Tag Archive: punishment

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

A police state for benefit claimants? « Ron’s Rants…

It Was labour What Done This…

ESA Notes Sheet ESA 40 04/09

ESA Notes Sheet ESA 40 04/09

That it was.  I first threatened and then did leave the Labour Party over it.  Right at the time they were trying to bring in Identity Cards and lock uncharged people away for 90 days, reduced to 42 days (yes really, they were – It’s like a bad dream) they also added some “rules” for state benefit claimants.  These are well explained at the top of Ron’s blog entry:

A police state for benefit claimants? « Ron’s Rants….

Ron writes;

It’s been brought to my attention that page 16 of the ESA Notes Sheet ESA40 04/09 contains this gem:- You must also tell us if you or your partner (among much else):- My parentheses and italics. go away from home, even if it is for a day

Ron

Ron (for it is he!)

And indeed it is so!  The document can be downloaded in full here on the DirectGov website.  A screenshot I’ve taken, highlighted the important bits and shown it here.  n.b. Ron is disabled, in several ways, not least by having the fat burned from the soles of his feet with a lightning strike!

Why Is This Important?

English: Human Rights logo: "FREE AS A MA...

A.    Well actually, it contravenes everything that Britain and other freedom-loving peoples have fought for regarding the right not just to life, but to a decent life, free of oppression, free to move and enjoy living just for its own sake, the UK having signed up for all of this in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It’s part of the United Nations Charter, adopted in 1948 and part of International Law since 1976.

English: Former U.S. First Lady Eleanor Roosev...

Image via Wikipedia

Here are the bits in which the highlighted line in the screenshot above breaks the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

  • Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status – BROKEN.  Ron’s status is different from others in that he is disabled.  And, by limiting his freedom of movement as described, this breaks
  • Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. BROKEN.  Ron’s freedom of movement is not the same as those not on benefit.
  • Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  BROKEN.  It is degrading to have to inform faceless bureaucrats of one’s location on a daily basis.
  • Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. BROKEN AGAIN.  It is degrading to have to inform faceless bureaucrats of one’s location on a daily basis.
  • Article 27: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.  BROKEN:  Ron cannot participate freely.  Neither can his partner (if he has one).  He must inform the government of his movements which then prevents his free enjoyment that life in a free society provides.
  • Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.  BROKEN.  The UK state has removed Ron’s rights as defined and make law in the articles above.

What Else is Bonkers About This?

You may have noticed I highlighted another line.  For the lazy, this is how it reads, and when you’ve read it, then realise how bad these draconian rules really are:

You must also tell us if you or your partner, DIE!!!

Laughable bureaucracy, eh?

Finale

Of course, I can see why the state may want to do all of this – the powers-that-be have been making a big play in rustling up public opinion against “scroungers”.  But what Labour started, the Tories, as I predicted, have taken all of this up with a vengeance.  True, it’s fine to have paid work and/or a vocation that enervates oneself.  It’s part of the human condition to feel wanted and valued among one’s fellows.  But it’s all wrong to penalise the weakest in society and those that need the most support, by infringing and removing their basic human right of free movement to enjoy the society we’ve created.

Q. How to solve the conundrum?

A.  I don’t know and I don’t care actually, because I’m not in government and don’t have the power to change.

Those that are, you know, the elected or non-elected ones who decide that they’re better than us, they’re the ones who must, should and can change the rules, because they’re the ones that set them up in the first place!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

One’s State of Life

The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath

The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath

Our existence in this world can be likened to a dream.

The issue of the greatest importance and eternal relevance is how we face death, the inescapable destiny of all living beings.

For in the face of death, external factors such as social status or position in the organization count for naught.  Everything depends on one’s faith, one’s state of life.

–  Daisaku Ikeda

Ikeda is getting on now (he’s 80), but I’ve absolute certainty that he lives by these words.  Despite the fact that death can come in an instant for any one of us, it’s a fact of life that as we get older, we become more and more aware of the day of reckoning. (If anyone disagrees with that then they are either kidding themselves or are wholly non-sentient or past caring.)  I’ve no doubt that Ikeda thinks these thoughts frequently.

Sword Of DamoclesPondering the nature of our existence as an independent being, untrammelled by  the whims of religions tied to destiny, punishment or higher forces, is at the very heart of Buddhism, I think.

The Sword of Damocles does not hang over our heads, punishingly dropping on some Judgement Day when we are dead.

Nirvana is here and now, not when you die.  You will not be forgiven for any possible sin you may have done.  You will not be praised as a heroic martyr for mass-murder.  Redemption is in the present, and we must try to live the very best lives we can.

As E.T. said,

Be Good.

E.T. - be good!

E.T. - be good!

[amazon-product align=”left” alink=”0000FF” bordercolor=”FFF7DD” height=”240″]0345019237[/amazon-product]It’s quite simple really…

…and the H.P. Lovecraft book?  It’s simply one of the best titles there is.  I like the sound of it.

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

Obama’s Been Got

@AmazonHigh Hopes Replaced by Low Expectations

It’s the torture, see?

UK

In the UK, when Blair was first elected Prime Minister, the people in the country had such high hopes.  There were promises of an ‘end to sleaze’ and an ‘ethical foreign policy’.

@AmazonSince those heady few weeks in the UK;

  • We’ve had years of subterfuge and an erosion of freedoms on an unprecedented scale except perhaps following the Norman Conquest or during the purges of the Tudor period.
  • We’ve had the mysterious deaths of civil servants and the accession to kidnap and torture at the behest of our allies.
  • We have had an endless catalogue of tales of personal aggrandisement by our elected representatives gorging at the trough of the public purse.
  • We’ve had financial waste and mis-management on a staggering scale.

So much for an end to sleaze.  So much for an ethical foreign policy.  John Smith and Robin Cook will be turning in their graves.

USA

And now in the USA, Obama has been suckered into the establishment line.  It’s only taken 100 days – wow, 3 and a half years left!  We had two stories about torture in rapid succession and various recent commentaries, notably from the biggest winner of the Iraq war, Dick Cheney.  Talk about personal gain…?

  • Firstly, torture was supposed to have been small scale, but effective.  It got the results, apparently.
  • Secondly, torture on some individuals was used hundreds of times. This also got results, apparently.

Now call me thick, but if someone ‘needs’ to be tortured hundreds of times, it’s not very effective, is it?

This means the victims were tortured for pleasure, because the two statements above are mutually exclusive – they can’t both be right!

Now, I’d like to say ‘bizarrely’,  but given past history from our democratic elected representatives into a society awash with vested interests, it’s got to be ‘not unexpectedly’, Obama isn’t doing anything about the perpetrators or instigators of these crimes against humanity.  It’s all being swept under the nice new carpet.

Obama has been suckered into the corporate establishment….  So;

  • Torture?  OK!
  • Personal and Corporate governance and financial accountability?  No way!
  • Greenhouse gases?  Love ’em!
  • Same old car companies?  Of course!
  • Surely the people won’t have to pay for corporate greed and mismanagement will they?   Of course they will!

It’s downhill all the way now.

@AmazonLets not forget that the whole Vietnam war fiasco was started and expanded under the Democratic administrations of Kennedy and Johnson?  Carpet bombing?  Napalm?   Democrats!

So welcome to the brave new world of flying drones in their thousands bombing civilians far away (death by computer game, anyone?).  Where government psychopaths are allowed to roam unchecked, stuffing their pockets with cash all the while.

I hope all the US voters who each chipped in their 100 dollar bills for Obama’s campaign think that it was all worthwhile.  For me, it looks like same old story, different cover.

Maybe Now is the Time to Move the UN?

Yes!  It’s a golden opportunity for the freedom loving nations of the world to pull up their roots and move the United Nations to somewhere safe – like Cuba or Norway.  Why?

Take a look at Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, written in 1948 and signed by the USA.  It reads:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

When it says no-one, it means no-one. It doesn’t say ‘except really really bad people, in our opinion’ in tiny letters afterwards.  It’s simply hypocritical that the UN seat should be in such a country that because of it’s might, can pick and choose which bits to uphold for itself and which bits to sling at others.

Please Note, Mr President;

  • The Declaration is an all-or-nothing thing.
  • It’s not to be picked about and simpered over.
  • It’s not about comparative behaviour with the evil people of the world.
  • It’s an absolute statement made by people in 1948 who had plenty of time to think about evil and plenty of first hand experience to back it up.

See:

Related Posts:

DNA and Capital Punishment

Yet Another Reason Why We Don’t Kill Murderers in Britain

Sean Hodgson could be the latest person to benefit from the pure goodness of science and knowledge.  His DNA, apparently, isn’t the same as that of the person that killed Teresa De Simone way back in 1979!

Tragically, he’s been locked up all that time for Teresa’s killing …

I certainly can’t guess at his mental state now or what he thinks of a world that could do that to him.  The little I do know is that at the time of his arrest, he seemed to belong to that weird bunch of folk that admit to anything, trusting to the ‘rightness’ of authority, or, he was similar to some common people of long ago who’d admit to a murder because their lives were so impoverished that 15 minutes of fame on the scaffold seemed a good trade to get out of it.

The increasing frequency with which these miscarriages of justice are coming to light with the benefit of new technology is staggering.  The only justification we have left for having the sort of legal system that’s made so many mistakes, so often, is that at last, justice is being done – and being seen to be done!

It’s not enough that in the old days someone ended up dangling on a rope and everyone else went home happy.

We can only thank those enlightened people of the post-war era who, against much opposition, demonstrated their disgust at capital punishment.  I think sometimes,  especially since the Thatcher era, these aims would be hard to maintain under pressure of the hang-em and flog-em brigade, rabble-roused by the popular press following some particularly appalling crime.  It’s at such times a clear focus is needed to maintain the clarity between right and wrong.

The recent murders in Northern Ireland are such a time, here in the UK.  Elsewhere, we’ve had gun massacres in Germany and Alabama, and bombs in Baghdad.  Because all human life is precious, the only difference between the events is what happens to the perpetrators, if caught.  In Germany and Northern Ireland, a convicted killer is imprisoned.  Not so in Alabama or Baghdad. (I’m omitting the fact that the killers apparently topped themselves for this argument.)

There have been enough miscarriages of justice attached to the Irish troubles to make films and books.  Thankfully, although many people’s lives were destroyed and changed forever, the truth came out – eventually.  If people like the Birmingham Six had been executed, no further investigations would have happened and the same patterns of police and judicial behaviour would have continued until the present.

We want justice to be done and seen to be done.  But we also need the right justice.  The USA and other dogmatic places with rigid beliefs need to catch up.  These recent events are a reminder of this, and our violent, vindictive nature, that must be controlled at all times.

Related Posts:

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