Slashdot Mirror
Assange Makes Statement Calling For an End To the "Witch Hunt"
An anonymous reader writes "After a statement from a window at an upper floor from the Ecuadorian Embassy, Julian Assange '... called on US President Barack Obama to "do the right thing" and for his government to "renounce its witch hunt against Wikileaks."'" However, the U.S. issued the following statement regarding Assange's stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy, "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,"
Also applies to himself regarding facing up to the charges against him in Sweeden.
Read this article written by Naomi Wolf
In principle, exposing the murder and cover-up of innocent people actually helps save the lives of innocent people in future, as it discourages such behavior.
BTW, I sure hope you aren't an American or living in America. If you are, get the hell out of here. If America is such a crappy country, you aren't wanted here either. We will fix our problems in our own way. I should note that the reason you know about the problems in America is in part because we talk about them and don't hide them under the table like some countries do, such as perhaps Iran, China, and North Korea. Living in America as an ordinary citizen isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be either.
Not the same AC as previous AC, but I thought I'd respond (I'm from Scotland btw).
The US has something like 300 million people living in it. Do you really think with that many people that all are happy with the status quo? If not, should all the people who aren't just leave without trying to change things for the better? You should welcome the people who want things to change for the better. Encourage them to stay, and get politically active. Don't just stick your fingers in your ears, pretend that it's all perfect and tell them to leave.
Your country has had some pretty crap people in charge for quite some time. Rights are being eroded before you, and the country has got some pretty poor rankings worldwide. The highest prison population in the world, and 1 in 9 black people in jail? The wage gap just keeps getting worse because people won't tax the rich because they're so afraid of being though of as socialist. Your politicians are totally out of touch with how real people live. Your healthcare is very inefficient, and good only for those who can pay for it (and a huge proportion of your country can't). Despite separation of church and state, women's health is being trampled over by the religious right, and creation myths are being taught in the classroom at the taxpayer's expense. That's nothing to be proud of.
By the way, I don't claim that the UK is in any way perfect either, we've been trampling over rights too, we've got hypocrites in government, we mock Russia's censorship while engaging in it ourselves, the Conservatives are trying to destroy the poor and disabled, and tear down the NHS, and we've recently tried to invade an embassy. No, I don't like the way our country is run at all. But I wouldn't suggest that people who don't like it should just shut up and go elsewhere.
Do you know why the ICC and for Europe, the European Court of Human Rights were created?
They were created because of the lessons of World War II, the realisation that citizens can't always count on their state to protect them. The recognition that sometimes citizens of a country need to be able to go to a third party to secure justice against the most appalling of crimes. It stemmed from the fact it was clear that groups such as the Jews in Germany in World War II couldn't count on their state to protect them - on the contrary, it was out to get them and they had no recourse for justice or protection.
If your country isn't willing to give you the assurance of protection against the most awful crimes known to humanity - a guarantee that it will not turn around and persecute you or your family for some arbitrary reason such as you skin colour, sexuality, or religion - then there is something deeply unsettling and backwards about your country.
The things the ICC can investigate are extremely limited in scope, so the suggestion that it is somehow a threat to sovereingty is laughable unless your government plans to carry out one of the most dispicable war crimes like rape, or a massacre of civilians. There is no danger of it's power spreading beyond this limited set of things it can deal with because the agreement you sign when you become an adherent to the ICC would then be void without you re-signing up to it.
So really, the only reason not to be party to the ICC, is if you actually intend to commit warcrimes. As the US has had some of it's troops do exactly this over the last 10 years then it would seem this is the more plausible reason for the US not being interested in it, rather than because of some fear of loss of sovereingty. The fact the US doesn't properly deal with war crimes committed by it's troops properly in it's own courts is further testament that it's about allowing US citizens to get away with war crimes, rather than a loss of sovereingty- if it was a sovereignty issue it could at least claim they don't need the ICC because they deal with it properly themselves, but they don't.
Just one final point, I see this attitude from some Americans quite often:
"We will fix our problems in our own way."
That's fine, but please bear in mind, that if your own way involves causing problems for non-US citizens and other countries, then please be aware that you lose all right to complain when something like 9/11 comes back to bite you, because things like 9/11 are an inevitable result of you "doing things your own way", such as fucking up Afghanistan to screw the soviets over and then subsequently abandoning it.
So it starts with Assanage going to the UK. Sweden then says "We want you back here for questioning regarding these charges." He says "No you can question me remotely, but I won't come back." They say "That's not ok, you have to come here in person." He refuses. This is all consistent with not only Swedish law, but pretty much anywhere. Cops like to interview people in person for many reasons and you'll find that if you say "No, just call me and interview me that way," they will make the in person thing more compulsory.
It starts with Sweden clearing him for travel. And he does so. Then, he is called back. He's a suspicious sort, and offers to come back if he gets a guarantee he won't be extradited to the US. Sweden said no. He offers to meet in person, in the UK. But Sweden said no. He offered a video or tele conference, Sweden said no. Sweden has not charged him with any crime. He's offered to waive his right to be there. Sweden said no. Sweden has insisted that he come back to Swedish soil, nevermind the US agents at the airport.
Why has Sweden said "no" to ever offer? What would Sweden be willing to do to talk to Julian? Anything? They don't even seem overly interested in actually talking to him. They seem to want one and only one thing, to get him on Swedish soil at all costs. That seems very very unusual.
Ecuador then granted Assanage asylum, which is a slap in Britain's face. Part of being a diplomat in a foreign country is you are a guest and you are supposed to obey their laws. You don't shelter criminals or the like.
I'm not sure on the timeline, but I didn't think that Julian was a criminal at the time Ecuador initially extended the offer for asylum.
So this really isn't that unusual except in the lengths that Assanage has gone to in trying to avoid going to Sweden.
I didn't think it that unusual, other than the lengths that Sweden has gone to to get Julian back after they told him they would not charge him and he was released and told he could go.
Learn to love Alaska