Assange Given Ecuadorian Asylum – but what next?
But What is to Happen Now?
For now, Assange will have to stay in the Embassy. Ecuador has asked for assurances about his safe passage, but as it stands, Hague and Cameron look the foolish chumps for what they are and won’t back down.
My guesses, are:
- That Assange will have a “mysterious” accident or similar and the nasty people in the world will breathe a sigh of relief – the embassy is no doubt bugged and all communications in and out religiously monitored. His undetected escape looks unlikely. Food, drink or water could be tampered with; holes could be drilled, hypodermics, germs or gas through the walls – who knows? Like a Sherlock Holmes/locked room mystery, try the poisoned ice dart through the keyhole? See http://wramsite.com/forum/topics/breitbart-murder-by-heart-attack-the-cost-of-exposing-our-corrupt and http://youtu.be/tzIw44w00ow CIA Whistleblower talks about Heart Attack gun
- Assange will have to wait for a change in UK government. Even so,
- should he get a plane to Ecuador it can be shot down (remember the start of the Rwandan genocide?).
- Should he get a boat, it can “disappear” in a storm…
- Should he arrive safely he can be either murdered in secret or by a public presidential decree – remember Trotsky in Mexico, Allende in Chile, Che Guevara in Bolivia, Bin Laden in Pakistan, Rudolf Diesel on the English Channel?
- At low level of current probability, those in charge of the USA and UK must fundamentally change their attitude towards freedom of information and accountability in public office.
- The emails etc. which are at the real centre of Assange’s troubles show elected and non-elected officials behaving with scant regard to either their own laws, international laws or natural law.
- It is for them to recognise this which will allow Assange back into normal society and thus face the law courts in Sweden.
- As I said, a very, very low probability in the current climate since those in power, those in the emails, those on the tapes, those on the videos (like the machine gunning of innocent civilians), all of those need to recognise their culpability at worse, or at least that they’ve been shown to have acted like idiots and now have egg on their face.
Reminder: The Initial Swedish Set-up
Forgetting the secret US indictment from over a year ago revealed in the Stratfor secrecy emails, Sweden issued an arrest warrant, then dropped it, then “sort-of” reopened the investigation before barring Assange from Sweden? I know. You work it out. It’s all detailed succinctly in this Telegraph page from June 2012.
Bizarrely though, this Foxnews rant/explanation from Glenn Beck (both not noted for their liberal stance…!) is even better at describing the events for which Assange was arrest warranted with in Sweden. Pay close attention and you’ll see how what we are now being fed by Hague and the Obama administration is seriously at odds with this very precise investigation and summary made soon after the events in question… http://youtu.be/npBvNJl6X9w
Ecuador’s Key Points
An English translation of the eleven key points, derived from The Dissenter, is here:
- Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally for his struggle for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
- That Mr. Assange shared with the global audience was privileged documentary information generated by various sources, and affected employees, countries and organizations;
- That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger their safety, integrity, and even his life;
- That, despite diplomatic efforts by Ecuador, countries which have required adequate safeguards to protect the safety and life of Mr. Assange, have refused to facilitate them;
- That is certain Ecuadorian authorities that it is possible the extradition of Mr. Assange to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;
- That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, could be tried by special courts or military, and it is unlikely that is applied to cruel and degrading , and was sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would not respect their human rights;
- That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defence;
- Ecuador is convinced that they have undermined the procedural rights of Mr. Assange during the investigation;
- Ecuador has found that Mr. Assange is without protection and assistance to be received from the State which is a citizen;
- That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect the conventions and treaties, and give priority to domestic law school hierarchy, in violation of rules express universal application and,
- That, if Mr. Assange is reduced to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), would start a chain of events that would prevent the further protective measures taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.
What’s clear is that Ecuador is actually in a win-win situation here.
They recognised the sabre rattling of William Hague and David Cameron for what it is – that the UK cannot pick and choose which international treaties to abide by without acquiring the severest opprobrium of its own people and parliament.
- Of course, there’s the “sticks and stones” argument which the government may ignore by barging in, armed to the teeth, anyway, but also the long-lasting risks to the whole British diplomatic force who will be placed in the severest of danger. This latter they cannot ignore.
- The memory of the US embassy in Iran lies still, as does the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy.
- How can the UK pontificate on others when behaving worse than a bull in a china shop?
- Ecuador has its own internal problems and this crisis will strengthen the hand of its President Correa, but also its standing in the eyes of all the little countries of the world, especially those in South America, historically in the thrall of US might.
- They point out that Assange is only wanted for questioning in Sweden and that Sweden has refused to question Assange on Ecuadorian “land”, the embassy.
- They point out the red herring issue of Sweden in its entirety, in that several public and private threats have been made or allured to against Assange by the governments of Sweden, USA, UK and that his own country hasn’t offered any protection (of course, we all know that the Aussie government is following the UK & USA like sheep).
- So Assange is in dire and immediate threat of kidnap, torture, summary trial by a military court, execution or imprisonment in inhumane conditions. We all know the USA is guilty of this having been caught red handed several times as has the UK in its collusion.
- So the UK & USA are not havens of justice, guardians of the rights of Man, protectors from dictatorships nor international peacemakers.
- Their actions from Vietnam through to Chile, from Egypt through to Bahrain, from corrupt banking to multinational deforestation programs, from Stratfor and the secret surveillance society to drone bombings of civilians shows them to be pariah states on the same footing as Zimbabwe or North Korea, say.
- Ecuador has rightly recognised all of this, and more.
As part of their statement, they stood on the following points (derived from Google translate!):
a) The asylum, in all its forms, is a fundamental human right which creates obligations erga omnes, that is, “for all” states.
b) The diplomatic asylum, shelter (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, human rights are comparable, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: no return and no discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, or any other similar criteria.
c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (i.e., more favourable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.
d) The protection occurs when the state of asylum, refugee or required, or the protecting power, consider the risk or the fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution or political offences against him.
e) The State granting asylum seekers qualify causes, and in case of extradition, assess evidence.
f) No matter which of its forms or forms are present, the seeker is always the same cause and the same legal order, ie, political persecution, which causes it lawful, and safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of protected person, which is the lawful purpose.
g) The right to asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, ie the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, do not support a contrary agreement, being null treaties and provisions of international law they oppose.
h) In cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
i) Lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States can not legitimately claim to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.
j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum, extradition no, no delivery, no expulsion and transfer are not converging, as far as is necessary to improve the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense they are complementary international law of human rights, the right to asylum and refugee law, and humanitarian law.
k) The rights of protection of the human person are based on ethical principles and values universally accepted and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidarity, welfare, peaceful and humanitarian.
l) All States have the duty to promote the progressive development of international law of human rights through effective national and international action.
- Here they kick down the quasi-judicious use by the UK of the 1987 Act regarding Embassies and the like in the UK.
- They state the various rights of Man as defined in the United Nations and elsewhere (in case the UK has forgotten them!!!)
- They point out the various ethical issues.
Ecuador has produced a clear and unambiguous statement, totally unlike the shadowy cloak and daggers stuff from Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
United pops up a lot in the state’s names. They’re united, but only united in shame and devilishness corruption. This is the reason for their stance – it’s nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering their own backs.
The truth is really out now. Notably, bonkers Boris has been quiet on the issue so far – he never thought much of Cameron and I guess it’s even less now!
Declaración del Gobierno de la República del Ecuador sobre la solicitud de asilo de Julian Assange