Tag Archive: Bolivia

Assange Given Ecuadorian Asylum

Assange Given Ecuadorian Asylum – but what next?

Ecuador Assange Statement

Ecuador Assange Statement

This is the full text released by Ecuador for their reasons for Assange’s successful application.  See original text at the end.

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:

  1. 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
  2. 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?
  3. 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:

  1. Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally for his struggle for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
  2. That Mr. Assange shared with the global audience was privileged documentary information generated by various sources, and affected employees, countries and organizations;
  3. 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;
  4. 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;
  5. 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;
  6. 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;
  7. 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;
  8. Ecuador is convinced that they have undermined the procedural rights of Mr. Assange during the investigation;
  9. Ecuador has found that Mr. Assange is without protection and assistance to be received from the State which is a citizen;
  10. 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,
  11. 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.

  • LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 22:  A protester wearin...

    LONDON, ENGLAND – JUNE 22: outside the Ecuadorian embassy.(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

    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!


Ecuador Statement

Declaración del Gobierno de la República del Ecuador sobre la solicitud de asilo de Julian Assange

Read the rest of this entry >>

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

Mini E – an Enviromental Disaster Looms from Muddled Thinking

Truly this car is the pits.

Electric Mini Page

-and here’s how..

The engineers seem to have responded with the most short-term planning possible to a demand from the BMW marketing department to make the company look green now that sales of their monster cars are down 40%.  Some “ad” bloke has said “clean electricity, that’s the way forward!” in a similar manner to which electricity was sold in the 60’s.  The engineers have jumped.

Of course, electricity is wonderful, make no mistake.  It’s not for nothing that all the fastest trains in the world are electric-powered.  Even diesel locos are electric powered at the wheels.  Electric motors, like human muscles, generate their greatest torque (turning power) at low speeds.  But that’s not the point.

The point is that this car is made and sold as a replacement for petrol cars.  And there lies the problem.  The engineers have satisfied a marketing question and have not considered the car as part of the whole  environment, that is, the world that we all have to live in.

In fact, economically, it isn’t even a good deal.

Basic specs:

  • It’s a two seater (not four!).  The batteries take up half the car!
  • It weighs one and a half tons!
  • It’s max payload is only 160kg!
  • It takes all night to charge up!
  • It only does 150 miles.
  • They’ve designed it to accelerate like rocket (it’s a commuter car, apparently….wot?  No traffic lights in dreamland?)
  • The spec has no mention of a heater!
  • The battery weighs at least half a tonne.
  • It uses lithium-ion batteries.
  • There is only 35 million tonnes of lithium on our world.
  • About half the battery is lithium, say 250kg – quarter of a tonne.

So if, and it’s a BIG IF, if we managed to get all the lithium in the world and use it all for car batteries, so that we used none for mobile phones and laptops, we could make only 140 million mini-sized cars, for the whole world! (There are currently 28 million cars in the UK alone!)

This is obviously nonsense and fully explains my comment about the car, and it’s designers, and the mentality behind such a plan – as the pits!

But wait!  There’s more!

  • The advertising puff is full of the car’s green credentials and even has wind-turbines in the background!…
  • The average commercial cost for a wind turbine is about £1m per MW of capacity.
  • The mini’s batteries store 35kWh of energy.
  • So a 1MW turbine running for an hour would provide the energy for 28 minis!  That’s 685 minis a day.
  • But 1MW turbines don’t produce 1MW all day.  Far from it!  A third of a day if they’re lucky!  So we need to spend £1m to keep about 200 minis on the road.

More nonsense.

But wait!  There’s more!

  • It’s not just lithium in the batteries….
  • Remember, all the laptops catching fire?  Same lithium-ion batteries, only smaller.
  • Many parts of the batteries are toxic, inflammable or explosive. LiCo Oxide, propylene carbonate, paint-stripper, ether,
  • The electrolyte in the batteries is also extremely toxic and destroys your mucus membranes on contact.
  • This means, if you have a “normal” crash and the battery leaks, before you can be cut from your car you will be blinded by the fumes and suffer damaged lungs for the rest of your life – and that’s without them catching fire. (see safety video here: battery safety video)

So the batteries are dodgy, especially in the motor vehicle context.

But wait! There’s more!

Apart from the environmental cost (huge mines in Chile etc for Lithium, and Bolivia for the huge extra demand for copper in the massive motors), there’s the real money what you’ll have to pay.  How so?

  • On both the Mini E website and elsewhere, Li-ion batteries have a lifetime of at most 3 years.
  • The metal is of course, recycleable, which is good.  It’ll have to be since there’s so little in the Earth’s crust (see above)!!!
  • But 3 years is when most UK buyers get a new car, if they are the type of people that can and do so.
  • This means that the second purchaser is lumbered with the immediate cost of a new battery!
  • And there’s the rub – the cost isn’t mentioned.  Anywhere.  The only similar cars are from AC Propulsion and are rare sports car types, not mass-production models.
  • But I can give you a clue to the cost.  Mobile phone battery ~ £8;  Laptop battery ~£30;  larger ~£3 per Wh.  The Mini E has a 35kWh battery therefore it costs ~£105,000.  Maybe half that as discount for quantity.  This is about right as the old technology (lead, cadmium etc) batteries on cars like the Prius or for normal fork-lift trucks cost tens of thousands of pounds.

So do you want to buy a second-hand car and immediately fork out at least 25 grand for the privelige of driving it for 3 years?

What’s the answer?

For mass transport, we need transport en-masse using old technologies like trams, trains etc (all electric, notice!)

For personal transport, we need the air-powered car or something similar.

  • It uses a lightweight alloy engine powered by air, which can be “supercharged” by preheating using external combustion of a small amount of fuel.  This heats the vehicle in winter also.
  • It consumes ~20p of standard electricity to compress the air!
  • It uses 2litres of petrol
  • Range is ~130miles
  • 3,4,5,6 seats!
  • Weighs about half a tonne!

In short, it uses conventional technology and materials in a novel way.

This is totally different to all battery and hydrogen powered cars which use new, untried (and dangerous) techology in a conventional way! (They’re even thinking of liquid sodium…gad.)

So we must totally ignore the blinkered plans from one-dimensional thinkers sat in the design offices of the major car companies.  Barack Obama has said as much today. Obama vows aid for car industry.   He said;

“As part of our economic recovery package what you will see coming out of my administration right at the centre is a strong set of financial regulations which banks, ratings agencies, mortgage brokers, a whole bunch of folks (will) start having to be much more accountable and behave much more responsibly.”

The “folks” he refers to, are the big three car makers, GM, Ford and Chrysler.

Personally I think the big three chiefs who had that embarrassing encounter in congress, should pop straight over to Guy Negre and beg for a licence to make a $100 million factory to make his cars.  Remember, they are losing $5billion a month anyway – what have they to lose?

Other Links:

Related Posts:

The Air Powered Car – Better than Batteries

Finally it’s starting to dawn on a few people that battery powered cars are not the way out of our low-carbon energy conundrum.

Bolivia holds key to electric car future.  In this piece, the BBC note that Lithium, the 3rd element in the periodic table, a major power source for everyone’s laptops and mobile phones, is actually a finite resource as well!  

Within 10 years, lithium supplies will be hard to find….

So for transport, batteries are out because of the costs of materials and recycling, biofuels are out because we have to eat, nuclear is out because it’s too heavy and er..well, yes quite, hydrogen is too fanciful.

But as I’ve said several times in these pages, Guy Negre already has a clear concept of a clean and practical transport power source.  Like all other solutions it’s dependant on another source, in this case electricty, just like battery cars.  But the motive power is his highly efficient (because of the knuckled con-rod) and clean compressed air engine!

Previous Articles

The future is bright!  The future is air powered!
Now to the real world…   In these credit crunching slumping times, the survivors in retail are those shops that actually have a product to sell at the exact time a potential customer wants to buy it! The world’s car makers are having a hard time, especially the big US ones who continue to make huge montrosities that no-one wants to buy!
Their resistance to change, given the dynamic and creative nature of the US economy and people, is staggering!  Why don’t they change?  
Guy Negre is showing the way forward with his concept of local factories making the vehicles suitable for a local market, but using his efficient low pollution power source.  It would not be a big change for them to follow suite.  After all, Dagenham in the UK is a US owned and run factory of Ford’s.  If they had 20 little Ford factories it would be the same as one big one….  They’d at least make a profit!

Whatever happens or how we do it, the realities of inadequate resources to power transport for the global masses must be faced.  The Air Powered Car is a good solution.  It’s primary energy source is electricity, which can be made in a multitude of ways and can be best stored using the potential energy of water, pumped up a hill for controlled release through generators, to take account of diurnal and other fluctuations in demand.  This is old, known technology that can be implemented now!  The UK has had a facility like this at Dinorwig for years…  This pumped storage system, even though it’s smallish and unique (with all the problems that that entails), paid for itself within 10 years.  Stuff like this must be done on a global scale….

For example, the United States, huge, sunny, mountainous, large coastline and deserts.  It also has the largest demand for transport and fuel…

The US is so fortunate!  It has a bounteous resource in sunshine, wind and tides – more than enough to make as much electricty as they’ll ever need.  There’s no need to keep digging coal in Pennsylvania or drill for oil in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico.  They just need to open their eyes, use the energy of the sun and pump water up the Rockies!  Air powered engines can easily use this energy.

Air powered engines aren’t new (they power torpedoes for instance), but Guy Negre’s patented engine has been developed almost solely by himself for a decade now, against huge industry opposition.  The internal combustion engine (ICE) has been around for just over a century.  Now who would (or could) have imagined the changes in engines and transport that have happened after looking at Benz’s first, very, very expensive car?  

That’s the kind of conservative pessimism we have to overcome.

That’s the kind of potential we’ve got with the air-powered car!

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

© 2007-2017 Strangely Perfect All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by me