Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange Makes Statement Calling For an End To the "Witch Hunt"

Posted by samzenpus on from the can't-we-all-just-get-along? dept.

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,"

30 of 915 comments (clear)

  1. Not recognized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not recognized, huh? Kinda like the multi-trillion dollar deficit, eh?

    What a crock of shit.

    1. Re:Not recognized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

    2. Re:Not recognized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Not recognized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can thank the United States for your freedom to say what you say.

      You can thank the French for even having a country in the first place. Without them you'd still be a fucking colony. See how it works ? ^_^

    4. Re:Not recognized? by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is happening is that America (and most Americans) don't want the U.S. government to be subordinated below some global government. We've already seen what happens when sovereignty is surrendered to a more universal government, and for the most part we don't want to see that happen again. Once was enough and even then that universal government has likely gone too far.

      You're talking about the US federal government, to which the states were subordinated? Or the states, to which the counties are subordinated? Or the counties, to which the municipalities are subordinated? You really need to be a little more clear here. If this is more of that "state's rights" bullshit, let me remind you once again: the original and most powerful argument both for and against state's rights was slavery.

      Also: fuck you. What is this shit?

      BTW, I sure hope you aren't an American or living in America. If you are, get the hell out of here.

      I'm not leaving my country just because some assholes think they should be able to torture without criticism. The UN and the International Court are an attempt to bring the world a little closer together. They've had some successes and some failures, but the most important thing is the effort. Turning our back on the UN means turning our back on the rest of the world, all for the sake of some worthless sovereignty?

    5. Re:Not recognized? by Teancum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Should an ordinary citizen be critical of their leaders because they don't like what they are doing? Absolutely! This is particularly true in a democratic republic with elected representatives who should be held to a higher standard and expected to be doing the right thing, or at least generally follow the will of the people they represent. It isn't perfect, but it sure sounds better than many other kinds of governments where an ordinary citizen has a whole lot less say in how their government works.

      The problems with the United Nations is for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that the other countries in the UN really don't share the same culture, values, or for that matter even the same political systems as America. As a place to meet and discuss things of mutual concern, the United Nations is a wonderful organization and in general can and should be used as an instrument for world peace. It provides a forum for global debates and a place where leaders of different countries (or their representatives) can join together and accomplish some amazing things.

      The United Nations was never intended to be a global government though that would take over the sovereignty of its member nations, and those who think it ought to be a global government really are seeking to establish a global tyranny that enslaves everybody.

      "States rights" is a part of the American experiment in governance, where the idea originally proposed was to have a very small national government where almost all authority for actions rested as locally as possible. This is generally a good idea, as some small town mayor or police chief may get a swelled head and do stupid things, but their reach is very limited and can't act when somebody goes into a neighboring town or state. Another aspect of this experiment is to disperse power of governance as widely as possible and to deliberately slow down decision making in such a way that important things take a long time to be resolved. Almost every major political screw up (including the Gitmo internment of "terrorists" and other similar prisons operated by the CIA and the U.S. military) happen because those involved did not follow the constitution or laws were enacted which granted unconstitutional authority.

      Subordinating the U.S. Supreme Court to become subordinate to the International Court or World Court (two different entities) is something that is simply unacceptable. Certainly it shouldn't be done without at least some sort of constitutional amendment (what I was talking about in terms of dispersed political power and time to debate the issue) that alters the original contract that Americans set up with our national government to make such a thing happen. If the President of the United States is saying that America won't be bound by rulings of that court and if the U.S. Congress goes out of their way to enact legislation to explicitly authorize the U.S. military to act against rulings of that court, that is not only constitutional but imperative to the operation and functioning of American society. That isn't "turning our back" on the UN, but rather not letting a couple idiots changing a basic part of our government without our consent.

      I am also stating plainly that there is a snowball's chance in hell that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would ever be passed by the required number of states to enable jurisdiction of these courts over Americans. Thus, when the U.S. President is saying that the courts have no jurisdiction over Americans, he is actually upholding his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". Strangely, that is really the only thing a U.S. President has to do as well that is a requirement of his position.

    6. Re:Not recognized? by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. UPDATE: Assange is out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He tricked the Police:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu1TZVX72Aw&t=4m9s

  3. "Do the right thing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also applies to himself regarding facing up to the charges against him in Sweeden.

    1. Re:"Do the right thing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also applies to himself regarding facing up to the charges against him in Sweeden.

      Read this article written by Naomi Wolf

    2. Re:"Do the right thing" by gsnedders · · Score: 5, Informative

      The original investigation, as I understand it, was about the fact that he had sex with her in her sleep (this is in almost all countries rape, as someone asleep is not able to consent), and explicitly told him to stop when she awoke, which he did not do. That story has been entirely consistent from the time it happened.

    3. Re:"Do the right thing" by iocat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Way to defend rape. It's possible to be raped by someone you previously had consensual sex with.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    4. Re:"Do the right thing" by sacrilicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assange's main mistake was to be politically dangerous while not also being celibate.

      The rape charge is just a pretext (to get him extradited). If he had indeed been celibate, they'd be after him for anything else they could cook up: parking tickets, overdue library books, or not saying gezundheit when someone sneezed.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  4. "Witchunt" by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Funny

    Meanwhile, Anonymous threatened Slashdot editors that if they continue to neglect their responsibilities, the consequences will never be the same. Here's Tom with the weather.

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    1. Re:"Witchunt" by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those cables don't say what you think they say. They say Australian diplomats think the US eventually intends to extradite Assange, and believe that Assange is currently being investigated by someone in the US Government. That should not surprise anybody. Somebody is definitely keeping an eye on Assange, because Wikileaks managed to hurt US Government interests badly. "Keeping an eye on" constitutes an investigation. And if you're not a cop you could easily conclude that they wouldn't investigate him if they had no intention of charging him with a crime.

      He's not gonna be charged with anything by the US Government. As a guy who is put on trial for releasing diplomatic cables he's a major embarrassment. As a freedom of information advocate whose trying to flee to Ecuador (which opposes freedom of information) to dodge rape charges? Even if he's vindicated by the Swedes he's a punchline. They'll keep on eye on him just in case, but they ain't gonna make him a martyr.

      Seriously. The major reason I don't think the CIA has anything to do with his current plight is simple: I don't think the CIA is that good. I don't think it's humanly possible to be that good.

    2. Re:"Witchunt" by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I looked at that article, and the comments, and the article it linked to, but couldn't find a link to the cables directly, so I'll have to go with what's in the article.

      All it suggests is that the US have an investigation into the leaks (and thus Assange) and that the Australians wanted to be kept informed. While yes, this suggests that they are thinking about him, I'm not sure if is indicative that they're after him as much as Assange seems to think. He may have broken US laws (at least, someone may have and he's the key piece in the puzzle), and they're investigating it.

      The more he does (or doesn't do), and the more I read, the more I'm convinced he's either paranoid or using the cover of US oppression to escape doing some rather mean things in Sweden.

    3. Re:"Witchunt" by HuguesT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sweden is a democracy with extradition laws. Assange may never get his day in court. Personally I totally believe the possibility that the US would want to question Assange and detain him indefinitely, regardless of the international outcry. The USA is also a democracy, with a place like Guantanamo Bay, which is still running.

    4. Re:"Witchunt" by rbrander · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) Naomi Wolf has been following this case since 2010:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1435_b_797188.html ...long enough to look up all the Swedish law and case histories she doesn't already have, particularly since the article above contains the news: "Well, I was in Denmark in March of this year at a global gathering for women leaders on International Women's Day, and heard extensively from specialists in sex crime and victims' rights in Sweden." ...that's March of 2010, nearly 30 months ago.

      2) Unusual case, indeed, but nothing about its unusual-ness relates to whether the original complaint merited charges, not after the original prosecutor declined to charge and a prosecutor clear across Sweden took the very, ahem, unusual step of deciding to re-start a case from outside their normal jurisdiction (it's federal, so they *could*, but it's very...unusual).

      3) She is hardly accusing "the entire Swedish political elite", she just notes the Rove connection without drawing conclusions. The Rove story has been very hot in Sweden, because Rove is considered by many to have won elections in his past by abuses of the legal system, including, it is said, planting a bug in his own office and getting an investigation of his client's opponent started on the basis of it; and involvement in the framing of an Alabama politician for corruption, as reported by 60 minutes:
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml

      It's quite normal for Karl Rove to have no provable connection at all to things that happen when he's around - like his old law partner starting the swift boat organization. People have generally started to regard him as smoke and start looking for fire.

      I might add - it's funny for you to regard Naomi Wolf as unable to comment on Swedish law because she's American, but regard as obvious that Swedish politicians would look to an American for electoral advice in their very different system (no state-level, no third branch of government, no electoral college - it's a constitutional monarchy with a parliament).

      Sweden is a democracy, can't argue with that one. It's just a democracy that helped with extraordinary rendition of suspects to where they were tortured - so you can kind of understand somebody's reluctance to hand themselves over to their tender mercies; the rendered guys never got that day in court of which you speak.

    5. Re:"Witchunt" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You go into valid points about the rape, but you missed the big one: how many "surprise sex" rapists are internationally hunted and extradicted on the level of a terrorist? I mean seriously, would you expect Australia or Sweden to go after every internationally-based guy who slept with a woman without a condom to the point of shutting down embassies? The sheer amount of effort going on here for a less-than-violent rape is ridiculous, and it wouldn't happen for almost anyone except Assange. Great efforts for something low on the rape scale.

      Could it be that really they are seeking Assange for his Wikileaks efforts instead?

  5. Misleading by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assange spoke today -- Sunday. That statement by the U.S. was released two days ago in response to Ecuador calling for a meeting of the OAS. It was *NOT* in response to Mr. Assange's speech, as the summary implies.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  6. Re:is this for real? by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

    As it turns out, it was the answer to a question:

    Question from press briefing

    So some reporter asked a loaded question (implying the US had an OAS commitment to recognize diplomatic asylum), and this is a correction.

    The case of Cardinal Mindszenty, which many are bringing up, is one where the Communist Hungarian government did not in fact recognize diplomatic asylum; Mindszenty was stuck in the US embassy for 15 years until the Hungarians relented.

  7. Re:the US did grant political asylum in the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Political asylum is not the same thing as diplomatic asylum.

  8. Re:Zero sympathy...none...nada...bupkis by BeanThere · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:is this for real? by fondacio · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks. That clarifies things a bit and you also raise an important point regarding the difference between diplomatic asylum and other cases of people seeking refuge in an embassy.

    Before we all get too worked up about the US not recognising the concept of diplomatic asylum (too late I guess), there's less here than meets the eye. Diplomatic asylum is a concept that has long been accepted in Latin America, and it developed there in part because of some periods in which there were many coups and people trying to escape from new regimes found refuge in foreign embassies. Diplomatic asylum is however not the same as Chinese dissidents seeking refuge in the US embassy in Beijing or the Cold War cases, as parent points out, and this reflects that outside of Latin America, the concept of diplomatic asylum is not accepted under international law. That's why it's sometimes described as regional international law. Chinese and other dissidents are rather making use of the diplomatic immunity that these places enjoy, which prevents the authorities of the host state from exercising their jurisdiction on the premises but doesn't mean they can leave.

    So while Ecuador sees the Assange case as a one of diplomatic asylum, the UK only accepts the immunity of the embassy (and if the story about threats is to be believed, not even that - but that would be a violation of international law). Had the UK accepted the notion of diplomatic asylum under international law, it could also grant safe passage to Assange to leave for Ecuador upon recognition of the diplomatic asylum granted by Ecuador. In any case, both UK practice and the US position reflect longstanding positions of international law, regardless of what we think about all the other aspects of the case.

    I'd like to say at this point IANAL, but I can't, since I'm actually an international lawyer.

  10. Re:Zero sympathy...none...nada...bupkis by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    people shouldn't know what their government is up to

    You're right. I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime. Also, home addresses of the wives of people working covertly in places like North Korea or Yemen. Also, we should circulate a spreadsheet showing the schedule and routes of moving nuclear material. And when the government acts to put someone in protective custody or witness protecction, such covert activities - where the public doesn't get to know where the person is and what they're doing - should definitely be considered the sleazy act of an insufficiently GNU-Open-Secrecy-Is-Bad government.

    Or is it possible that there are benefits, when doing things like talking to political parties in countries that are on the brink of a civil war, in being able to assure such a group that they can speak frankly while policy matters are hashed out?

    What ever was I thinking?

    Don't beat yourself up about it. Most other people don't think about reality, either.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Re:Zero sympathy...none...nada...bupkis by Pav · · Score: 5, Informative

    Are brain cells somehow becoming an endangered species even here on Slashdot?

    Swedish legal protocol has been compromised so badly in this case it's hard to imagine a trial happening even if the guy IS guilty, but don't believe me, here's the considered opinion of a retired Swedish prosecutor. Read it... it's informative. This situation could EASILY be solved by interviewing Assange in the UK according to Sven-Erik, and according to evidence on the public record. Why the insistance on extradition in this case? The guy might be an asshat sometimes, but that doesn't deserve a ticket to gitmo... and this whole thing feels very bad. I think the average citizen in the west has been lied to enough that some healthy skepticism is long overdue, and frankly I'd be happier to see it err on the side of paranoia than apathy.

  12. Re:the US did grant political asylum in the past by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hardly, the USA won't sign those treaties either... For that matter the USA won't generally sign any treaty that isn't horribly one-sided, and if they do in fact sign a treaty giving equal rights to both sides, they'll simply ignore it whenever it is inconvenient.
    The USA is the schoolyard bully of the international stage, they do things however they feel, whenever they feel, with no regard for the consequences, and can't understand why everyone isn't in love with them.

  13. Re:Go to China by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because someplace else is worse, doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the problems we have here. And the situation here has clearly been deteriorating.

    Since you brought it up, let's take 1989 for an example:

    In 1989, the US was a place people fled TO, in order to get AWAY from repressive governments; not the government doing the repressing.

    In 1989, you could go on that trip to Thailand without being irradiated with backscatter x-rays, taking you shoes and belt off, or getting felt up by some thug at the airport; and your friends or family could accompany you to the departure gate to see you off.

    In 1989, you could pop over to some of the closer countries such as Canada, Mexico, or The Bahamas, for a visit; and be re-admitted to the US with nothing more than your drivers' license.

    In 1989, no one had heard of a "free speech zone". The entire *country* was a free speech zone.

    In 1989, you could go to concerts, amusement parks, nightclubs, and ballparks without being groped by some thug, having to show the contents of your pockets, backpack, or purse to another, going through a metal detector, or being under constant 1984-ish CCTV surveillance.

    Maybe we're still free enough, in comparison to countries like China, to be considered "the land of the free". But we've been becoming progressively less free for years.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  14. A flaw in the conspiracy theories? by Pikewake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's assume that the conspiracy theories are right for a second. Somehow U.S. agencies are behind the charges against Assange in Sweden and believe they have enough control over the Swedish judicial system, and in extension the Swedish government, to get him delivered into their hands.
    Even if we assume that Sweden is an U.S. lapdog, we're still talking about a relatively open society, so this might be harder to do than in some other countries, but for the argument's sake: They really want to get Assange.
    Knowing all this, what does Assange do? Try to escape to Ecuador, of course, because the same agencies who managed to arrange the situation in Sweden will have no chance of getting to him there. I mean, who have ever heard of U.S. clandestine operations in South America? And of course the government and courts of Ecuador is much less corrupt than those of Sweden.

    Anyone else see a problem with this theory?

  15. Re:"Hunted like a terrorist"? by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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