KILLING ASSANGE MAY COST TOO MUCH TO US-UK
PART 1
"BACK OFF": ASSANGE ATTORNEY MICHAEL RATNER URGES U.K., U.S. TO RESPECT ASYLUM DECISION, INTERNATIONAL LAW
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/16/back_off_assange_attorney_michael_ratner
-------------
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this extracts is to explore the legal consequences of the UK threat: storming the Ecuatorian Embassy in London, take Assange alive or death and if alive, turned Assange to the US auhtoirties to punish him for publishing diplomatic secrets revealing corruption and Human Rights abuses of the US and NATO allies worldwide.
Storming the Ecuatorian Embassy in London is an act of violence that preludes the assassination of Assange by snipers or special teams. This could sparks unpredictable consequences in the current context of war we are living in.
I noticed that many Latinos grass-root- org FROM SEVERAL COUNTRIES are making comments online regarding this threat. It is clear the pressure that will come to their own States from the bottom up. Their demand is to close both embassies and to punish the US - UK by hitting their companies, if they kill Assanhe.
Meaning: If the violence takes place against the Ecuadorian embassy in UK, the response will be also violence against not only the US-UK embassies worldwide, but there will be economic targets too, starting in Latin America.
Do the US-UK authorities really calculate these effects?
That stupid thread from the UK policy-makers may spark an escalation of violence with unpredictable consequences. We should think on this topic by looking at the whole context: the fact is that we have on a double type of war. In the one hand is the military (we start loosing this war)and on the other hand we have the financial war: the dumping of the dollar as main currency for Banks reserve is ad-portas.
The Wall street financial frauds and the Libor scandal in the UK, plus the crisis of the euro, are also part of this context that can be activated very easily if we fall into the stupid trap of the UK policy-makers.
La pradera esta muy seca para jugar con fuego. Los costos del asesinato de Assange van a ser muy altos. In addition, he will became an international hero easily to be replace by many other Assanges. "We all are Assange" is not only a virtual command nowadays, it is taking human personification loaded with new type of energy worldwide.
-------------
Let’s go now to the interview of Amy Goodman to Michael Ratner:
BRIEF SUMMARY: Michael Ratner, a member of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team, reacts to the breaking news that Ecuador has approved Assange’s request for political asylum two months after Assange took refuge in its London embassy. Britain says it still plans to extradite Assange to Sweden: "The British ought to just back off, and the U.S. ought to just back off," Ratner says. "For the British to say that they’re going to go into the embassy and get out someone who’s been granted asylum would turn the refugee convention and asylum completely on its head.”
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner is president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The news conference, as it continues, the foreign affairs minister of Ecuador has announced that Julian Assange has been granted asylum by Ecuador. Michael Ratner, can talk about the significance of this? Again, Julian Assange now in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he has been granted asylum by the country of Ecuador. What does this mean?
MICHAEL RATNER: This is an incredibly courageous move by Ecuador. I mean, you have to think about it. Julian Assange, in doing what he and WikiLeaks did, stood up to the great powers of the world. And now you see Ecuador, again, standing up to the great powers. And so it’s an amazing act, really, and we should just applaud and support Ecuador for doing what was legally required here, which is to give Julian Assange asylum for his role as a journalist and a publisher of WikiLeaks.
What does it mean? Well, what it means is, first of all, is the British ought to just back off, and the U.S. ought to just back off. He has a legal right to asylum under the refugee convention. Under the U.N. declarations, there cannot be any adverse consequences for countries granting asylum. It’s considered a humanitarian act. And for the British to say that they’re going to go into the embassy and get out someone who’s been granted asylum would turn the refugee convention and asylum completely on its head. It’s unheard of. As far as I know, it’s never been done before that you’ve gone into an embassy to pull out someone granted asylum.
Julian Assange in my view, has a right to leave that embassy, get on a plane and go to Ecuador. Will the British ever honor that, with the kinds of threats they’re making against Julian Assange? I doubt it right now. But that’s pretty—that’s the law, to me. You’re given asylum. The British can’t pick him up and then send him to a country where he will then be persecuted. [..]They can’t do it, and they should not only back off the embassy, they should ensure that he is allowed free passage out of the United Kingdom.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, when—if someone who’s granted political asylum, as Julian Assange now has, if he got into a car to go to the airport, what is that territory considered, the actual car?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I think that’s an open question at this point. I think it should still be considered under the diplomatic protection of the Ecuadorean embassy. I think there’s enough law to say that.[..] Once you’ve been given asylum, it’s not like you can be then picked up by a country and sent into the hands of your persecutor. Whether it’s in the car, whether it’s on the streets, wherever you are, it’s illegal to do so. And it’s illegal for the British to go into that embassy. It’s illegal for them to stop Julian Assange trying to get to Ecuador.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, we were just talking about death squads in El Salvador. Actually, in 1980, when the archbishop of—the archbishop El Salvador was killed in El Salvador, Óscar Romero, just a few months before, January 31st, 1980, in Guatemala, Rigoberta Menchú, the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s father, Vicente Menchú, had taken refuge in the Spanish embassy in Guatemala City, and he and many others were killed as the Guatemalan forces burned the Spanish embassy to the ground. Michael Ratner?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, Amy, I’m familiar with that, as you are, and it’s an incredible—what it says is the kinds of governments that do what the British are doing are basically inhuman and have blood stains on them for generations for doing this. Blood stains for generations. So the—if the British are acting like that, then they’re essentially acting—is the equivalent of what the Guatemalans did to Rigoberta Menchú’s father.
===================
BASIC LEGAL INFO RELATED TO THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE .
PART 2
Hugo Adan , August 16, 2012
THE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES AND ITS 1967 PROTOCOL
http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html
In July 1951, a diplomatic conference in Geneva adopted the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘1951 Convention’), which was
later amended by the 1967 Protocol. These documents clearly spell out who
is a refugee and the kind of legal protection, other assistance and social rights
a refugee is entitled to receive. It also defines a refugee’s obligations to host
countries and specifies certain categories of people, such as war criminals, who
do not qualify for refugee status. Initially, the 1951 Convention was more or less
limited to protecting European refugees in the aftermath of World War II, but
the 1967 Protocol expanded its scope as the problem of displacement spread
around the world.
REFUGEE DEFINITION
The 1951 Convention protects refugees. It defines a refugee as a person who
is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a
well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
is unable or unwilling to avail him— or herself of the protection of that
country, or to return there, for fear of persecution (see Article 1A(2)).
People who fulfill this definition are entitled to the rights and bound
by the duties contained in the 1951 Convention.
CAN SOMEONE BE EXCLUDED FROM REFUGEE PROTECTION?
Yes. The 1951 Convention only protects persons who meet the criteria
for refugee status. Certain categories of people are considered not to deserve
refugee protection and should be excluded from such protection. This includes persons for whom there are serious reasons to suspect that:
• they have committed a crime against peace, a war
crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political
crime outside their country of refuge; or
• they are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
WHAT RIGHTS DO REFUGEES HAVE UNDER THE 1951 CONVENTION?-
THE CORNERSTONE OF THE 1951 CONVENTION IS THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT contained in Article 33.
According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where
he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection
may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to
the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious
crime, are considered a danger to the community.
OTHER RIGHTS CONTAINED IN THE 1951 CONVENTION INCLUDE:
• The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32);
• The right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31);
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19);
• The right to housing (Article 21);
• The right to education (Article 22);
• The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23);
• The right to freedom of religion (Article 4);
• The right to access the courts (Article 16);
• The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and
• The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
-----------------------------
HERE SOME NOTES WRITTEN IN LAW and PERTINENT TO THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE:
CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
RESOLUTION 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 16 December 1966
FIRST A NOTE on the realm of the CONVENTION of 1951 and the PROTOCOL of 1967
The Convention enabled States to make a declaration when becoming party, according
to which the words “events occurring before 1 January 1951” are understood to mean
“events occurring in Europe” prior to that date. This geographical limitation has been maintained by a very limited number of States, and with the adoption of the 1967
Protocol, has lost much of its significance.
The Protocol of 1967 is attached to United Nations General Assembly resolution 2198 (XXI) of 16 December 1967, and available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1cc50.html.
EXTRACTS:
IV. The Conference adopted unanimously the following recommendations:
A
(Facilitation of refugee travels)
The Conference,
considering that the issue and recognition of travel documents is necessary
to facilitate the movement of refugees, and in particular their resettlement,
URGES Governments which are parties to the Inter-Governmental Agreement
on Refugee Travel Documents signed in London on 15 October
1946, or which recognize travel documents issued in accordance with the
Agreement, to continue to issue or to recognize such travel documents,
and to extend the issue of such documents to refugees as defined in Article
1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or to recognize
the travel documents so issued to such persons, until they shall have
undertaken obligations under Article 28 of the said Convention.
D
(International co-operation in the field of asylum and resettlement) (1)
The Conference,
considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons
of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position,
recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement.
E
(Extension of treatment provided by the Convention) (1)
The Conference,
expresses the hope that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
will have value as an example exceeding its contractual scope and that
all nations will be guided by it in granting so far as possible to persons in
their territory as refugees and who would not be covered by the terms of
the Convention, the treatment for which it provides.
in witness whereof the President, Vice-Presidents and the Executive Secretary
of the Conference have signed this Final Act.
The President of the Conference: Knud Larsen
The Vice-Presidents of the Conference: A. Herment, Talat Miras
The Executive Secretary of the Conference: John P. Humphrey
----------------
THE CONVENTION Relating to the Status of Refugees established the definition of the term “refugee”
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
DEFINITION OF THE TERM “REFUGEE”
A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall
apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926
and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10
February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the International Refugee Organization;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization
during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status
of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfill the conditions of paragraph
2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.
IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHO HAS MORE THAN ONE NATIONALITY, the term “the
country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he
is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection
of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason BASED
on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one
of the countries of which he is a national.
ARTICLE 26
freedom of movement
Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the
right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory,
subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances.
ARTICLE 28
travel documents
1. The Contracting States shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their
territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory,
unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise
require, and the provisions of the Schedule to this Convention shall apply
with respect to such documents. The Contracting States may issue such a
travel document to any other refugee in their territory; they shall in particular
give sympathetic consideration to the issue of such a travel document to
refugees in their territory who are unable to obtain a travel document from
the country of their lawful residence.
2. Travel documents issued to refugees under previous international agreements
by parties thereto shall be recognized and treated by the Contracting
States in the same way as if they had been issued pursuant to this article.
================
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario