Freedom and justice, evicted from America, may have found a new home

Summary:  The America-that-once-was slowly evolves into the New America, a harsh truth cloaked in lies. We don’t want to see; we don’t want to know. Events like the affair Assange provide a magic mirror. Will we dare to look, and see what our news media and geopolitical experts will not say?

Magic mirror on the wall
Who is the fairest nation of them all?

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Declaration by Ecuador granting asylum to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks
3. What this tells us about American justice
4. Other posts about the affair Assange

(1)  Introduction

The victory of bin Laden on 9/11 results from the transformation of America. Since then we’ve worked to tear down what the “greatest generation” built after WWII — the foundation for a system of international law and justice upon which subsequent generations could build. This helped win the Cold War, and could have provided the dominant spirit for the 21st century. It was America’s greatest accomplishment until then on the world’s stage. And now looks like it will remain so for several generations, and perhaps forever.

Since 9/11 we’ve become outlaws to that system. As the global hegemon, we lead the forces dismantling it — cheered on by those seeking to dominate neighbors by force, and those willing to use violence to spread ideology, religion, or just chaos.  Every action of ours will find imitators.  Using drones and trained killers to assassinate enemies in foreign nations, torture, abduction and lifetime detention of enemies.  All these are timeless, but now we’ve re-legitimized them.

And now we see our government’s crusade to destroy WikiLeaks, the largest threat to the information hegemony they (especially Team Obama) seek to establish.  In that they’ll pressure allies to corrupt their criminal justice systems, and even break the centuries long rights of asylum and inviolability of embassies.  We’re outlaws, enlisting allied nations into our gang. Incidents like this act as magic mirrors, allowing us to see what we’ve become.

The concepts the western nations, which we lead for a time, released upon the world might find new homes now that we’ve evicted them. Look at the following statement by Ecuador.  Such words were formerly spoken by US officials, instead of the hypocrisy and lies that are all we hear now.  Ecuador’s people should feel pride reading this.  And Americans — how do you feel when reading this?

(2)  Declaration by the government the Republic of Ecuador

Excerpt of a transcript of the announcement that Ecuador has granted asylum to Julian Assange, made at a press conference by Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, 16 August 2012. Posted at WikiLeaks (it’s crimethink, so the US news media only hint at its contents). Section headings have been inserted.

The decision

.

… The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedures and with the utmost attention to this case, has reviewed and evaluated all aspects of this case, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange to support the fear he feels regarding this situation as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedoms.

It is important to note that Mr. Assange has taken the decision to seek asylum and protection of Ecuador over alleged allegations of “espionage and treason,” which “instigate fear of the possibility of being handed over to the United States of America by British, Swedish or Australian authorities,“ said Mr. Assange, since the USA is chasing him for releasing compromising information sensitive to the U.S. Government. The applicant mentions that he “is a victim of persecution in various countries, which is deduced not only from their ideas and actions, but of his work of publishing information which compromises the powerful, uncovers the truth and therefore exposes corruption and abuses of human rights of citizens around the world.”

Therefore, according to the applicant, the indictment for crimes of a political nature is the basis for his asylum request, because in his judgement he is facing a situation involving an imminent danger which he cannot escape. In order to assess his fear of possible political persecution, and that this persecution could end up becoming a situation which curtails and  violates his rights, integrity, and could become a risk to his personal safety and freedom, the Government of Ecuador has considered the following:

1. Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally known for his struggles for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
2. Mr. Assange shared privileged documents and information generated by various sources that affected employees, countries and organizations with a global audience;
3. That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life;
4. That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked to give adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them;
5. That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;
6. That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights;
7. That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense;
8. Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation;
9. Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;
10. That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and the USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect international conventions and treaties, and would give priority to domestic law, in violation of explicit rules of universal application and,
11. That, if Mr. Assange is remanded to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), a chain of events would begin that would prevent further protective measures from being taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.

Thus, the Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity. This fear has driven him to exercise the right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK.

Asylum, a universal human right agreed to by the international community through many treaties

… It is undeniable that states, having agreed to numerous and substantive international instruments (many of them legally-binding), have the obligation to provide protection or asylum to persons persecuted for political reasons and have expressed their desire to establish a legal institution to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms based on a general practice accepted as law, which confers on such obligations a mandatory nature, erga  omnes {see Wikipedia}, linked to the respect, protection and progressive  development of human rights and fundamental freedoms that are part of jus cogens {see Peremptory norm at Wikipedia}. Some of these instruments are mentioned below:

1. United Nations Charter of 1945: Purposes and Principles of the United  Nations:  all members to cooperate in the promotion and  protection of human rights;
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: right to seek and enjoy  asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14);
3. Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 27);
4. Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949: relative to the Protection of  Civilian Persons in Time of War: the protected person should in no case be transferred to a country where they fear persecution for his political views ( Article 45);
5. Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 and Protocol of New York 1967: prohibits returning or expelling refugees to countries where their lives and freedom would be threatened (Art. 33.1);
6. Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954: The State has the right to grant asylum and classify the nature of the offense or the motives of  persecution (Article 4);
7. Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State is entitled to  admit to its territory such persons as it considers necessary (Article  1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, political opinions or  affiliation, or acts that may be considered political offenses ( Article  2), the State granting asylum may not return or expel a refugee who is  persecuted for political reasons or offenses (Article 3); also,  extradition is not appropriate when dealing with people who, according  to the requested State, be prosecuted for political crimes , or common crimes committed for political purposes, or when extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);
8. European Convention on Extradition of 1957: prohibits extradition if  the requested Party considers that the offense is a political charge (Article 3.1);
9. UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967: provides for the  granting of asylum to persons who have that right under Article 14 of  the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling  against colonialism (Article 1.1). It prohibits the refusal of admission, expulsion and return to any State where he may be subject to persecution (Article 3.1);
10. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969: provides that the  rules and principles of general international law imperatives do not support a contrary agreement, the treaty is void upon conflicts with one of these rules (Article 53),  and if there arises a new peremptory norm of this nature, any existing treaty which conflicts with that provision is void and is terminated (Article 64). As regards the application of these Articles, the Convention allows States to claim compliance with the International Court of Justice, without  requiring the agreement of the respondent State, accepting the court’s  jurisdiction (Article 66.b). Human rights are norms of jus cogens.
11. American Convention on Human Rights, 1969: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 22.7);
12. European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977: the  requested State is entitled to refuse extradition when there is a danger that the person is prosecuted or punished for their political opinions (Article 5);
13. Inter-American Convention on Extradition of 1981: the extradition is not applicable when the person has been tried or convicted, or is to be tried in a court of special or ad hoc in the requesting State (Article  4.3), when, under the  classification of the requested State, whether political crimes or related crimes or crimes with a political aim pursued, and when, the  circumstances of the case, can be inferred that persecution for reasons  of race, religion or nationality; that the situation of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons (Article 4.5). Article  6 provides, in reference to the right of asylum, that “nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting the right of asylum, when appropriate.”
14. African Charter on Human and Peoples of 1981: pursued individual’s right to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);
15. Cartagena Declaration of 1984: recognizes the right to seek refuge, not to be rejected at the border and not to be returned.
16. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000: establishes the right of diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country not  represented by the Member State of nationality, have the protection of  diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, under the same  conditions as nationals of that State (Article 46).

The Government of Ecuador believes it is important to note that the rules and principles recognized in the international instruments mentioned above and in other multilateral agreements take precedence over domestic law of States, because these treaties are based on universal rules guided by intangible principles, whereof deriving greater respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights against unilateral attitudes of such States. This  would compromise international law, which should instead be strengthened in order to consolidate the respect of fundamental rights in terms of integration and ecumenical character.

The secret agenda of the  UK, Sweden and USA

Furthermore, since Assange applied for asylum in Ecuador, we have maintained high-level  diplomatic talks with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.

In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.

Assange’s lawyers invited Swedish authorities to take Assange statements in the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ecuador officially conveyed to Swedish authorities its willingness to host this interview without interference or impediment to the legal processes followed in Sweden. This measure is absolutely legally possible. Sweden did not accept.

On the other hand, Ecuador raised the possibility that the Swedish government establish guarantees to not subsequently extradite Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish government rejected any compromise in this regard.

Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially reveal its position on Assange’s case. Inquiries related to the following:

• If there is an ongoing legal process or intent to carry out such processes against Julian Assange and/or the founders of the WikiLeaks organization;
• Should the above be true, then under what kind of legislation, and how and under what conditions would such persons be subject to under maximum penalties;
• Whether there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

The  U.S. response has been that it cannot provide information about the Assange case, claiming that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.

The conclusion

With this background, the Government of Ecuador, true to its tradition of protecting those who seek refuge in its territory or on the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange,

(3)  What this tells us about American justice

As so many, such as Glenn Greenwald have shown, a culture of lawlessness has taken root in the highest reaches of America.  The law has become a tool to crush their enemies, while they remain above and outside its reach.  The latest to see this is John Aziz: “Assange or Corzine?“, at Azizonomics, 16 August 2012 — Excerpt:

Priorities are a bitch.

The United States won’t prosecute Corzine for raiding segregated customer accounts, but will happily convene a Grand Jury in preparation for prosecuting Julian Assange for exposing the truth about war crimes.

… the issue at hand is the sense that we have entered a phase of exponential criminality and corruption. A slavering crook like Corzine who stole $200 million of clients’ funds can walk free. Meanwhile, a man who exposed evidence of serious war crimes is for that act so keenly wanted by US authorities that Britain has threatened to throw hundreds of years of diplomatic protocol and treaties into the trash and raid the embassy of another sovereign state to deliver him to a power that seems intent not only to criminalise him, but perhaps even to summarily execute him. The Obama administration, of course, has made a habit of summary extrajudicial executions of those that it suspects of terrorism, and the detention and prosecution of whistleblowers. And the ooze of large-scale financial corruption, rate-rigging, theft and fraud goes on unpunished.

(4)  Posts about the affair Assange

(a)  About this form of 4GW in the 21st century:

• Using covert operations to discredit your enemies

(b)  Posts about the Julian Assange affair:

1. Sad news about the CIA, 23 August 2010 – Delusional assumption about America savvy.
2. The full story of the rape charges against Julian Assange of Wikileaks, a possible covert op., 27 August 2010
3. Update to the WikeLeaks rape story, and why it’s important, 29 August 2010 – If a covert op, it’s working
4. New and strange developments in the prosecution of Julian Assange (Wikileaks), 1 September 2010 – New but not more enlightening.
5. Endgame for the affair Assange: a big win for the government, 27 September 2010
6. The US government successfully smears Wikileaks, while America sleeps, 22 October 2010

.

.