Julian Assange
- Started
- Last post
- 200 Responses
- i_monk0
I'm not a Yank, it has no magic power for me.
- CALLES0
Foreign Minister William Hague said Britain will not provide safe passage for Assange, and that the UK had "painstakingly" assured the Ecuadorians that his human rights would be protected.
- vaxorcist0
remember that movie about the guy who lived in the an airport for 10 years while country-less?
the ecuadorian embassy might make him stir crazy after a while....
- i_monk0
Ecuador should film a movie in Britain and smuggle him out as part of the film crew.
- calculator0
^ Someone's been watching too many movies.
- TheBlueOne0
"Diplomatic immunity is the cornerstone of international politics. Without it — no matter what you may think of diplomats — no meaningful communication is possible among states. Which, obviously, makes conflicts more likely. If a major state, like Britain, attempts to introduce exceptions or "suspensions" of diplomatic immunity the precedent surely would be followed by others. A Chinese dissident, for example, might then be extracted by force from a U.S. diplomatic compound, or a British diplomat found "spying" in Moscow might be detained indefinitely. Such unhappy possibilities should be avoided at almost any cost.
How to explain the British government's threat to Ecuador over Julian Assange? First, it's August. On the continent the serious set are on vacation. It's an enduring tradition that seems to have spread to Her Majesty's government. Presumably more senior (if not more elderly) diplomats were unavailable to curb Whitehall's enthusiasm. According to the New York Times, however, wiser heads have now engaged. Second, British government lawyers drastically over-interpreted a 1987 law passed in response to a female police constable having been killed during a 1984 siege of the Libyan Embassy in London, the gunman later having escaped thanks to diplomatic immunity. No similar set of circumstances exists here; by this non-lawyer's reckoning the law simply does not apply.
But, third, one must now take seriously Julian Assange's fears of ultimate extradition to the U.S. As Mark Weisbrot points out, the Swedes have behaved in an unusually duplicitous fashion, declining to send investigators to interview Assange in Britain or, now, to the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. And forcing Assange to Sweden would never have become such a startlingly high priority for the British government unless something much bigger than rape allegations were at stake. At some point, sooner or later, we'll find out just how much pressure the U.S. has been exerting. Until then we must assume the worst.
To me, Assange's options seem limited. Unless the major states of South America, as one, were to demand and oversee the peaceful transfer of Assange to Ecuador he may well be in for a long stretch of Embassy captivity. It's happened before. See, for example, Cardinal József Mindszenty, who lived for fifteen years in the U.S. Embassy in Budapest.
The only other way out would be for the U.S. to publicly renounce any interest in extraditing Assange if he were in Swedish custody. Assange then, with his mind at ease, could submit himself to Swedish justice. But don't hold your breath..."
http://www.electricpolitics.com/…
George Kenney, former Yugoslav desk officer at the State Department headquarters in DC, who resigned his commission in 1991 over disagreements regarding Clinton's US policy towards the Yugoslav civil war.
- BuddhaHat0
After all the marvellous masticating mammal & marsupial gifs, I submit:
One article on AlterNet asserts that Julian heading to Ecuador would be a brilliant move. youngdesigner's article link adds the caveat 'if he can get there'.
The English have balked at being so clearly beholden to their American allies that they have avoided outright and unjust extradition to the US (with the Supreme Court instead opting for the indirect route via extradition to US-beholden Sweden for allegedly trumped-up charges). For him to just fuck off to another country takes an incredibly delicate political situation out of their hands. Questions have been raised as to how he got all the way to the embassy, by removing his monitoring bracelet, and eluding any police between him and the Ecuadorian embassy. Unless they'd prefer to see him gone?
Others have pointed out President Correa's lambasting of foreign media agencies and misuse of political power as somewhat hypocritical, as he has significant leverage with the majority of media outlets in Ecuador. What may have been politically expedient for him at the time, may not be so advantageous for him now (he will be delivering a response in due course). If such is the case, Assange may be denied asylum in Ecuador. South American governments are less stable than in other parts of the world as well, so who's to say he wouldn't last down there until a change of power, and then be thrown in a jet bound straight for Gitmo?
I for one, don't want to see him sent to Sweden, where I think he could subsequently end up on espionage charges in the US (with the death penalty being a possible punishment). It's not guaranteed that this would be the outcome of his extradition to Sweden, but it would appear highly likely.
What I would like to see is Australia, his own country, jump to defend his rights under the law. But that's not going to happen. When Obama visited Australia, it appeared that our PM Julia Gillard would have sucked his dick under the table, had he asked. The extent to which Australia kowtows to the US is sickening.
At this point in time, Ecuador is a pretty good option for Mr Assange, if he can get there.
- calculator0
Interesting article about the legalities around this situation...
- good post. basically, he needs to go to sweden and face the music.sine
- yeah, pretty much.calculator