Tag Archive: life imprisonment

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

Don’t Shoot the Messenger if You don’t Like the Message

Alan Johnson Sacks the Messenger

This, of course, relates to the recent sackings and supportive resignations of Government Scientific Advisors (see More advisers may go in drugs row) .

The home secretary faces the threat of more scientists resigning after sacking his chief drugs adviser Prof David Nutt for his comments about cannabis policy. Two members of the drugs advisory panel have quit in protest and others are to meet to discuss their next move.  Alan Johnson said Prof Nutt was sacked for “crossing the line” between giving advice and campaigning for a policy.

The point is that there’s a conflict between safety, facts, opinions, freedom, freedom of speech, duty, duty of care, education, class and knowledge.

Currently, a few tens of people each year die while taking ecstasy.   Most actually die from dehydration and related effects, not from the drug.

However, the drug is addictive in that it’s effects diminish with repetition and the user has to take more each time to obtain the same experience.

It can be argued that taking one drug leads to taking others, which seems a reasonable supposition.  But even so, the deaths due to drug taking, as opposed to the deaths due to crimes within the drugs supply industry are miniscule.

Far better would be to fully legalise all drugs but to have life imprisonment for illegal supply.  In this way, there’s be nothing to stop ‘curious’ people making their own drugs…

An even better, and logical proposition, would be to focus on preventable deaths as they stand in the real, accountable figures.  Start by checking the official government death statistics…  Oh!  And here they are (it’s a big PDF file)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Dh2_32/DH2_No32_2005.pdf

In this right-riveting read are all sorts of weirdness.

For instance, the number of deaths from CYSTITIS is greater than those due to those surrounding Ecstasy intake!!  Perhaps we should be focussing our energies here?

But even more shocking, is that the deaths due to NOT WEARING A CRASH HELMET while driving a CAR are more than Ecstasy and Cystitis combined.

If HM Gov were truly concerned about the welfare of it’s citizens, they would insist on the use of crash helmets now and also make it impossible for motor vehicles to exceed ANY speed limit by the use of automatic speed limiting devices?  Maybe install equipment to prevent vehicle movement if there’s alcohol on the driver’s breath?

But that removes the freedom of a person to drive how they like? – is the obvious riposte.  And why should I have to wear a helmet inside my car?  And if I want to drive while drunk, that’s my choice!

So?  And there we are back to my first statement: “The point is that there’s a conflict between safety, facts, opinions, freedom, freedom of speech, duty, duty of care, education, class and knowledge.

And in that, the scientist is absolutely right and Johnson has chucked away all ‘fair comment’ values of a free society and ended the debate by shooting the messenger.  Meanwhile the carnage on the streets continues both by vehicle and by the gun and knife.

Either way, it’s still carnage – and deaths from Ecstasy are a pimple in comparison.

Related Posts:

Megrahi and Calley Compared and Contrasted

Who?  Who Are Megrahi and Calley

  1. Megrahi: the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing

    Megrahi: only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing

    Megrahi is a Libyan, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 270 people by blowing up a 747 over Lockerbie in Scotland – but released early after 8 years (but 10 years in prison) and sent to Libya to die of cancer.

  2. William Laws Calley - convicted American war criminal

    William Calley - convicted American war criminal

    Calley is an American, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 22 sample charges of  murdering over 500 people by shooting, beatings, torture, mutilation and sexual abuse in Vietnam – but released early after 3 years and has so far lived quietly for over 35 years.

Further similarities and differences exist.

    1988: wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 in a field in Lockerbie, Scotland.

    1988: wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 in a field in Lockerbie, Scotland.

  1. Megrahi has always said he was innocent and was convicted on one piece of clothing evidence and the say-so of a disgruntled acquaintance in Malta.
      Moammar Gadhafi - Libyan Dictator

      Moammar Gadhafi - Libyan Dictator

    • It’s been suggested that people at the highest level in Libya organised the plane bombing.  Gadhafi has always remained aloof, grunted and ambiguously farted.
    • The evidence could have easily have been tampered with as it remained for many months in disputed, easily corruptible circumstances.
  2. My Lai massacre

    My Lai massacre

  3. Lt Calley admitted the murders but always claimed he was acting under orders.  This higher command, Ernest Medina, has always disputed this.  Medina too, was tried.  His trial lasted 60 mins and he was acquitted of all charges.  Nevertheless, this ‘innocent’ man’s career was over.

Current Status

When Calley was released by the soon-to-be-disgraced Republican President Nixon, many in the US and elsewhere were outraged and shocked.  Calley was hidden from view and eventually forgotten about, except for his recent admission that he’s ‘sorry every day’ – see news link.

Along with a whole charade of political shenanigans including the notable damning silence from prime Minister Brown, Megrahi has been released to Libyan custody who immediately paraded him as a Terry Waite-like hero.  The custody thing is a blur.  He will die soon.  Megrahi’s public statement on his release bears detailed reading.  If he is telling the truth, his words are those of a patient, honourable man, restraining himself against the unjust forces of the world.

  • He bears no ill-will to the Scottish people, medical and prison staff.
  • For the victims’ relatives of the bombing, he expresses sincere sympathy.
  • For his trial, he expresses disillusionment at the failings of a supposedly fair system.  I’ve studied his face in Amsterdam and elsewhere.  This is genuine.
  • Now these are his actual words:
  • I cannot find words in my language or yours that give proper expression to the desolation I have felt. This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya.

    It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death.

    And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do.

    The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction.

He finishes by saying,

I say goodbye to Scotland and shall not return. My time here has been very unhappy and I do not leave a piece of myself. But to the country’s people I offer my gratitude and best wishes.

Conclusion

V for vendettaThese are not the words of a lying man.  He is a disillusioned patsy, a fall-guy for bigger forces.  This is the likely reason for his release.  It’s as if there’s an un-written code that everyone knows but dare not admit – but it must be enacted to equalise the communal guilt of an informed nation that suspects a gross injustice.

V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta

Gadhafi, on the other hand, is laughing up his sleeve.  And the rabid right in the USA just use his release as fuel for their strident cries for battle.  The real power in the USA just sit tight, saving that fuel for another day, when another mass of innocents are mown down for profit in the hills of Pakistan.

Calley, exams failure of the US schools system, is right to think on his actions every day, and to think how truly lucky he is to be alive.  Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, ha ha.

Related Posts:

What Price Freedom and Justice?

Introduction

  • When there’s a war on in one’s country, say WW2 in the Europe, the people unite against the common enemy and accept that some will die so that the war is won and the next generation can continue.
    • If you lived in the UK, the consensus was that you’d be fighting for “freedom” and that the rights of individuals and groups, acquired over centuries, would continue.
    • If you lived in Nazi Germany, the consensus was that you’d be fighting for “the fatherland” and the safety and security that came from one very strong power that had absolute authority.
  • Both viewpoints included the possibility that some might die so that others might live.

Or have I got something wrong here?

Murder Conviction & Repeal

Iain Davis, convicted murderer, repealed, ?

Iain Davis, convicted murderer, repealed, ?

So what now following the disturbing news that a convicted murderer will be set free because his conviction was unsafe due to the fact that the prosecution used anonymous witnesses?  Jack Straw now wants a permanent change to the law so that anyone can be convicted for a crime on the say-so of anonymous witness evidence.

Result

So when this naff law is passed we will then be living in a country:

  • where you can be locked up for 42 days without a defence
  • – then be prosecuted without seeing your accusers or cross-examining them and calling them a bunch of liars, if appropriate.
  • where full details of your trial may never be published if it’s “against the public interest”.
  • where you can be locked up for life on the strength of the above (fortunately, (but for how long?), not executed).

Remember, this can happen to anyone.  The catalogue of British miscarriages of justice must weigh a ton now.

So How is This Related to WW2?

There’s always been a “black” culture and cultural identity.  So what?  There’s been a Geordie, Welsh and Scots one as well.  It’s the way it is and the way that people identify themselves to their peers.  We all exist and live within the law of the land though.  It started just before Magna Carta.  But if law breaks down or is invalid, like in wartime, people group together for the common good and accept that some will die.

History

1980 to 2000:   Development of black “gansta-rappa” culture.  Gold, guns, big cars and big arses admired.  People get shot, mostly black.  People with big stuff and attitude are brave (not)

2001 to the present day: People whinge about too many blacks getting shot e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1420330.stm

2002: single bullet kills party-goers.  Two dead.  Gunman runs off – very brave (not)

2004: Iain Davis convicted.  He’d run all the way to America, bravely (not)

2004: Iain Davis sentenced to life imprisonment.  Apparently he bravely (not) asked for a gun, which was passed to him, and then shot a man through the neck.  The bullet passed through and killed someone else as well.

2005: Martin Harvey not guilty of being the other man.  There were 40 people at this “party”, and I use the word very loosely.

2008, today: Iain Davis acquitted for possible re-trial.  Police and Jack Straw etc say this is bad for justice.  They say that anonymous evidence must be allowed (their emphasis).

My Take on all This

All 40 people at the party are guilty of denial and self-delusion.  It’s ALL their faults that two men ended dead and it’s ALL their faults that one man has walked free.  It’s my fault I’ve backed the Labour government this far, but it’s ALL their fault to hero worship guns and the power that follows.  This reinforces and validates the power that thugs have within a community, and following the Buddhist law of cause and effect, they’ve made their causes and reap their effects.

It’s not good enough to say that you’ll only give evidence if you can remain anonymous.  For the health and security of the whole 60 million people on this island, the lives of all 40 people at that party are nothing.  By their silence and attitudes they have convicted themselves.  Remember, we’ll all be dead one day anyway.  How you live your life and what you do, govern your karma across all of time and space.

Look at it this way.

  • Suppose in 2002-2004 the 40 refused to testify.
    • The freedoms of our land would still be intact.
    • Iain Davis would have gone free, possibly to kill again, if he’s really a murderer, or not.
    • He may have killed some of them if they insist on going to the same environment as him, or other people, related or not.
    • If he killed again, eventually he would be caught in such an incriminating way that he’d be convicted properly and justice would be served. (Yes really. The murder solving rate is pretty good).
    • The end result would be that:
      • a few people would be dead
      • All 60 million UK people would be safe under the law
      • One less scum on the streets
  • Suppose in 2002-2004 they testified in person(yes, bravely.  It does take courage)
    • The freedoms of our land would still be intact.
    • Iain Davis’s accomplices may have killed some or all of the witnesses
    • As each witness was killed, protection would be increased and the chances that the potential killers would be caught would be increased
    • Iain Davis and his accomplices would eventually be caught and convicted
    • The end result would be that
      • a few people would be dead
      • All 60 million UK people would be safe under the law
      • A few less scum on the streets

In both scenarios the result is the same!  Sadly, some people would still die, probably, but not necessarily, different people.

Conclusion

Now, because of the ultimate cowardice of these 40 people who pretend so bravely to wrap themselves up in the machismo of black gangsta rappa street culture, the rest of us 60 million have to suffer:

  • the fact that a killer is still loose on the streets
  • the fact that gun possession and gun crime is now seen as part of everyday life
  • the extra deaths because many more people are now dead because of the attitudes to guns and drug-related crime
  • all our liberties are being whittled and chiselled away by a spineless government cowering under the right wing backlash from a greedy, corrupt and incompetent USA administration, whose country is the source of all this crap gun culture in our green and pleasant land anyway.

This is what I object to.  Ultimately, for all of us, our freedom is the most important thing.  Our lives, while being precious and individual, are only temporary.  If black people en-masse decide a gun and drug culture is good, it’s still each individual’s choice whether to live and associate with the group.  Eventually though, the group must live within the law of the land.  If it doesn’t, then the backlash from the vast majority that set the law of the land will be swift and terrible, much like to the Krays and their kind.  For a broader view, the history books show that the British people have violently turned on ethnic and social groups when they’ve had enough and the usual laws aren’t applied …  jews, lombards, flemish, teddy boys

I don’t doubt for an instant that they would do the same in future and this is the prime reason to make sure that our laws are followed and not arbitrarily changed in some knee-jerk reaction.  The consequences for all groups that set themselves apart could be dire if laws are ignored.

To say that I’m a fat old white bloke does not mean that I’m lacking in knowledge or experience of people and gangs like these.  I just made my life choices at certain moments not to associate with them as it’s patently bad.

But doing and saying nothing also validates the actions of the bad guys.  So part of my karmic retribution is to point this out.  The rest will follow in due course.


Summary

  • Bush: bastard
  • Rumsfeld: bastard
  • Cheney: bastard
  • Blair: bastard
  • Straw: bastard
  • Blunkett: bastard
  • Smith: bastard
  • All 40 people at that party: bastards
  • Iain Davis: bastard
  • Gansta rappaz: laffable

To all of you in the list:  Thanks for Nowt!

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

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