Ecuador says UK violating human rights of WikiLeaks' Assange
Source: Reuters
Ecuador's foreign minister on Tuesday accused the British government of trampling on the human rights of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by refusing to allow him to travel to Ecuador, which granted him political asylum almost a year ago.
Assange, 41, took refuge in Ecuador's tiny embassy in London last June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over sex assault and rape allegations. He denies the allegations.
Ecuador's socialist president, Rafael Correa, angered the UK by granting Assange asylum in August on concerns that the former computer hacker might be further extradited from Sweden to the United States. Ecuador's government late last year said the Australian citizen was suffering from lung problems.
"By not granting him safe passage they are violating the human rights of a citizen, and every day that passes the effects of that violation hurt the person more and more," Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told Reuters in an interview.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/ecuador-says-uk-violating-human-rights-wikileaks-assange-220802841.html
Julian must really be getting on the nerves of the embassy staff.
Ecuador really has no leverage in this situation, and their ongoing slagging of the UK isn't going to persuade the UK to accede to their wishes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I would think that an Ecuadorian would be well acquainted with that fact.
The disobedient must be punished, and be seen to be punished, and you fake it if you have to, that is the rule at work here.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,312 posts)That's what's happened here; an allegation that British courts have considered at length, and have established that the undoubted law of the land is that Sweden's extradition request must be satisfied. To let him go to Ecuador would be to break British law, and the European agreements it has signed. But Assange, and Ecuador, want the law and agreement to be broken, because he says he's a political enemy of the United States.
There are, of course, the human rights of Assange's accusers to consider, as well.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I realise that various governments consider what Assange did criminal, and very alarming too, but I disagree with those governments. So you can throw me in the slammer too, because I support what he did, and I think the law is what is criminal.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,312 posts)Or is it that you don't believe the women?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I believe he did what he did there, and the women complained about it, and I'd be happy to see him dragged through the mud over it, since he sounds a bit of a MCP, but I don't think that is why he is hiding out in the Embassy now, or all this time and money (and credibility) is being spent to get him.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)You are correct. This isn't about the potential charges in Sweden. This is about getting him extradited to the US. Anyone paying attention knows this.
telclaven
(235 posts)Traditional allie and special relationship versus neutral power with little overlap of strategic interests. If I was JA, I'd be more worried about being bundled off by bobbies than the swedes.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)Also he was to be extradited to Sweden not the US, the real questions left unanswered are
#1 Would the US bother to try to extradite him from Sweden or is Assage just overestimating his own worth?
#2 Would sweden go along with it?
#3 Would the EU courts support it in light of what the US has done in Gitmo?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)He would be extradited from Britain. He was, or will be if you prefer, if they catch him. No question about it.
But really, what is wanted is to keep him penned up, silenced, discredited, as much as possible. Where that might be is less important. Sweden will do fine, or if the Ecuadorian embassy is the best that can be done, then it will do.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)and discredited I would hazard that they have largely failed at #2 and #3 and #1 wont last forever but again that is assuming the US even had a hand in this which I dont buy because I just dont believe Assage is worth this much effort especially since the US already has the person who illegally supplied the intel in custody and on trial.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)He has pissed off lots of people, and he is a threat to lots more.
The fact that he is not, and his alleged crimes are not, proportionate to the effort being expended to get him is precisely the argument I am making as to why that is not all that this is about.
telclaven
(235 posts)Not the US
bemildred
(90,061 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,312 posts)That would, however, be a slippery slope to go down. It does happen, sometimes, like the US refusing to extradite Carriles, but I don't think that's a good example for the UK to follow. I'd rather we stick to international agreements, and extradite him to Sweden, for their judicial process to work.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)Exactly.
And if the US tries to extradite Assage from Sweden for anything then it can work through the Swedish and EU courts and he can try his appeals out on them and even if he were to be extradited I believe Sweden could easily get the US government to agree to not transfer him or hold him in Gitmo or anywhere else like that and his trial would not be delayed unduly so as to ensure his quick release and return to his home country.
brooklynite
(94,539 posts)Which is far more politically sympathetic to us than Sweden?
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)and won which is why he is hiding in the embassy but last I had heard the US had not filed for that.
Also check out what Justice Stefan Lindskog said if the US were to try and extradite Assage from Sweden
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/julian-assange-safe-from-extradition-to-us-says-justice-stefan-lindskog/story-fncynjr2-1226612062993
brooklynite
(94,539 posts)The Pro-Assange folks here seem to believe that Sweden is part of a plot by the US to get their hands on him, without explaining why, if that's true, we couldn't eliminate the extra step and just have had the UK ship him over.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And if you are in any way a reasonable member of society, you would respect the law. No reasonable person would argue that today, the UK does not have a decent system. He had all hearings he was entitled to in the UK. How can the UK have violated his human rights? They did not force him to hide in another country's embassy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Britain says it is determined to fulfil a legal obligation to send Assange to Sweden. But Correa said London had made its own rules in the past -- specifically, by not extraditing Pinochet, who was charged with multiple human rights violations.
“Pinochet was not extradited for humanitarian reasons, when there were dozens of Europeans and thousands of Latin Americans who were murdered, and tens of thousands of people were tortured during the Pinochet dictatorship,” he told reporters in Quito.
Pinochet was arrested by British police at a hospital in London in 1998 after Spain demanded his extradition for alleged torture and murder, including of Spanish citizens, during his 1973-1990 rule.
The British government decided in 2000 that the frail Pinochet was unfit to stand trial and free to fly home. He died six years later in Santiago, Chile, aged 91.
Read more at
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/24/correa-recalls-the-uk-non-extradition-of-pinochet-on-humanitarian-reasons
Britain extradites when it wants to and doesn't extradite when it doesn't want to. Depends on the politics of the person to be extradited in some instances.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,312 posts)The government chickened out of completing extradition. I don't think "our predecessors did the wrong thing before" would be a good excuse.
randome
(34,845 posts)...we'll hear that it's only because of his valiant efforts to maintain a public face that he can do so.
The hero will likely even be exonerated and then we'll be treated to an endless litany of how he stood against the odds, persevered against shadowy forces, etc., etc.
The sooner he gets it over with, the better.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
hack89
(39,171 posts)Ecuador has not offered Assange political asylum - they have offered diplomatic asylum, which was rejected by most of the world in the 1950's. South America is the only part of the world where diplomatic asylum is recognized. Britain has no obligations under international law to let Assange travel to Ecuador.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)enjoy his guilt. Compared to Pinochet, Assange is an angel no matter how you look at it.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/24/correa-recalls-the-uk-non-extradition-of-pinochet-on-humanitarian-reasons
The details on Pinochet's retrieve at that website. Here is more:
Within hours of the 8 a.m. announcement Thursday morning that Britain was halting extradition proceedings against Augusto Pinochet, the former dictator was onboard a plane heading back to Chile. The rapidity of the indicted torturer's exit stands in marked contrast to the ponderous pace at which the extradition process was conducted since his arrest in October 1998.
Pinochet's supporters in Santiago greeted reports of his impending return with jubilation. Retired General Luis Cortes Via, executive director of the Pinochet Foundation, said, “We're very happy ... justice has been done.” The armed forces were making arrangements for a ceremony to welcome back their former commander-in-chief.
Defenders of General Pinochet in the British Conservative Party also voiced their pleasure at his release. Former Conservative Chancellor Norman Lamont, one of Pinochet's most vocal supporters alongside Margaret Thatcher, described the extradition attempt as a “shabby episode”.
Groups representing those who had been tortured in Chile and the relatives of the “disappeared" expressed their regret that he was free to go home. Reed Brody, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said, “It's a terrible disappointment for Pinochet's thousands of victims that he will not face trial in Spain.” In Santiago, 24-year-old student Henrika Harkko said, “We have tried to make the world listen, we wanted justice, we are not getting it.”
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/03/pino-m03.html
Pinochet was finally arrested and returned himself to Chile before he died -- never convicted of his crimes.
General Augusto Pinochet was indicted for human rights violations committed in his native Chile by Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzón on 10 October 1998. He was arrested in London six days later and held for a year and a half before finally being released by the British government in March 2000. Authorized to freely return to Chile, Pinochet was there first indicted by judge Juan Guzmán Tapia, and charged with a number of crimes, before dying on 10 December 2006, without having been convicted in any case. His arrest in London made the front-page of newspapers worldwide as not only did it involve the head of the military dictatorship that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990, but it was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws.
Pinochet came to power in a violent 11 September 1973 coup which deposed Socialist President Salvador Allende. His 17-year regime was responsible for numerous human rights violations, a number of which committed as part of Operation Condor, an illegal effort to suppress political opponents in Chile and abroad in coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. Pinochet was also accused of using his position to pursue personal enrichment through embezzlement of government funds, the illegal drug trade and illegal arms trade. The Rettig Report found that at least 2,279 persons were conclusively murdered by the Chilean government for political reasons during Pinochet's regime, and the Valech Report found that at least 30,000 persons were tortured by the government for political reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet
Compare the allegations against Pinochet with those against Assange. Who was the greater criminal? Who was allowed to live free and never sentenced?
And the allegations against Assange? How does a woman admit that she consented to sex yet prove that she did not consent to unprotected sex? Her word against his? The evidence that unprotected sex occurred? Might be possible to get. But the evidence that there was no consent? That's a tough one. Unless she set a trap and taperecorded the whole thing. Even if her testimony is compelling, she may not really remember what she said. I think the case is rather hopeless. There will always be doubt about what happened. Unfortunately, not every wrong can be righted -- as is proved by Pinochet's story.
hack89
(39,171 posts)In Pinochet's case, the decision to extradite him was based on British domestic law, not international law.
Of course Pinochet was a greater criminal. He should not have been released - it denied his victims justice. Which is why it is important the the UK respect international law and extradite Assange - the Swedish justice system must be respected just like the Spanish justice system should have been respected in the Pinochet case.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And the issue here is whether the British have ever refused to extradite anyone. They have. So no one can say that the British have to extradite Assange in spite of his having been granted asylum because the British always comply with extradition requests. The British have not always complied with extradition requests.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Pinochet's release was a miscarriage of justice. He should have been extradited in accordance with British law.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)They didn't do it with a worse criminal(even though they should have) so they shouldn't do it this time as well o.O
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Wandering around in a smelly bathrobe, drinking their coffee and raiding the employee refrigerator, and constantly trying to strike up conversations with people about how evil the Brits, the Swedes and the Americans are.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)Have you considered writing fiction for a living?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not making a judgement on the case but they might be getting sick of the whole thing.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)Speculation is useless.
Ecuador is protecting Assange. I expect they'll continue to protect him to the best of their ability.
God bless Ecuador and God bless Rafael Correa!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)I don't think Assange will be deported to the US. I hope he won't be.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)access to the truth. Who knows? Ecuador knows. Let them speak for themselves.
“If Pinochet was not extradited for humanitarian reasons then it's clear that they can take the decision not to extradite Mr. Julian Assange,” Correa said.
Correa is part of a populist alliance of Latin American leaders that includes Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega. They frequently criticize the US “empire” and have strengthened ties with China, Russia and Iran.
The Ecuadorean government remains angry at a veiled threat by Britain to enter its embassy and arrest Assange. On Tuesday Correa denounced it as “rude, impertinent and unacceptable.”
But on Wednesday he repeated that Ecuador was ready to negotiate over the 41-year-old Australian's fate. Ecuador's government wants Assange to receive written assurances that he would not be extradited from Sweden to a third country.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/24/correa-recalls-the-uk-non-extradition-of-pinochet-on-humanitarian-reasons
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They will agree not to send him to the US.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)the people who elected them and are benefiting from them, nor anyone who sees through the corporate propaganda about them, that fascist tyranny, torture and murder, and "neo-liberal"/"Shock Doctrine" looting by transglobal corporations, banksters and war profiteers are preferable.
You are clueless about what is happening in Latin America; and you seem clueless about the importance of Julian Assange's pioneering work of investigative reporting, which has made him the target of the same tyrannical forces that seek to regain control of Latin America, for looting and plundering purposes. The SAME corporate imperialists who connive to overthrow democracy in Latin America hate Julian Assange for his unique, technology-based truth-telling which has exposed the connivance and the corruption of U.S. policy in particular. Thus we get this ongoing yapping of their lapdog propaganda machine--in which Rotters is a particularly yappy little mutation--about the absurd "sex assault and rape allegations" which they love to repeat ad nauseum without questioning--charges so flimsy that the first prosecutor dropped the case and told Assange he could leave Sweden, and concerning which Assange has made himself available for "questioning" numerous times!
Ad nauseum. Endlessly sickening. Vomitty. Disgusting. As is your attempt to belittle Ecuador and its government's defense of Juiian Assange and real journalism.
The rulers of the U.K. are standing on very brittle ground, as are the co-conspirator rulers of the U.S. Both sets of rulers have violated the will of their people time and again, on fundamental tenets of democracy, human rights, economic fairness and world peace. Ecuador's government, on the other hand, enjoys an 80% approval rating! They are acting in the interest of their people and of all people. And your sneering and sniping is meaningless to those who really matter--the people of Ecuador, who support the Correa government overwhelmingly, and the people of the world who are now better informed about the plots against them, by U.S. rulers and their allies, due to Julian Assange's Wikileaks.
You are clueless about this as well--the disgust throughout Latin America and the world with U.S. and U.K. gross violations of human rights and world peace--their horrendous crimes, and the utter hypocrisy of their preaching to others about "human rights," and, in this case, their cynical use of laws designed to protect women to slander and harass and impoverish and hunt and SILENCE Julian Assange. They want NO 'free speech' for Julian Assange. They want him IN CUSTODY, in a deep dark dungeon like Bradley Manning. And they are perfectly willing to cheapen and abuse laws designed to protect women, to do so. It is nauseating. And you are aiding the sick bastards who are guilty of it, and who are spreading the disease of the "Big Lie"--endless repetition of lies, slander and propaganda, designed to stifle thought--everywhere.
Snicker, snicker. Sneer, sneer. That's all you've got. You don't have facts. You couldn't care less about human rights. You glorify and worship the U.K. rulers' financial and military power to ignore human rights and to defy the laws and sovereignty of other countries. That is your "philosophy": 'might makes right.'
I'm being generous by saying it's "clueless."
randome
(34,845 posts)He publishes material that others steal and give to him.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But what Assange got was pretty much "old news" or at least so unimportant that many, many people were given access to it before Assange got it.
While what the AP and Fox, oh, and let's don't forget the Murdoch papers in the UK that wiretapped to get their news, got was either highly classified or very private.
randome
(34,845 posts)Other than embarrassing a few mid-level diplomats. Hardly a reason to call out the spooks and begin some wild, multi-national conspiracy to get one man.
He needs to bring this to a close on his own. I doubt Ecuador can obtain a promise that he won't be extradited elsewhere because that gives someone they don't really know a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card.
But if they DO get such a guarantee, I wonder if Assange will come up with some other reason not to go.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And despite your inference, I do not 'hate' anyone. Not even those on DU who disagree with me by throwing labels such as 'Conservative' around!
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that when a person had sex with a woman, she did not consent under the circumstances in the allegations that I understand are being brought against Assange? If the woman had injuries, then rape can be perhaps ascertained. But this situation would be very hard to prove. What is the point? She did not become pregnant. She did not have AIDS. It is my understanding although I could be wrong that she did not immediately seek medical or police assistance. I don't see how charges could even be brought. Do you have a different understanding of the facts than I do? Perhaps I am misinformed.
randome
(34,845 posts)Last edited Thu May 30, 2013, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)
The only thing I do know is that I'm in no position to second-guess the Swedish justice system. He needs to follow the law, which he didn't do when he broke the conditions of his bail.
The Swedish appeal system, the U.K., the U.K. appeals system are all in agreement on this. Even Australia has not come to his defense.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that he cannot get a fair trial or even investigation, why shouldn't he go?
I just don't see how you could get evidence in this case.
You haven't really answered my question. What kind of evidence other than the he said, she said evidence could you get.
In this country what Assange is accused of doing is not a crime. And that is partly because of the difficulty in trying such a case fairly. If she had become pregnant, then it would be different.
Governments need to be more zealous in prosecuting rape cases in which the claims and evidence are strong. In some respect, the Assange case makes a bit of a mockery of the many women who suffer in silence unwilling to accuse their abusers. Something stinks about the charges against Assange. Is Sweden seriously willing to pay the money to incarcerate a man on such a shaky charge?
randome
(34,845 posts)His actions alone imply guilt. This country's laws have nothing to do with Sweden. When in Sweden, abide by Swedish laws.
Scott Ritter was a hero for many, too. He was also a very flawed individual. I see the same with Assange.
With so many appeals levels and other countries saying he MUST return to Sweden, I see no reason to side with him just because he doesn't want to go.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
hack89
(39,171 posts)to get to the bottom of such questions.
Sweden's justice system is considered one of the fairest in the world. They will figure it out.
Charges were brought based on the statements of the victims. Rape cases are prosecuted in America all the time without physical evidence.
Zorro
(15,740 posts)They're both loudmouthed narcissists who eagerly seek to blame the US for situations of their own making.
Your veneration of such "dreamboats" -- and other like-minded pipsqueaks -- is reflected in your trademark flatulent screeds attacking anything you deem threatening to them. How many times did you predict the imminent invasion of Venezuela by the combined forces of the US Fourth Fleet and soldiers massed at "US bases" on the Colombian border before your last crush finally croaked?
Frankly, your credibility stinks when it comes to Latin American affairs. It's why no one with any common sense pays much attention to all your furious outgassing.
You might get a clue on the political and economic realities of South America if you should ever actually go there.
But I doubt it.
Response to Zorro (Original post)
randome This message was self-deleted by its author.
