I've made no edits to the thread beyond removing the names and highlighting the lines written by my friend in italics and those written by me as quotes.
Good old double standards by Ecuador eh?
Sounds like exactly the same thing they've asked for from Sweden.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/21/ecuador-belarus-extradite-aliaksandr-barankov
"He cannot be condemned to death or to life in prison because there is a signed guarantee from the Belarusian government that assures us of this. The guarantee was delivered during Lukashenko's visit," said a court official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
So is assange going to be held in prison in Ecuador pending Sweden's decision?
No because there has been no petition for extradition from Ecuador by Sweden.
When Sweden submitted such to the UK there was a warrant issued that the UK was obligated to serve. Ecuador is under no such obligation for Assange but is for Barankov for whom extradition request have been made and the courts are currently considering the validity of.
Unlike Sweden, Belarus has committed to no death penalty or life imprisonment, thereby making it difficult for the Ecuadorian courts to justify refusing extradition.
Obviously it is America and not Sweden that must give assurances that Assange won't suddenly find himself in a US court facing the death penalty for treason if Ecuador deny his asylum.
Life imprisonment or the death penalty??? Geez like Sweden is going to do that. I like a conspiracy theory or two, but don't you think these folks are working overtime to prevent Mr Wiki from facing a court?
Personally I detest conspiracy theories. Belief that (man didn't land on the moon, climate change isn't real, the Earth was created in one week 6,000 years ago by an invisible man in space) requires someone to deliberately ignore the overwhelming evidence against it.
I want Assange in a Swedish court as quickly as can be arranged. He's accused of sexual assault and either needs to clear his name or be imprisoned for his criminal acts. The problem is that the second he finds himself on Swedish soil he'll probably find waiting for him an extradition request by the United States of America.
Since 2000 Sweden has agreed to all but two of the USA's petitions for extradition. Those two cases were purely because the Swedish authorities couldn't find them. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/assange-sverige-har-inte-motsatt-sig-usa_6715051.svd I think it's therefore safe to assume that if Assange ends up in Sweden and the US asks for extradition, he's headed for the states asap.
Meanwhile Bradley Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning who ls accused of leaking documents to Wikileaks is still awaiting trial on charges "including communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source and aiding the enemy, a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty."
He was arrested in May 2010 and has so far been held in solitary confinement as a suicide risk for 18 months, before appeals that such imprisonment was unconstitutional resulted in his transfer to The United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. Unlike Manning, Assange as a foreign national will have no such protection under the US Constitution.
Good old Joe Biden has called him a "high-tech terrorist", as has Senate Minority Leader McConnell who urged that he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Palin called for Assange to be pursued "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders" and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stated that "Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."
Do you know what happens to people classified as enemy combatants by the US? Rendition to Guantanamo, even under a President who ran on the pledge to shut the place down. But just because lots of senior political figures (and Sarah Palin) have it in for Assange doesn't mean that there are plans in place for him to be extradited? No, but the documents released to Wikileaks allegedly detailing such plans might well do.
You would be right to question the veracity of the Wikileaks documents. They have a vested interest in showing a sealed Grand Jury had been formed regarding the extradition of Assange. Without revealing the source there's no way to verify the claims. However, considering the relatively minor things which have resulted in the formation of secret Grand Juries in the past, it seems highly unlikely that there wouldn't have be one in this case. (In fact a real conspiracy theory would probably suggest that if one hadn't been it would be even more sinister evidence of the magnitude of this plot).
If the US did get their hands on Assange he would of course get a trial. Even they couldn't hope to just disappear someone with such a huge media profile. Unless they were taking cues from FOX News of course, where one of their political commentators Bob Beckel said, with agreement from other guests, that "there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." Of course he's just a guest, not like FOX News host and former Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee who called for all those involved in the release of the cables to Wikileaks to be executed. If those comments had been made by presenters or guests on Sky News they'd probably be charged with "incitement to commit murder", but luckily they are protected by their constitutional rights, rights which again would not be extended to Assange.
Individuals making inflammatory statements doesn't mean the US Government itself wants to treat Assange like a spy. The request that he be tried under the Espionage Act on 1917, kinda does though. Made not by the American equivalent to a back-bencher, but by Peter T. King, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who on the same day recommended to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that she designate Wikileaks as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation because "By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever,” he said. “To me, they are a clear and present danger to America."
Of course the Espionage Act is nearly 100 years old and couldn't possibly have predicted such a situation as this, luckily the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have offered to "close those gaps in the law" if the DOJ found it difficult to apply the law to Assange's case. Because of course that's how laws should work, subject to change whenever a suspect seems like they might not have actually broken them.
There may be many reasons why there is such insistence that Assange be tried for espionage. It might be a complete coincidence that a conviction under such charges can carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. If so this will be really easy to clear up by the US State Dept. making a binding assurance that of course they aren't going to execute Assange or imprison him for life.
Once that's done then Ecuador will no longer have cause to offer him asylum, the UK can ship him off to Sweden and he can finally face trial for the allegations of sexual assault. Without him appearing in that Swedish courtroom we have no way of knowing if the accusations are true, so how about America does it's part to help put him there and allow justice to be done one way of the other.
Has the US asked for his extradition already? If they really wanted him as people claim I think they would have applied for his extradition ages ago ( it's not like he has been hiding in Tehran for the last few weeks)
Countries usually don't ask for extradition unless they're pretty confident it will be granted. The UK will happily extradite Assange to Sweden on charges of sexual assault but it's highly unlikely they'd even consider extradition to the states on charges of espionage and treason.
The supposed Grand Jury documents produced by Wikileaks suggest that petitions for Assange's extradition have been drawn up but sealed, in preparation for the opportunity which gives them the greatest likelihood of success.
This again is also speculation! The US has not stated it wants to detain Assange nor has it stated he will face trail on The grounds of espionage or treason at the moment. Citing Fox News or members or comments from Tea Party members as the voice of America is wide off the mark.
I've said that it is speculation, but there is also evidence of the desire within the American media and political system for Assange to face charges of espionage and treason. I even made a point of saying that the reliability of the documents relating to the sealed Grand Jury is questionable and so can't be deemed proof even if this sounds pretty damning:
'On January 26, 2011, Fred Burton, the vice president of Stratfor, a leading private intelligence firm which bills itself as a kind of shadow CIA, sent an excited email to his colleagues. "Text Not for Pub," he wrote. "We" – meaning the U.S. government – "have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect."' - http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228
I was also careful to make clear that when I was quoting FOX News anchors or "less respected but still elected" politicians like Palin & Hukabee, I was not holding them up as the voice of America. I used them as the benchmark for the usual level on nonsense we expect to see and then showed that real actual politicans and policy makers agreed with them.
Joe Biden is the Vice-President of The United States of America, if he calls someone a terrorist that's pretty damning.
Lined up alongside him I have:
* Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker
* Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader
* Congressman Peter T. King, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
* Senator Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence * Senator Kit Bond, Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
These are not lowly tea party candidates, they're in actual positions of real power. Short of dismissing everything said at all times by all politicians, you can't deny their statements have some relevance here.
Actually just found this check it out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-wikileaks-refugee-protection
The author may indeed be describing a perfect legal definition of a refugee and conclusively proving that Assange cannot be one but it's completely irrelevant.
The issue is that Assange is currently on Ecuadorian soil, unless the UK revokes the diplomatic protection afforded to embassies and starts a worldwide uproar. Being that "a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders" without an applicable extradition treaty being in place, it doesn't matter what you define Assange as, merely whether Ecuador will refuse him asylum.
No comments:
Post a Comment