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

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)

It seems like every each side throws one obscure law after another at this case. Julian Assange has sure stirred up one massive legal hornets nest. At this point no one knows whats going to happen as this situation is unprecedented.

I think that whatever happens Mr Assange's life is in danger. It just a matter of time before one side or another has to give in.

news.xinhuanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Next time can you link your source; ATS is not one!

zeenews.india.com...

www.antaranews.com...

Both sides have valid arguments..

Its the right of a sovereign nation to grant Asylum to an individual (whether I agree with it or not). The laws that are in place regarding Asylum are broad however in this case specific. Asylum is not suppose to be used in order to bypass the internal laws of a nation.

In this case the Asylum request was made and granted on actions the US "might" take and have nothing to do with the actual extradition request from Sweden.

Sweden has a legitimate complaint as well since its their laws that Ecquador just helped Assange get around.

Britain has a legitimate complaint because it was there legal system that heard the arguments and rendered the ruling based on the facts and not on theories.

Asylum / Embassies are not suppose to be used in a manner that ecquador has done.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Try this for size! Of course Sweden is under alot of pressure from the USA to get Assange and if anyone does'nt see that, then they are fools:

The 2 women did'nt want Assange arrested, they only wanted him to have an STD test:

streamsofwikileaks.tumblr.com...

I'm assuming Assange's mother handed over all court papers and documents from both the defence and Swedish prosecution team for the Ecuador Govt to study it.

I personally don't like Assange but with everything I've read since this debarkle in Sweden, it's a damn joke!

reply to post by bluemirage5


Thanks for pointing that out, im not sure how that happened but ive linked to the original article now.

This case is a bit ridiculous. What crime has he committed on US soil?

I think this says it well...
www.wsws.org...

reply to post by BlindBastards


I agree.

I think that even if he does get a free pass to Ecuador or goes to Sweden with an iron clad promise the wont be extradited to the USA he's either going to get assassinated or kidnapped by an illegal extradition team.

Originally posted by BlindBastards
This case is a bit ridiculous. What crime has he committed on US soil?

I think this says it well...
www.wsws.org...

He does not have to be on US soil to violate certain US laws, specially when it comes to clasified information.
It would be one thing if Pvt. Manning was the only person involved however since he was not and wikileaks is the entity that received the stolen documents you move into a conspiracy type situation. There are also unanswered questions about the software provided to Manning that allowed him to encrypt as well as bypass the security filters on the military network he emailed the info from. If that software was provided by individuals linked to wikileaks it changes the scop of the investigation tino wikileaks.


What I find ironic is the amount of irritation people are placing on the US response to the Asylum request. Taking your own comment as an example, my question to you is what does the US have to do with Assange, the sex claims and Sweden requesting his extradition?

Why did Ecquador involve itself in a situation it has nothing to do with? These incidents took place outside of Ecquadors political boundaries so using your argument why are they invovled? None of this occured in Ecquador.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
I think that even if he does get a free pass to Ecuador or goes to Sweden with an iron clad promise the wont be extradited to the USA he's either going to get assassinated or kidnapped by an illegal extradition team.

Does that position take into account the number of people that have been killed because of Assange and the wikileaks release?

reply to post by Xcathdra


How many people have been killed because of wikileaks releases?
Directly linked or even indirectly.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
I think that even if he does get a free pass to Ecuador or goes to Sweden with an iron clad promise the wont be extradited to the USA he's either going to get assassinated or kidnapped by an illegal extradition team.

Does that position take into account the number of people that have been killed because of Assange and the wikileaks release?

edit on 18-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Im a bit on the fence about the whole wiki leaks thing but you could factor in the number of unlawful killings of innocent people that wiki leaks has exposed and maybe prevented.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

reply to post by talklikeapirat



The point behind my post was to highlight that some people think its ok to assume an action by the US without evidence while condemning those who do the same to Assange.


reply to post by bluemirage5


The issues in Sweden, which fall under Swedish law, have nothing to do with why assange was granted asylum by Ecquador, and that is a problem.

reply to post by Xcathdra


NO, SWEDEN DOES NOT. Please stop speaking for the corrupt lies and regimes. I followed the whole thing. First he is going to release info, then the US gives warnings not to, then the Swedish charges, (OH and there is a link between the Swedish elite and a US one, they're like good buddies), then he gives over the passwords, OH GOODIE, charges are dropped. Then he is going to release info again, and he is warned again, then the SAME CHARGES AGAIN.

NO SWEDEN DOES NOT. PERIOD. I wouldn't go either. Courts and our Corrupt leaders don't have rights over people PERIOD. They're EARS not mouths, and are only there to provide services, nothing else. We don't elect Kings and not listening to employees screw around with us. WE just give the middle finger salute.

Don't ever obey Tryanny!

LL
sounds like some one is still butthurt about the cops named and shamed
[which was ANON by the way, but opponents of wikileaks tend to lump them together]

not to mention the exposure of the criminality whence
said buthurtee's "awthoritay" is derived from

lol, reduced to making crap up,
sour grapes considering said someone would never dare
arrest said criminals

and if these deaths youre talking about are spook trash:

good, those who live by the law of the jungle [in the service of oligarchs]
cant complain at all.
survival of the fittest and all that rot.

note the title of this thread:U.S. refuses to recognize diplomatic asylum of WikiLeaks founder

[[sarc]what? i thought, all that talk about the U.S. wanting to waterboard assange was just paranoid claptrap![/sarc]]



the same U.S. that recently had the psychopaths of the muslim brotherhood [currently crucifying people in egypt]
over for dinner at the WH, but then again, birds of a feather, or blood thirsty psychos, flock together

reply to post by Unity_99


not to mention that the swedes claim it's only for an interview
which assange has offered on multiple occassions to grant them,
just not from a swedish prison from which he can then be transferred
to a rendition center


lol

Originally posted by BlindBastards
This case is a bit ridiculous. What crime has he committed on US soil?

I think this says it well...
www.wsws.org...

Take a read on this. Time to Speak Up

Methodology and Tactics

As you may know I normally target Jihadist sites, but recently turned my attentions to Wikileaks.

So what was I thinking?

Initially, hitting Wikileaks servers hosted by OWNI (France), PRQ (Sweden), and BAHNHOF with ease, had the desired outcome of ‘coralling’ the Wikileaks operation onto a US hosted platform that could resist XerXeS – Amazon EC2.


The WL perceived victory was short-lived as enough pressure was now building both politically and technically (by that I mean service providers were aware that WL was now a prime target and couldn’t risk their own operations by providing services to WL). As predicted, providers to WL started dropping them – first EveryDNS, then Amazon, then Paypal and Mastercard soon followed. The service providers acted as a force-multiplier, leaving the Wikileaks name nowhere to go except rely on volunteer mirrors.

So the head of the snake is almost cut off. The Wikileaks name is something few people, as far as service providers, will deal with. Their supply chain is being cut off.

So, great they have 2000 voluntary mirrors! By the very nature of volunteers providing ‘mirrors’ causes WL to be highly unstable as they will be up and down and sporadic on a day-by-day basis.

You should note that WL operated on a US hosted platform.

reply to post by Unity_99


Bold words from a person who refuses to look at ALL evidence, instead you choose to see only what you want based on your own personal / moral standards.

Sweden has grounds to extradite, as has been confirmed by Swedish courts as well as UK courts.

So if a person / entity does something you dont like, they are guilty of a crime? At what point are you going to acknowledge due process?

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Unity_99

 

not to mention that the swedes claim it's only for an interview
which assange has offered on multiple occassions to grant them,
just not from a swedish prison from which he can then be transferred
to a rendition center


lol

Something the Swedish government / legal system has already addressed.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Assange is controversial figure and i share the sentiment that i personally dont like him. But personal feelings aside, i think it's perfectly reasonable for him to believe that the swedish goverment would extradite him to the United States, where he would face trial for exposing National Secrets or compromising National Security.
What he is assumed to be guilty of or what law he exactly broke, has never been clearly stated.
But the efforts of the U.S. Goverment to set a presedent have become undeniable apparent and that is a political matter. So for him to seek political asylum and for the ecuadorian government to grant it, is more than justified in light of the above.
The swedish goverment has never explicitly denied, they wouldn't extradite him. They can't be forced to do so, but that is one more reason to act accordingly.
The United States have made it clear on various occasins that he's wanted, under what charges is still unclear.
Bradley Manning is now for over 800 days in military prison, still without trial.

I understand that the argument, that revealing military or national secrets would threaten national security and jeopardize lives, is often used by goverments, the military, intelligence etc., i dont expect anything else. But the most incriminating releases were supposed war crimes and this very same argument has been far to often a justification for actions that caused the death of many peoples, pretty ironic.

If i understand correctly, you said you were trying to highlight the double standard of people assuming what one side might do, by assuming what the actions of the other side might have done.
It didn't sound like a assumption to me, that's why i'm asking again.
How many people do you think have died because of wikileaks releases?
We have "collateral murder" in the name of national security on one side, what do you have?