Tag Archive: William Hague

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

Ashcroft: Assurance or Promise most Likely?

“Lord” Ashcroft Then

It’s ten years since Ashcroft “gave assurances” that he would reveal his er.. something or other, to William Hague – according to William Hague in his famous Paxman interview – See Below:

“Lord” Ashcroft Now

Today’s news is that if the tories win the forthcoming election, (and in a statement today, he finally confirmed he WAS a non-dom),  Ashcroft has promised to become fully “resident and domiciled” in the UK.  Try The Sun for more or the BBC.

“Lord” Ashcroft Conclusion

What this all means, of course, is that either;

  • Ashcroft lied to Hague back in 2000 when Hague put him up for his peerage,
  • Or that Ashcroft deliberately misled Hague about it all,
  • Or that Hague colluded in the deception.

I cannot personally think of any other routes that would lead William Hague to state what he so emphatically said to Paxman last summer.  What says you?  I’m all ears.

However, it’s blindingly obvious (yet strangely ignored) that he hasn’t paid tax to our nation for at least ten years – and yet has a weird magnetic control over some of our affairs….

Labour Donors

Lewis HamiltonOf course, the Labour Party have their own share of grey donors; all the way from Bernie Ecclestone back in 1997 to the Indian born Baron Paul with his own peculiar mix of richness, dodgy expense claims and donations.

The Labour queue is pretty long in financial scandal.

The stench of hypocrisy is becoming worse.

But what burnt the honesty cake for me these last two days, was the flag of patriotism being bandied about.

Patriotism – the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The DoorIn 1775 Samuel Johnson made this famous statement (reference here).  Yesterday, Tory leader Cameron said,

“It is an election we have a patriotic duty to win because this country is in a complete and utter mess, and we have to sort it out.”

  • Which is a formidable statement to make given that the whole world is in a turmoil where the rich get richer and the poor have to pay for it, and yet Britain is not a “one-off” and actually, is “not that bad”, you know…
  • Formidable because the starving poor are now castigated for hunting for food after earthquakes by a corrupt, politically charged and motivated media who employ brainless hacks to tow the editorial line.
  • Yet in the UK, no-one starves unless through neglect.
  • Anyone in Britain can get medical treatment and care on demand, with waiting lists at a fraction that they were when the Tories were last in power…

It’s a strange definition of the word “mess” – but a typical usage of the word “patriotism”, by a squeakily clean, disturbingly smooth, scoundrel.

Want and Need

Taxation without RepresentationWhat we want and need is simple.

In a reworking of the slogan “No taxation without representation“, there should be a new slogan, that empathetically states that we do not need lobbying or interference in our governmental process from any person or organisation that does not  pay taxes;  i.e. it does not directly contribute to the material well-being of the country.

No Representation without Taxation!

This means:

  • No positions of power.
  • No quango membership
  • No parliamentary membership.
  • No political donations, directly or indirectly.
  • No lobbying or ‘briefings’, directly or indirectly.

In other words,

Pay up , or shut up!

We all have to, the poor, long-suffering, tax-paying, public.

America

This is especially important for us, as where America leads, we follow.

Within the last two months, a legal judgement was made that made it perfectly proper for any business to promote any political party.  The logic was that if a company pays taxes, it should have representation, just as the founding fathers wanted.

The crucial irony is though, that grievous complaints have been raised in the USA that their due process of democracy was already being undermined by these huge corporations that now bankroll the electoral system.

Of course, the reason that the corporations won was due to the massive financial investment in lobbying that they undertook to ensure they won…….

Watch out Britain!  Q. E. D.

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

Jeremy Paxman continuously Flabbergasted

Harriet Harman

For the last week or so, the highly paid Paxman has become obviously annoyed at the continuous devious behaviour from every politician he’s interviewed.  They all say “we understand the public’s anguish” – but, as Paxman notes, they do fuck all about it.  As many have noted, if you go into a shop and steal a bag of sugar and get caught, just giving the sugar back to the shop isn’t the normal chain of events – but that’s what MPs do!

Nicky Campbell and Harriet Harman

Two days ago, stuck in my bed, I had to suffer the even-paced utterances of Harriet Harman as she shape-shifted around Paxman’s questions.  This followed an earlier episode on the same day when she did the same on a live phonein on early morning Radio Five Live with the effervescent  Nicky Campbell.  Listen here to the full 45 mins

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Paxman versus Harman

Paxman’s interview is here for a week or so until it’s pulled;  news.bbc.co.uk…8078715

If you can survive it, just watch the whole Harman (and other pieces) in the full programme, and wait for the round-up which you can see here;

www.bbc.co.uk…b00kwqxx_01_06_2009/

At precisely 35:30 into the show (you can fast-fwd if you like), Paxman tries to summarise exactly what Harman had just said in the monotonous sanctimonious ramblings…. Funny as fuck.  Here’s what he said:

“Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman told this programme… er, I don’t exactly what she told us… er, that public support… we haven’t got exactly what… we can’t tell precisely what we are proposing to repeat of what she said, but it was very interesting”.

The Guardian’s Media Monkey also picked up on this here, Harman’s all too forgettable for Paxo.  In total that day, I had 1.25 hours of Harman’s drifting and side-shifting.  And like Paxman, I can’t remember a single word or any single point that was made because of the verbal force-field in place.

William Hague versus Paxman

The latest episode of  tax sorry, question, sorry ‘tax question avoidance’ from Paxman was by ‘Don’t be Vague, ask for’ William Hague.  See all two minutes of smirking squirming here:

news.bbc.co.uk…8080379

Paxman’s interview with Hague has now made it onto YouTube:

I still remember him as young twat at an old Tory conference…

And this is exactly the problem that the public have with the politicians.  See my posting yesterday on this.  It’s just continuous rampant corruption, denial and avoidance.  Paxman is right to be flabbergasted.  If he can’t get an answer, then what hope Joe Bloggs (Joe the Plumber for my US readers).  Most military and police force members feel the same way.  Without their backing, if they don’t sort themselves out, we can easily bring in a guillotine.  We’ve had a civil war here.  We’ve chopped the heads off monarchs.  Britain isn’t such a nicey-nicey place to be when it’s riled up.  There are 30 million that think like this and 30 million too scared to disagree.

Conclusion

I don’t think Paxman’s losing it.  He is overpaid for what he does but I don’t think his powers have gone.  The problem is the politicians’ behaviour and Paxman’s exasperation at their intransigence at coming anywhere near to the public’s expectations.  It’s on their heads in the long run.  They’ve been told enough.

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

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