US intends to chase Assange, cables show

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange cannot be appointed as a diplomat. It requires both countries to agree, as you noted, however if the host country declines the appointment that person is not covered under diplomatic immunity.

That is indeed correct however there is a "loophole." He could be granted Ecuadorian citizenship at which point the Ecuadorian government could request diplomatic status. The loophole is that if the British refuse the status he must be returned to his "country of citizenship," which would be Ecuador.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Secondly it becomes more problematic because Assange is not a citizen of Ecquador. Becase of that there is an additional hoop they must jump through with regards to assanges nationality.

I would hazard a guess that we're both thinking along the same lines. Given the fact that he has been all but disowned by Australia (which I find shocking) it would be in his best interests to accept citizenship wherever it is offered.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Out of curiosity do you think Assange is right to circumvent / violate the legal system?
Do you think the incident in sweden is linked to the us? (if so how).?

This is a question I've been wanting to get my teeth into and I thank you for asking it. Let's flip this on its head and use an example of the UK Embassy in Iran. This is purely hypothetical. A young woman walks into the UK Embassy in Iran, she has been convicted of adultery and faces being executed by stoning. She has been granted asylum but strictly speaking, she has circumvented the law. What do we do? I'll leave the answer to you.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Because of extradition treaty we have with the UK it actually makes it easier for the US to extradite him from there than it would be from Sweden.

Our extradition treaty has been a constant source of embarrassment for the government. Richard O' Dwyer, Gary McKinnon, Christopher Tappin. The government wants their hands washed of this one. Send him somewhere else and let him be extradited or even renditioned from there.

Originally posted by PW229
That is indeed correct however there is a "loophole." He could be granted Ecuadorian citizenship at which point the Ecuadorian government could request diplomatic status. The loophole is that if the British refuse the status he must be returned to his "country of citizenship," which would be Ecuador.

The protocols address this one as well and they all come back to the same conclusion - The only way to get Assange out is to sneak him out. Even if they give him citizenship he still is not immune from arrest since he does not hold diplomatic status.

A person who is sent to be a diplomat, who holds 3rd party citizenship, must be agreed on by all 3 nations.

Originally posted by PW229
I would hazard a guess that we're both thinking along the same lines. Given the fact that he has been all but disowned by Australia (which I find shocking) it would be in his best interests to accept citizenship wherever it is offered.

Actually Assange has not been disowned by Australia. When it comes to a citizen of one country violating the laws of another country that persons embassy is notified to let them know their national has been arrested and where they are located.

People I think dont really understand the role an embassy plays in this process. Their role is as an observer, not as an active participant. They are not suppose to get involved in the internal legal system of the country in question.

That persons embassy has certain rights -
* - Consular access to the person in question to check their well being and to ensure they are being treated appropriately.
* - Access to some of the investigative material (not all)
* - To ensure their citizen has the same, equal access to the law / resources that citizens of the country they are in have.
* - Assist with communications to their family
* - Assist with securing legal assistance (lawyer).

While governments can pressure the government that is charging the person thats where it ends.
As an example sometime back a british man was arrested in China for drug smuggeling / possession. That charge carries the death penalty and the person was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. The UK applied pressure to get the sentence revoked but in the end the Chinese did their thing. As much as I find execution for drug possession idiotic, its the law in China.

Caveat Emptor comes to mind.. If you are going to play stickball in Brooklynn you better know the rules.

Originally posted by PW229
This is a question I've been ..snipped for room...
What do we do? I'll leave the answer to you.

Asylum / embassies are not suppose to be used to circumvent the laws of one country. I will assume she is not a UK citizen so that limits what the embassy can do. While the UK doesnt extradite people to countries where they face death, this would not be an extradition so the death portion is irrelevant. Secondly she violated the laws in Iran and again it does not matter if we approve of those laws or not. She would need to provide evidence / info that she is being persecuted for the asylum issue but again its not used to circumvent the law.

Say you are on vacation in freedonia... During your vacation you under go some mental breakdown, you find a gun and you kill 4 people. You then flee the country because the country you violated the law in has the death penalty. Is it right for you to break the law by committing murder and not be held to the laws of the country you committed the crime in?

Originally posted by PW229
Our extradition treaty has been a constant source of embarrassment for the government. Richard O' Dwyer, Gary McKinnon, Christopher Tappin. The government wants their hands washed of this one. Send him somewhere else and let him be extradited or even renditioned from there.

I get that and have seen people oice their opinion on the treaty. How is Assanges argument valid if the US can easily get him from the UK? People sidestep this issue all the time.

Our treaty with the UK would allow the US to extradite assange easier than if he were in Sweden. To me all he is doing is trying to avoid, at all costs, of being held accountible for his actions.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well, no it’s not. Considering Sweden dropped the rape charges in 2010 and the chief prosecutor said "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape,”. Why would Sweden reopen a closed case two years later if it weren’t pressured to do so? He and his lawyer fear an unfair trial, and rightly so, in Sweden. His lawyer also believes the US and Sweden have struck a secret extradition deal. Sure the Sweden-US extradition treaty prohibits on political charges, however it does not clearly state what constitutes such charges. The US couldn’t legally have Assagne brought over if they charged him with the 1917 Espionage Act, but they probably could doctor up terrorism charges. After all, they consider everyone to be a terrorist, don’t they? In 2002 Sweden had two suspected terrorists seeking asylum in their country sent to the US despite the torture ban. The precedent for dodgy dealings is there.

www.hrw.org...

And if he were sent to the US, do you genuinely believe he’d have any hope of a fair trial? I think not. Furthermore, why is Australia’s Washington Embassy preparing for him to be sent to the US if it were no prospect of happening? What would you do in the same situation?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Asylum / embassies are not suppose to be used to circumvent the laws of one country.

You are partially right, however Embassies must in each asylum case also take human rights into consideration as per UN agreement. This was in fact the first thing that Ecuador did. They have sought guarantees from both the USA and Sweden that he would not be extradited to the USA. They never received any. Ecuador was instead told by both countries to the effect of "eff off, just hand 'em over".

reply to post by BlindBastards


The assange case was reopened in Sept of 2010.

Yes I beleive Assange would receive a fair trial should the US file charges.

Paranoia and ignorance by others aside, assuming an action and outcome doesnt make it true.

Originally posted by moniker
You are partially right, however Embassies must in each asylum case also take human rights into consideration as per UN agreement. This was in fact the first thing that Ecuador did. They have sought guarantees from both the USA and Sweden that he would not be extradited to the USA. They never received any. Ecuador was instead told by both countries to the effect of "eff off, just hand 'em over".

Again granting Assange asylum is in contradicitioon to the requirements. Even the UK courts stated that Assange could receive a fair trial in Sweden and noted he could appeal through the wedish courts and then to the EU courts.

While a nation can interpret the facts as they see fit, it does not mean other countries are required to acknowledge / accept it.

Finally Assange's issues revolve around Assange the UK and Sweden - not the US.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The protocols address this one as well and they all come back to the same conclusion - The only way to get Assange out is to sneak him out. Even if they give him citizenship he still is not immune from arrest since he does not hold diplomatic status.

...snip

A well researched and cogent response sir, kudos. Unfortunately this is one of those events where both sides will argue their point until they're blue in the face. My opinion and your opinion will differ, not a thing wrong with that!

My opinion is that asylum should be sacrosanct, if it isn't then there is absolutely no point to granting asylum anywhere in the world. I agree with you in that it cannot and should not be used to circumvent the laws of a given land but if a sovereign country of this world states that they are willing and able to ignore the alleged transgressions and accept the individual as one of their own then I argue that all other nations have a responsibility and duty to respect that decision.

Originally posted by PW229
A well researched and cogent response sir, kudos. Unfortunately this is one of those events where both sides will argue their point until they're blue in the face. My opinion and your opinion will differ, not a thing wrong with that!

Agreed and thank you. Its nice to debate with a person who does their research.

Originally posted by PW229
My opinion is that asylum should be sacrosanct, if it isn't then there is absolutely no point to granting asylum anywhere in the world.

However when its use is inconsitent with its intended use it cheapens and can eventually destroy the the practice. If anyone can apply for asylum and be granted regardless, then what do you tell a person who goes on a killing spree in china and then hides in an embassy?

Once could certainly argue he would not receive a fair trial in china and it would be fair to assume he would be executed for his crimes.

When the practice is damaged it means countries are going to rely on it less and will eventually ignore it outright.

Originally posted by PW229
I agree with you in that it cannot and should not be used to circumvent the laws of a given land but if a sovereign country of this world states that they are willing and able to ignore the alleged transgressions and accept the individual as one of their own then I argue that all other nations have a responsibility and duty to respect that decision.

I dont agree since that concept ignores the laws of one country by applying laws of a second country that is not invovled.

Like what Ecquador is doing. While I get the notion its just to easy to abuse and too esy to circumevent laws that the person doesnt agree with.

Assange supporters dont think assange broke US law. They make their argument by ignoring the laws that he broke while substituting their perosnal opinions / morals / beliefs in its place. The same goes with the viewpoint in Sweden.

Secondly it opens the door for countries to ignore asylum request.

An action where if the US did it, people on this site would be screaming bloody murder.

reply to post by jerico65


I personally don't like Assange however he is an Australian citizen, born and bred, and although I don't always agree with him or what he does, nevertheless our Govts must be held accountable if they are involved in corruption and murder. That's not what the voters put them in to power for.

I don't believe Assange committed rape at all. The fact is the 2 women did'nt want his arrest but a blood sample to test for STDs. Nothing more. And the reason for that? Because he slept with 2 women within a short period of time between each other and one of them got jealous. I can remember which one, but one did pursue Assange so she could jump on his "infamous" bandwagon knowing he is surrounded by famous people. Kind of reminds me of the likes of Jasmine whats her name in the Celebrity Big Brother right now who is known to spread her legs to get where she is. Even Hell has no fury like a scorned woman!

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PW229
My opinion is that asylum should be sacrosanct, if it isn't then there is absolutely no point to granting asylum anywhere in the world.

However when its use is inconsitent with its intended use it cheapens and can eventually destroy the the practice.

Wherein lies the inconsistency?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by moniker
You are partially right, however Embassies must in each asylum case also take human rights into consideration as per UN agreement. This was in fact the first thing that Ecuador did. They have sought guarantees from both the USA and Sweden that he would not be extradited to the USA. They never received any. Ecuador was instead told by both countries to the effect of "eff off, just hand 'em over".

Again granting Assange asylum is in contradicitioon to the requirements.

It is not. Both Sweden and the UK are signatories to the human rights conventions. Ecuador sought guarantees from Sweden that the conventions would be upheld. Sweden didn't want to provide such guarantees. What UK courts think about Sweden has very little bearing on what Ecuador thinks about Sweden.

Sweden has most per capita applications to the European Human Rights Court under section article 6.1 (right to a fair trial) of any country in the EU, and the highest rate of upheld applications under article 6.1.

If this country were in Africa or South America it would be called a Banana Republic.

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PW229
My opinion is that asylum should be sacrosanct, if it isn't then there is absolutely no point to granting asylum anywhere in the world.

However when its use is inconsitent with its intended use it cheapens and can eventually destroy the the practice.

Wherein lies the inconsistency?

Because the US has nothing to do with Assange, Sweden or the UK.

The asylum is based on false information and the fact it was granted under a treaty thats not recognized in Europe supports the argument Ecquador should not have granted the Asylum.

This issue has been covered time and time again along with the links to the releveant laws. Please take some time to read up so we dont continue having the same conversation over and over and over.

Originally posted by moniker
It is not. Both Sweden and the UK are signatories to the human rights conventions.

If you would do some research you would see Ecquador granted asylum based on an OAS (North Central South America) treaty, not an international treaty and not under Human rights conventions.

The hypocrisy demonstrated by Assange as well as Asange supporters is well documented.
Julian Assange Threatened To Sue Guardian For Publishing WikiLeaks Cables: Vanity Fair

The Man Who Spilled the Secrets

On the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks.org, marched with his lawyer into the London office of Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based on the quarter of a million documents that he had handed over to The Guardian just three months earlier.

So he is all about releasing classified information because there should be no secrets, except when it comes to Assange and his megalomania.

Lets continue down this road and see where it leads -

In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience.

Hmmm.. Something Assange preaches against on a daily basis again except when it comes to him, and then the standards change for his own benefit.

Lets keep going -

He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission.

So Assange is preaching openess and disclosure, to hold people accountible, again except when it comes to himself. For assange to make the statements he did in his latest media encounter while at the same time he is breaking those very words he accuses others of doing.

The Guardian had the files leaked to them yet Assange makes demands.... Again its ironic that he is the victim of his own creation.


Lets see just how out of touch Assange is -

Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.

Now wait a minute.. Assange claims the information belongs to him and that he had a financial interest in them. The very position the US government used, that the documents belonged to them and Assange cannot publish them. A point Assange ignored because he has some higher moral authority and the laws dont apply to him.

Ironic...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PW229
My opinion is that asylum should be sacrosanct, if it isn't then there is absolutely no point to granting asylum anywhere in the world.

However when its use is inconsitent with its intended use it cheapens and can eventually destroy the the practice.

Wherein lies the inconsistency?

Because the US has nothing to do with Assange, Sweden or the UK.

Sorry, I though you were discussing an inconsistency of its intended use in the UK and that's what I responded to.

The asylum is based on false information and the fact it was granted under a treaty thats not recognized in Europe supports the argument Ecquador should not have granted the Asylum.

Which information is false?

The asylum was granted under the human rights convention of which most countries is a subscriber to.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by moniker
It is not. Both Sweden and the UK are signatories to the human rights conventions.

If you would do some research you would see Ecquador granted asylum based on an OAS (North Central South America) treaty, not an international treaty and not under Human rights conventions.

I have done research and that information is new to me. Care to provide a reference?

Originally posted by moniker
Sorry, I though you were discussing an inconsistency of its intended use in the UK and that's what I responded to.

No worries however we are talking about the same thing. Granting asylum to Assange was not based on an inability to have a fair trial in Sweden (UK / Swedish / EU courts are in agreement there) but what "might" happen should he make it to Sweden.

In another post I pointed out all the lies he and his legal team have been telling in order to stop the extradition to Sweden. Assanges issues in Sweden and the UK have nothing to do with the US and wikileaks.

Originally posted by moniker
Which information is false?

That he would be placed in Gitmo
That he would face a military tribunal
That he would be charged with treason
That he would face the death penalty

etc etc etc.....

Originally posted by moniker
The asylum was granted under the human rights convention of which most countries is a subscriber to.

Actually no it was not for the umpteenth time.

This is what Ecquador used to justify their actions on asylum -
1954 CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM

Nations who are signatories -



ATS Thread

U.S. refuses to recognize diplomatic asylum of WikiLeaks founder

news.xinhuanet.com

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. government on Friday refused to recognize the diplomatic asylum that Ecuador granted to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as the Organization of American States (OAS) is considering convening a meeting on the issue.

"The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognize the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in a statement.

"We believe this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom and that the OAS ha

(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by moniker
Which information is false?

That he would be placed in Gitmo
That he would face a military tribunal
That he would be charged with treason
That he would face the death penalty

I don't believe I've ever seen it stated that he would be placed in Gitmo, that he would face a military tribunal etc, however I have seen it stated that he could be placed in Gitmo, that he could face a military tribunal etc.

This is what Ecquador used to justify their actions on asylum -
1954 CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM

Nations who are signatories -

I don't see a problem with that. Western countries tend to routinely justify their actions in other countries by using conventions which are not recognised in the country where the action is taking place. It doesn't make the convention invalid as such, just that they don't agree.

There are many examples in other areas of law. For example, the USA doesn't recognise the Berne convention on intellectual property rights (copyright) in the way it was intended. The USA requires works to be registered (for a fee of course) in order for it to be recognised, even though the Berne convention gives full moral and statutory rights to creators right from the point of creation.

Moving back to the topic at hand, the following link provides some additional information on the applicability of the consular act:

The inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises

Originally posted by moniker
I don't believe I've ever seen it stated that he would be placed in Gitmo, that he would face a military tribunal etc, however I have seen it stated that he could be placed in Gitmo, that he could face a military tribunal etc.

We can play the semantics game however it does not change the fact that the comments they made are in fact lies. In this case there is no distinction between can be and could be.

Example -
Stating Assange "could" face a military tribunal is false because there is no could - Assange cant go to a military tribunal.
Stating Assange "could" be sent to Gitmo is false because Assange can't be sent to Gitmo.

etc etc etc...

Source

Lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder last night released the outline of Assange's planned legal defence against his extradition.

One of their claims is that the Swedish government could allegedly send him on to the US, where Mr Assange's lawyers claim he could face the death penalty on treason or espionage charges yet to be laid by US prosecutors. For that to happen the US would have to break its treaties with Sweden.

Treason - A lie - Assange is Australian and cannot be charged wtih treason under US laws.
Espionage death penalty - A lie - US Federal law applicable to assange is a max of 10 years confinement and or fine. It does not have a death penalty as an option.

Source 2

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, could be at "real risk" of the death penalty or detention in Guantánamo Bay if he is extradited to Sweden on accusations of rape and sexual assault, his lawyers claim.

Death penalty - a lie - No charges he could face have that as an option.
Gitmo - A lie - He is not an enemy combatent and was not captured on a battlefield. He cannot be sent to gitmo.

Source 3

The lawyer for Julian Assange argued Monday that the embattled WikiLeaks founder will face a secret trial that violates international standards of fairness if sent to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations.

Secret trial in sweden - a lie - and Swedish officals have addressed this.

Substituting Swedish law for English -

Assange's lawyers also say he cannot be extradited because he has not been charged with a crime in Sweden and is only wanted for questioning — and that the allegation is not rape as understood under European and English law.

Guarantees on Assange and extradition to the US -

Nils Rekke, head of the legal department at the Swedish prosecutor's office in Stockholm, has said Assange would be protected from transfer to the U.S. by strict European rules, which would require approval from both Sweden and Britain.

To everyone who says "there is no way Julian could be given the death penalty"
Here is a poem by Cristopher van Wyk, a South African Anti-Apartheid activist regarding what "might" happen.

The title of the poem is "In Detention"

He fell from the ninth floor
He hanged himself
He slipped on a piece of soap while washing
He hanged himself
He slipped on a piece of soap while washing
He fell from the ninth floor
He hanged himself while washing
He slipped from the ninth floor
He hung from the ninth floor
He slipped on the ninth floor while washing
He fell from a piece of soap while slipping
He hung from the ninth floor
He washed from the ninth floor while slipping
He hung from a piece of soap while washing.

This is what may or may not have happened to many Anti-Apartheid activists, whilte and black, while in detention in South Africa during the years of struggle!