Book of the Month

Shuts and Failures

by Michael Maiello

America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally: Former UK Ambassador

by A Guy Called LULU 8/16/2012 - 12:06 pm

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. He claims that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy as it has threatened to do and seize Julian Assange and that this act will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.

Read the full article at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32198.htm

As we all know, some of America's top political figures have openly called for Assange to be put to death for the crime of -- well, what was his crime, exactly, in American eyes? His crime is this: he published information leaked to him by a whistleblower -- exactly as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Fox News, etc., etc., do on a regular basis. Some American leaders and media blowhards have demanded he be executed for "treason," although, as an Australian citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2274-...

by A Guy Called LULU 8/17/2012 - 8:23 am

US intends to chase Assange, cables show.

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

by A Guy Called LULU 8/17/2012 - 8:28 pm

Criminalizing Dissent.

This section of the NDAA, signed into law by Obama on Dec. 31, 2011, obliterates some of our most important constitutional protections.

Any activist or dissident, whose rights were once protected under the First Amendment, can be threatened under this law with indefinite incarceration in military prisons, including our offshore penal colonies.

Contrast this crucial debate in a federal court with the empty campaign rhetoric and chatter that saturate the airwaves. The cant of our political theater, the ridiculous obsessions over vice presidential picks or celebrity gossip that dominate the news industry, effectively masks the march toward corporate totalitarianism.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/criminalizing_dissent_20120813/

by A Guy Called LULU 8/18/2012 - 12:22 pm

Some alternative opinions I've read:

The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/julian-assange-skirts-justi...

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-wikil...

The culture editor of the Swedish daily newspaper Expressen, translated:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-few-f...

An immigration & asylum lawyer:

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0817-Dzubow.shtm

Owen Jones @ The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-there-shoul...

 

by artappraiser 8/18/2012 - 1:21 pm

As you have probably seen, I responded to your comment on Flower's blog by mistake. I will try to move it over here a bit later.

by A Guy Called LULU 8/18/2012 - 2:36 pm (re: artappraiser)

Were Mr Assange not so cowardly, [my emphasis] he would recognise his best interests would be served not by pompously pursuing the role of martyr but by going to Sweden so sex-assault charges he strenuously denies can be tested.

Beginning the essay with the unsupported premise the Assange is a coward, and that his cowardice explains his actions, taints the entire piece as far as I am concerned and reveals an attitude demonstrated through its entire length. Then, pretending that answering to the sexual assault charges in Sweden is the reason he is afraid to go to Sweden is an obvious diversion and a further attempt at demonization. It is a hit piece which does not make any attempt to present fair analysis.

"Mr Assange has painted himself into a corner. If he believes in his innocence, the only viable option is to have the allegations tested in the Swedish courts. Skulking in a London embassy backroom, the guest of a regime with dodgy human rights credentials, does no good for his case or his reputation"

Assange has been driven into a corner and is hoping to escape. Who, in Assange's situation, considering recent history and facing the prospect of incarceration in the U.S, military prison system, would not attempt to find a safe haven? I imagine that if he had the chance he might pick some other country and I do not believe that taking his only option, Ecuador, sheds any accusatory light on either his character or the facts of his different cases.  

The other links go to articles which are even weaker, IMO, [especially the third] and which have been refuted many times already. I am packing for a trip and will not [probably] find the time to look up and link to any of the rebuttals but I will ask you: Do you consider any of the articles you offer here to be making strong cases that over-ride the counter arguments? Do you offer these links to support your own conclusions? Do you think that Assange is wrong to fear extradition to the U.S.? Do you think that his Wikileaks actions legitimately count as wrong and legitimately punishable under U.S. law? Would you give any of your linked opinion articles a passing grade?

by A Guy Called LULU 8/18/2012 - 3:12 pm (re: artappraiser)

Agree, Mr. Assange knows exactly what criminal acts the US and the UK can perpetrate, not only against an individual, but entire countries. And they have their sights set on him for revealing a bunch of diplomatic gossip, and war stuff that was lied about, that pales in comparison to the ultimate international crime of aggressive war perpetrated by Bush and Blair, which they all accepted without a peep of complaint or bleating about 'who was a coward'.

The international legal gymnastics over his use of condoms in consensual acts is clearly absurd whitewash. Assange is being relentlessly pursued, while Britain let international criminal Augusto Pinochet go.

If Assange was secretly whisked off from Britain or Sweden and never seen again, he and his fate would disappear from the pages of the bellyaching self-righteous pundits above in a matter of hours. These people could care less about an entire nation ruthlessly attacked, Assange would not have a chance of justice.

by NCD 8/18/2012 - 3:47 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)
NCD, you are so eloquently correct that I cannot resist the urge to remind you that only one major party presidential aspirant from the current crop has cited Bradley Manning's heroism...hint: It ain't Prez..
by jollyroger 8/20/2012 - 4:23 am (re: NCD)

Lulu, I just don't get why my personal opinion on this, an anonymous commenter (and not even a blogger with their own blog) is so important to you.

I will say one thing: your personal opinion on it affects me very little, because you are just another anonymous commenter like me on the internet.

I like to read a range of opinion on a developing issue/story by people willing to put their names and background right with the piece. When you bring up links and facts that counter some things in some of those opinions, that's great, that's helpful to me.

I also don't get why  youseem to immediately think that posting other opinions/interpretations/views of a story is like a personal challenge to put up your dukes! Especially in a section that is devoted to "In the News." I happen to think the more you read on a topic, the better, and I don't think it's of much value to decide where I stand on a developing story and then seek out those sources that agree with me. You seem to have a passion for a certain narrative and then to go seeking confirmation of it. And then anyone who brings up anything that doesn't fit the narrative, must be an enemy to be debated. Not at all a game I am interested in playing.

I have not yet decided what to think of Julian Assange. I think that's a "developing."

I will offer three personally opinionated things here:

1) I think Information Clearing House is an extremely slanted media outlet. That's a judgment based on approximately 8 years of seeing the stuff they put out. I have learned that it pays to automatically look for sides of the story they don't publish. That said, it's always interesting to see what they are publishing on a story. I'd never challenge you for posting their stories, that would be contrary to what I like about this section; I think the more the better on topic. I take the time to share what I've read, I always wish others would do so, too, and I don't care what the slant is.

2) I apparently have a lot more interest on what Swedes think on the matter than you do; I wish I could find more from Sweden translated. But then I don't think of Sweden as a vassal of US empire, I think they sometimes agree with the US and work with the US, but more often strongly disagree with US foreign policy and vote with its opponents in the UN. While I didn't agree with everything in Karin Olsson's article, I liked and agree with her summary paragraph:

Ironically enough, it would probably be easier for the Americans to get Assange from England, since the two countries are much closer to each other in many ways. But it's been a very long time since Assange did anything sensible.

If I were Bradley Manning's lawyer, I'm not sure I would trust someone who is supposedly brilliant not to sell out my client, someone who opts to do things like do a TV program for Putin's Russia, or elects to get out of the bind he is purportedly in by appealing to Ecuador, where the press is not free, and  in general, things are not exactly libertarian. (Yes, I know that so far his lawyer does not think this way.)

I am still looking for an answer besides "but waaaah, the US is going to try to extradite me if I do" to why he will not take the next step of going to court in Sweden to prove the accusations wrong. Because I do believe that were he were to eliminate that issue, the big media who published many of the Wikipedia leaks would partner with him to fight any US indictment, not despite the messiness of defining what Wikileaks is about and how has done things but precisely because of it! They will want the legal rulings for the future, from what Wikileaks has done so far.

So it's like Assange is running from the main fight he set up, and ironically into the arms of some who think the opposite of everything he had said he stands for.

Once again: these things are just my current unformed gut opinions, and I don't know why you would want to know them. My opinion is basically that my opinion is just one of many and that people should look at at lot of sources to figure what's really going on with a complicated story like this. You can have gut reactions, but they can be wrong. Mine could be wrong, so could yours.. I see no benefit in debate based on not fully formed gut opinions and when all the facts of a story are not in.

by artappraiser 8/20/2012 - 12:57 am (re: A Guy Called LULU)

For someone who scans the internet as much as you do, I'm amazed you don't have the details down by now.

Posting an "In The News" piece typically implies some kind of support of the position unless it seems wacky enough to obviously be satire & ridicule. In between, it's nice to comment & say "while I find this interesting...."

[note: most of info below can be found easily in Wikipedia listings for Assange or sub-articles]

Sweden has already extradited 2 Egyptians to Egypt for torture at the behest of the CIA. With no notice to their lawyers, one of these 1 day turnaround procedures.

The charges against Assange came after high US politicians (and other countries') started labeling him a "terrorist" and "enemy combatant" and use of the "Espionage Act", including Biden, McConnell and Gingrich (May 2010). 

Homeland Security and the Pentagon were both looking for Assange in June 2010 (see hacker convention, etc.)

Bradley Manning was moved to Quantico in late July 2010 and put on sleep deprivation, suicide watch, interruption every 5 minutes, "for his own good".

While rape is considered a horrible crime, the "rape" here is a he-says-she-says about use of a condom and penetration during sleep after consenting success, and reported only after the 2 women found out about each other. Neither claims violence.

[as a slight aside, there have been millions of violent rapes in Congo and South Africa, with little intent of the British government worrying about international requirements, and the release of Pinochet after being temporarily kept to UK soil seemed to ignore rape and murder charges against him]

The Assange "rapes" were reported on Aug 20 2010,  just after the July 2010 Afghan releases, a Swedish gov official's agreement to host Wikileaks servers, and Assange's filing permanent residence papers for Sweden Aug 18.

(Which is why he hung around so long - residence was denied in October, and it wasn't until Dec 2010 that he left, and on that day Sweden's prosecutors decided they finally needed to talk to him real bad)

I think you realize how much fallacious "gut impressions" foul the internet pool, and that's one of the main tactics conservatives use to create false impressions on a myriad of issues.

In the case of Assange, his organization exposed government wrongdoing, from intentional US Army murder to Libyan & Tunisian corruption (the reports of which prompted the Arab Spring).

While certainly Wikileaks treads a fine line, that they vetted their releases through publications like The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde and NY Times should give an idea their seriousness and responsibility.

Nevertheless, the US responded by killing Wikileaks' use of PayPal and credit card orders, and stood by as "anonymous" hackers attacked the Wikileaks' site (multiple times, including last week).

But somehow forgot to file formal charges against Wikileaks or Assange for actual crimes. Considering we took out Awlaki without ever filing formal charges against him (and somehow let him fly into the US in 2002 while under "suspicion" but didn't grab him for questioning) - well, I hope you see how similar lack of due process can inspire "paranoia"?

HBGary and other US gov security companies (including the prestigious Booz Allen Hamilton) came up with an attack plan on Wikileaks over Wikileaks noting they had incriminating materials on Bank of America. Those revelations obviously did not result in US government action against HBGary.

So your looking for an answer besides "waaaaah" fell quite short of your usual quality

 

 

by PeraclesPlease 8/20/2012 - 6:42 am (re: artappraiser)

Here's Rolling Stone on secret indictment of Julian Assange.

And here are your Swedish translations for you:

http://assangerape.tumblr.com/page/3

(page 3 - quite interesting)

Skip down to the part about Anna and Sofia - one who'd never met him but let him stay in her place and then returned a week early and slept with him, during which the condom broke - i.e. "rape" - after which she she decided to throw a crayfish party for him and guests the next night in her back yard, schedule posted in the national papers.

The 2nd, a student fascinated with Assange so much she got on the help staff for a speaking event though no one else knew who she was, and just managed to get invited to dinner and go home with him and have sex with him twice, once with condom, once without.

And then girl #2 just happened to contact girl #1 out of the blue to tell her she'd had unprotected sex with Assange - somehow intuiting that girl #1 was his now BFF? and that they should go to some far away police station where she had a friend to discuss the situation with a few days later.

And the officer who took the late report who just happened to be a friend of girl #2, and even though the female prosecutor withdrew the rape charge (singular), some male over-enthusiastic type declared literally that women aren't capable of knowing when they've been raped or not so he was helping them see through that fog.

The original interview with "victims" wasn't recorded, and then someone in the police wanted to "finish" the interview a few days later but couldn't because they charges had been dropped, but then managed to come back and with help from advice on how the original interviewer should "complete" it say 5 days later. Nothing like a hefty dose of live evidence gathering.

And so now let's just assume Julian Assange is paranoid and that this really is just about some poor girls worried about catching AIDS or getting pregnant. Or who have been "raped" and had their self-esteem taken from them.

Here are other pertinent questions:

http://rixstep.com/2/20120515,00.shtml

by PeraclesPlease 8/20/2012 - 12:34 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

HE'S A MONSTER! AND RAPE RAPE RAPE STD RAPE! DON'T LISTEN TO HIM! HE HAS NOTHING TO SAY! RAPE RAPE RAPE STD RAPE! ALSO, COWARD!

There. Consider that little matter dealt with. 

 

by Qnon e-mouse (not verified) 8/20/2012 - 2:12 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Well, that seals it for me, you've really convinced me, I'm damn sure now that Obama himself hired the two Swedish girls. With Hillary as a significant advisor, no doubt--what wouldn't that woman do to avenge?

As to the Swedish population, I am now convinced that they must just love that their country is being dissed in favor of Ecuador, because like everyone else in the western world, they hate their country and its justice system, and think Latin America needs nurturing on their international inferiority complex.

by artappraiser 8/20/2012 - 4:04 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Well, he just might have - Obama had no problem being personally involved with Awlaki and bin Laden, (and EmptyWheel notes some suspicion Awlaki  might have been our spy, or maybe flipped to be a double agent...)

But I doubt it - probably taken care of elsewhere - but most importantly it seems like some kind of setup to take down Wikileaks.

They've been pretty damaged from all of this, and I don't think Assange resigning would help - they've been cutting Wikileaks' access to cash and internet resources already, and Assange just makes that effort more visible.

by PeraclesPlease 8/20/2012 - 4:58 pm (re: artappraiser)

Your sarcasm is unappreciated.

You threw a bunch of links to show the "other side" and when a load of links and explanation are presented to show why that's bollocks, you toss back some banal Obama-Hillary-hate stuff and then slide over to Ecuador's human rights and how must Sweden feel.

How about just admit that the whole Assange inquiry looks fishy, and from what we know of our own government and others, especially in the last decade, that this could easily be a setup? That your attempt at fairness rather ran aground?

Of course you managed to trash Assange with "waaaaah" based on your "gut opinion" when "not all the facts are in", but as those facts come in you just shift plot.

If the Swedish court system and media and  social internet (including scary tilted social media control in background) are complicit in doing the CIA's illegal bidding and starting an international fervor over an overeager prosecutor after a rape charge has been dismissed, yes, they should get judged poorly in regards to Ecuador. Poor them.

Remember, the main point of questioning (he has never been charged, and woman #2's claims are no longer being investigated) is whether Assange tore his condom on purpose with woman #1. How bizarre is that accusation? How likely is that to make a criminal case? (they seem to have the broken condom but with no DNA?) And this questioning is the basis for an international arrest warrant? That Assange should take at face value and return to Sweden for?

by PeraclesPlease 8/21/2012 - 12:52 am (re: artappraiser)

And as none of us know anything about Ecuador, here's one take on the situation there - sorry, banana republic jokes are oh-so-1950's.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/08/ecuador-press-freedom-media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/21/rights-groups-lost-plot-ecuador

by PeraclesPlease 8/21/2012 - 1:43 am (re: artappraiser)

Arta, I have bee on a short self-imposed exile from internet land and so this is the first chance to respond.

Your personal opinion is not “so important” to me but, for many reasons, the resolution of the cases of Assange and Manning are very important to me. I linked to what I believe is honest reporting on the subject and also to what seems to me to be fair, honest, and persuasive analysis by persons who believe that Assange is not being treated fairly or honestly. The links you responded with were, IMHO, largely smear pieces completely avoiding the most important issues of the subject by misrepresenting the facts of the sexual misconduct allegations and how the Swedi.sh case relates to the bigger case. 

In my case the links I provided do largely reflect the opinions I have come to hold in this particular case. You provided what you termed 'other opinions’ and I gladly grant that they may not necessarily be ones that you share. That said, I expected that you give those opinions, as stated, some credence or you would not have posted them without some further disclaimer. If not, then posting them is about as valuable as a news report that while scientists believe the earth is a sphere, some flat-earthers disagree and so fair minded people should wait until more evidence is presented before they come to lean to far one way or another in judging which side is probably right. I also expect that so much has been revealed about the Assange case that any interested close follower of news should have formed an opinion if not a conclusion.

There will not be a straight line of more and more facts revealed until a final fact is revealed which answers all questions. We will never get all the facts of this or any other such case. I did not take the presentation of those other opinions as a challenge to ‘put up my dukes’ against you personally, I took those opinions by those authors, as stated, to be crap which should be labeled as such. I then asked for a few of your opinions to see if you really thought that what you brought to the conversation, in this case, had any merit.

To the points on which you did decide to offer an opinion. I agree that Information Clearing House has an obvious slant to the news stories and opinions it compiles. Does that distinguish it from or put it in a separate category from any U.S. or international news source that you can name? When I post a link to a piece I originally find there I usually go to the original source if I can find it, especially if I am not somewhat knowlegeable about the author, so as to make a fair judgment of the content a bit easier to come to. I believe that even among a bunch of stories with a particular slant that each story’s value can stand on its own.

You speculate that, based on what I have said and presented, that you care more about Swedish opinion on the matter than I do. That may be fair speculation but it is wrong analogy in that it misses the point by narrowing the question. No single person with any sense has suggested that Assange should not answer to the sexual misconduct charges. You agree with Karin Olsson that it is a very long time since Assange has done anything sensible. Really? Unless you believe that Assange is not in danger from the U.S. then I question whether you think it would be sensible for him to go to Sweden under the current circumstances? Sweden is a country I have long admired but no government anywhere gets my total approval. Sweden has taken verifiable overt actions in concert with the U.S. war on terror that I oppose and which I believe give Assange fair reason to avoid putting himself in their hands without some assurance that it is not a step on the way to an American prison.

 

“I am still looking for an answer besides "but waaaah, the US is going to try to extradite me if I do" to why he will not take the next step of going to court in Sweden to prove the accusations wrong.”

This has been answered so many times. It is the answer to that question that is at the root of the entire problem. My dukes are down, I am not looking for a fight. I am mixing my opinion with questions. Sweden seems much more intent on getting Assange to Sweden than in resolving the charges which is their legitimate right and duty to deal with. Their handling of the case so far breaks established precedent. IIs it not legitimate to wonder why? Do you honestly think that Assange has no legitimate fear of being extradited from Sweden to the U.S. even if found innocent of sexual misconduct charges there? That is, if charges are ever even brought.

by Anonymous (not verified) 8/26/2012 - 11:39 am (re: artappraiser)

There's a few facts that are invariably left out in most articles on this subject. Assuage is not wanted by Swedish authorities to be charged with rape but to be interviewed in a preliminary investigation to determine if the evidence is sufficient to charge and proceed to trial. Extradition is sought to conduct interviews and questioning.

Assuage has repeatedly offered to make himself available in England for those interviews. He has offered to return to Sweden for questioning if Sweden guaranteed he would not be extradited to the US. Sweden has rejected all offers by Assuage to deal with the rape allegations if separated from his fears of extradition to the US. I've seen several affidavits by Swedish legal experts including a former Swedish prosecutor that there is no legal or rational reason not to interview Assuage in England or grant him diplomatic immunity from US extradition requests so he can respond to the rape allegations. Therefore it is reasonable to have suppose that there is more going on here than a simple rape investigation. Its reasonable to suspect the extradition request for the rape investigation may be designed to force Assuage to submit to extradition to the US for trial over the wikileak of the Manning documents.

There were also several irregularities in the initial investigation in Sweden. Assuages name was released by the first prosecutor to the public while Swedish law requires that names of both victims and suspects in rape investigation be kept secret. This prosecutor has not been sanctioned or disciplined. This is prosecutorial misconduct and smacks of a smear campaign.

Assuage was interviewed in Sweden, after the completion of that investigation the chief prosecutor overruled a low ranking prosecutor and dismissed the case stating there was no reason to suspect Assuage had raped the women who reported him to the police. The case was then reopened by a different department of the government. Swedish law requires the suspect be interviewed within seven days. The new prosecutor made no attempt to interview Assuage even though he remained in Sweden for an additional 27 days and made numerous attempts to submit to police questioning by this new prosecutor.

Rape is a serious crime that should be prosecuted if sufficient evidence supported prosecution but there are some serious irregularities in the investigation that cause me to wonder if this is about rape or the leak of US documents by Manning. Assuage should answer those rape charges but he should not be forced into a position of surrendering to US extradition to do so.

by ocean-kat 8/18/2012 - 4:08 pm (re: artappraiser)
Just to further muddy the waters, (because, why not ) and from my ill informed recollection, the initial beef from the women involved turned upon their stated desire merely to leverage Assange to provide data re:his STD status. The authorities enlisted in this endeavor reportedly then took the ball and ran with it, circumstantially supporting the inference that US interest in securing the person of their tormentor was already in train.
by jollyroger 8/20/2012 - 4:06 am (re: ocean-kat)

Actually this was a perhaps poor attempt to unmuddy the waters by limiting my comment to just those things I thought were facts and easily verifiable. I thought they were sufficient to  accept the possibility that Assuage's fear that the rape investigation was being used to gain control of him for subsequent extradition to the US was reasonable. Some simple guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US would quickly show us whether he has an honest fear or if this is a ploy to avoid a rape charge.

The did he did he not rape waters are so muddy that I can'tform what I consider a reasonable opinion. but yes, I have read that the women went to the police simply to gain leverage to force Assuage to get an AIDS test. I have no opinion as to its veracity.

by ocean-kat 8/20/2012 - 7:02 am (re: jollyroger)
my reference to muddy waters was global, not meant as a comment on your post. I hope it is evident that I am on Julian ' s side.
by jollyroger 8/20/2012 - 3:19 pm (re: ocean-kat)

I didn't think your comment implied any side. I haven't seen any post by you on this issue given my year of isolation in the wilderness but I'd have guessed from what I've read  of your posts in previous years that you'd be supportive of wikileaks and Assuage's work.

I don't think there's anything inappropriate in getting into a detailed discussion of the allegations, as pericles seems to be into. I'd rather stay out of that and let the chips fall where they may if the investigation finds sufficient evidence and the case goes to trial. I'm sure that part will be carefully watched, by me and many others. All I'm interested in doing is, as simply as possible, to attempt to make the case that Assuage has a reasonable claim to fears he may face a second extradition to the US if he returns to answer the rape allegations. He should not have to risk surrender to the US to answer rape allegations. Sweden's complete rejection of all means to deal with the rape allegations separate from that reasonable fear seems outrageous to me.

by ocean-kat 8/20/2012 - 11:00 pm (re: jollyroger)

Related in the State Dept daily briefing, the Thursday transcript is the latest available:

Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 16, 2012

TRANSCRIPT:

12:44 p.m. EDT

MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange?

MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes. I don’t have anything particular to add.

QUESTION: You don’t have any interest at all in this case other than as of a completely neutral, independent observer of it?

MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an issue among the countries involved, and we are not planning to interject ourselves.

QUESTION: But Assange (inaudible).

QUESTION: Have you not interjected yourselves at all?

MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he may end up going, no.

QUESTION: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits to go into the Ecuadorian Embassy and remove him.

MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to that at all.

QUESTION: Does – and the Brits – Foreign Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not recognize diplomatic asylum. I’m wondering if the United States recognizes diplomatic asylum given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty which grants or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only presumably within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law?

MS. NULAND: Well, if you’re asking me for a global legal answer to the question, I’ll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers, but --

QUESTION: Contrasting it with political asylum, this is different – diplomatic asylum.

MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, not on international law. But if you’re asking me to check what our legal position is on this term of art, I’ll have to take it, Matt, and get back to you.

QUESTION: Yeah, just whether you recognize it outside of the confines of the OAS and those signatories. And then when you said that you don’t have any information to suggest that you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed from the Embassy, does that mean that there hasn’t been any, or just that you’re not aware of it?

MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. If that is not correct, we’ll get back to you.

Is that it? Hey, have a weekend? No. Jill. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, not so fast.

MS. NULAND: No? Okay.

QUESTION: Could I change the subject to Syria?

MS. NULAND: You can.

[....]

by artappraiser 8/20/2012 - 3:37 pm

The transcript for Monday's State Dept. press briefing is now up, here is the relevant excerpt::

[....]

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah, sorry, there was --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. NULAND: Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: WikiLeaks.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Of course there is – you spoke about this a little bit last week. Over the weekend, Julian Assange has made a somewhat public appearance. WikiLeaks has been calling for the U.S. to make assurances that he wouldn’t be extradited or prosecuted here. I know you spoke a little bit to that last week, but is there something clearer? Is there something more that the U.S. can say about the possibility of prosecution of Julian Assange here?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me start with the fact that he is making all kinds of wild assertions about us, when, in fact, his issue with the Government of the United Kingdom has to do with whether he’s going to go stand – face justice in Sweden for something that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks. It has to do with charges of sexual misconduct. So he is clearly trying to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is whether he’s going to face justice in Sweden, which is the immediate issue. So that case has nothing to do with us. It’s a matter between the U.K., Sweden, and now Ecuador has inserted itself.

With regard to where we are in our own judicial issues following the WikiLeaks incident, I’m going to send you to the Department of Justice. I don’t have anything new to add from here.

QUESTION: Can I just – you’re – you want to go back and qualify something, I think, because otherwise the WikiLeaks people are going to come down on you like a pound of – many pounds of bricks.

MS. NULAND: Well, thank you for protecting me, Matt. I depend on that.

QUESTION: Yeah. Which is that you said that he faces charges in Sweden, when he hasn’t been charged.

MS. NULAND: Well, he’s being investigated in Sweden. Right.

QUESTION: Right. So, I mean, the issue is not whether he is going to go to face charges in Sweden. The issue is whether he’s going to be extradited for questioning, at the moment, correct?

MS. NULAND: Excellent. Thank you, Matt. Yes.

QUESTION: And now, have you had any – considering you think that his claim of fear – the claim that he fears persecution in the U.S. is completely bogus, have you had any conversations with the Ecuadorians about this?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we have not, beyond what we’ve said at the OAS, which is that we don’t think that this is an appropriate issue for the OAS to be taking up. But I don’t think we’ve been trying to negotiate this with them bilaterally, because there’s really nothing to say.

QUESTION: No, I know. But, I mean, have you gone into them and said, “Hey, listen, this is ridiculous. He’s not going to be persecuted. People aren’t persecuted in the United States in perhaps the same way that they might be in a country like Ecuador or Venezuela”?

MS. NULAND: Well, I certainly said that he didn’t face any persecution here, thanks to your question on Thursday. But to my knowledge, we’ve not had bilateral consultations. But we have said at the OAS, where Ecuador is trying to gin up trouble, that we don’t think that’s an appropriate forum.

QUESTION: Well, in fact, what was going on at the OAS wasn’t really trying to – I don’t – not sure it was trying to gin up trouble. It really didn’t have anything to do with the particulars of the Assange case. It had to do with the threat that was made – the apparent threat that was made about revoking the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and for – and entering it. You don’t think that the OAS – that a multilateral diplomatic body is the appropriate place to bring up a question that deals intrinsically with diplomatic status and diplomatic immunity?

MS. NULAND: We’ve said consistently this is a matter for Ecuador and the UK to talk to each other about. That’s what the U.K. Government is also saying. And we have said regularly at the OAS that we don’t see any role for the OAS in this.

QUESTION: But you don’t think that standing up for a fellow member of the OAS, who’s a country – that their diplomatic property may be compromised, that that’s not something – that that is appropriate for the OAS to stick up for?

MS. NULAND: Again, we have --

QUESTION: I mean, I remember you guys were all in favor of the OAS sticking up for you during the Cuban missile crisis.

MS. NULAND: Again, we --

QUESTION: Why is not the appropriate forum to say, no, it’s wrong for a country to threaten to raid a diplomatic property?

MS. NULAND: Again, I would call you to more recent statements from the U.K. Government with regard to its stand with regard to the mission in Ecuador. And again, we’re not going to have an – we don’t see a role for the OAS in a hypothetical situation that doesn’t appear to be imminent anyway.

QUESTION: Okay. So your understanding right now is that there is no threat to raid the Ecuadorian Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m going to refer you to what the UK has said in the last couple of days.

QUESTION: So are you not concerned that the Assange issue may be a polarizing issue between countries that are otherwise allies?

MS. NULAND: We have very important business that we do in the OAS that has to do with the strength and health and democracy in the region, and this is, frankly, a sideshow.

Okay. Please, can I get your colleague in the back? Please.

QUESTION: North Korea [....]

by artappraiser 8/21/2012 - 2:03 am (re: artappraiser)

No mention of a sealed indictment against Assange.

No mention of helpful comments from US politicians that Assange should be even assassinated.

Of course no talk of inviolability of the Embassy, as in say Tehran 1979.

And we have to just take it on face value that he wouldn't face persecution in the US - that just isn't done.

And of course the reason Ecuador is giving him refuge is because of fears he'll be extradited unfairly to the US - but of course the US won't talk about that to Ecuador.

It's only about "justice" in Sweden and those pesky Latinamericans, trying to "gin up" trouble.

Trust us. Next question?

by PeraclesPlease 8/21/2012 - 2:29 am (re: artappraiser)

Latest Comments

more