third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have
> some hot political concoction surrounding it...
>
> Troubling.
>
> Mawaki
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the
> begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this
> political advise...
>
> Carlos Vera
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> escribió:
>
> A very important point is stated at
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
> This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary.
>
> This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be
> investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know).
>
> 18 November 2010
>
> Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for
> questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
> Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available
> for questioning.
>
> Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be
> interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video
> link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange
> return to Sweden.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 August 2012 18:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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