SAFE PASSAGE FOR JULIAN ASSANGE TO TRAVEL TO ECUADOR or ELSE

SAFE PASSAGE FOR JULIAN ASSANGE TO TRAVEL TO ECUADOR or ELSE

Hugo Adan. August 18, 2012

The international community will not tolerate that Assange’ right for political asylum be disrespected. If Julian Assange is assassinated in London, that could sparks unprecedented levels of violence worldwide.

There is a legal solution to this problem if there is will to do so. This starts with the implementation of Per Samuelsson proposal: “the foundation for the arrest warrant was that they wanted an interrogation with Julian Assange in Sweden. Now it is no longer possible to have it in Sweden because he has been granted political asylum, but THEN WE CAN DO IT IN LONDON. It’s time for the prosecutor of Sweeden to change her mind and go along the line and do it quickly in London. Then everything will be solved. The foundation for the european arrest warrant will disappear, and Julian Assange will be able to leave the embassy and go to Ecuador and seek protection from the United States.”

--------------------------------


LAWYER: RAID ON EMBASSY TO ARREST ASSANGE WOULD BE "UNPRECEDENTED" BREACH OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/lawyer_raid_on_embassy_to_arrest

Britain is refusing to give Julian Assange of WikiLeaks safe passage out of the country even though Ecuador has granted him political asylum. On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy. Britain has also threatened to raid the embassy in order to arrest Assange. "Under British law we can give them a week’s notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," said a British foreign spokesperson. In response, Ecuador has asked the Organization of American States to hold a meeting Aug. 23 to discuss the diplomatic crisis. "The latest announcements by the British government are alarming," said Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser for Julian Assange.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show on the latest on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Britain is refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country even though Ecuador has granted him political asylum. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has stayed for almost two months in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crime accusations. Assange’s lawyers say he fears Sweden will extradite him to the United States to face charges over the leaking of secret U.S. military and diplomatic files. On Thursday, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY WILLIAM HAGUE SAID ASSANGE WOULD BE ARRESTED IF HE LEFT THE EMBASSY.

WILLIAM HAGUE: We are disappointed by the statement by Ecuador’s foreign minister today that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange. Under our law, with Mr. Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We must carry out that obligation, and of course we fully intend to do so. The Ecuadorean government’s decision this afternoon does not change that in any way, nor does it change the current circumstances in any way. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution that allows us to carry out our obligations as a nation under the Extradition Act. It’s important to understand that this is not about Mr. Assange’s activities at WikiLeaks or the attitude of the United States of America. He is wanted in Sweden to answer allegations of serious sexual offenses.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Britain has also threatened to raid the embassy in order to arrest Assange. A British foreign spokesperson said, quote, "UNDER BRITISH LAW WE CAN GIVE THEM A WEEK’S NOTICE BEFORE ENTERING THE PREMISES AND THE EMBASSY WILL NO LONGER HAVE DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION."

The British threat was condemned by Ecuadorean officials as well as former diplomats. Sir Anthony Brenton, a former British ambassador to Russia, told the BBC that A BRITISH BREACH OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY WOULD, QUOTE, "MAKE THE WORLD A VERY DIFFERENT PLACE," WITH DIPLOMATS EVERYWHERE VULNERABLE TO PUNITIVE ACTION BY HOST GOVERNMENTS.

Meanwhile, Ecuador has asked the Organization of American States to hold a meeting August 23rd to discuss the diplomatic crisis.

Numerous supporters of Assange have gathered outside Ecuador’s embassy in recent days. This is Paul Madrid.

PAUL MADRID: [translated] We believe that the decision taken by the Ecuadorean government is the correct one. We Ecuadoreans abroad very much agree with this. We support the government’s decision, which is a decision taken on the basis of human rights and international commissions that support this type of petition.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the significance of these developments, we are going to go first to Jennifer Robinson, London-based legal adviser for Julian Assange, also DIRECTOR OF LEGAL ADVOCACY AT THE BERTHA FOUNDATION.

We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Jennifer. The significance of the Ecuadorean government granting political asylum to Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, and then, what Britain is threatening now?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: This is obviously a hugely important decision by Ecuador and one that we both welcome and respect, in light of the recent pressure that’s been brought to bear on them by the British government. It is an important recognition of international law and important recognition of the persecution that Julian faces, and in particular the concerns that we’ve long had about his—the risk of his extradition to the United States and prosecution associated with his activities to do with WikiLeaks.

THE LATEST ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ARE ALARMING, I think, for diplomats around the world in relation to their threat about entering the embassy. This raises significant concerns about the institution of asylum, and about diplomatic protection, more generally. As international law academics and experts have been saying in the past 24 hours, it would be illegal as a matter of international law to enter an embassy. They are inviolable. And unless and until they withdraw that status, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENTER THE EMBASSY. IF THEY DO DECIDE TO WITHDRAW THAT STATUS, THIS ACTUALLY WOULD BE, I THINK, A WATERSHED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CAUSE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, what about this 1987 law that the British government is claiming would be able—they could justify REMOVING THE DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF THE EMBASSY?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: As I stated, at present, Ecuador has diplomatic status. IF THE U.K. GOVERNMENT WERE TO REVOKE THAT STATUS, IT WOULD BE A WATERSHED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT’S PERMITTED UNDER BRITISH LAW, it would be a—it would be a significant step by the British government and one that I think, AS INTERNATIONAL LAW ACADEMICS HAVE SAID, WOULD PUT AT RISK THE DIPLOMATS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about a comparison to how the British government dealt with, for example, Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator? Interestingly, Baltasar Garzón is a lawyer for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, the crusading Spanish judge and prosecutor who called for the extradition of Augusto Pinochet from Britain, where he was there for a medical visit, to Spain. He ultimately had to stay in Britain for a year, but then Britain had him—allowed him to go back to Chile.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think that there are limited comparisons to be made between those two cases. Of course, Garzón is the leader of our legal defense team, and he has—he has reiterated the same points that I’ve made about the importance of this decision to grant asylum. But the cases, I think, are very different, and they’re just—it’s difficult to make any connection between them.

AMY GOODMAN: And THIS THREAT OF A RAID, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD IT MEAN? BRITISH SOLDIERS OR POLICE MOVING INTO THE EMBASSY AND EXTRACTING JULIAN ASSANGE?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: It’s unclear what exactly it would mean. I mean, this is an—it would be an unprecedented action if the U.K. were to take that action. I suspect that if they were to withdraw the status of the British embassy, this would be a huge step and one that I know in recent days the British government has distanced themselves from that initial statement. If it were to happen, they would first have to withdraw the diplomatic status of Ecuador, which would again be a huge step. And after that, police—police officers would be able to get into the embassy and take Julian under arrest. But at this stage [inaudible] —

AMY GOODMAN: We’re losing you a little bit, Jennifer.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: At this stage, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN A MASSIVE STEP BACK FROM THAT INITIAL THREAT TO ENTER THE EMBASSY. As I said earlier, they would have to withdraw the status of the Ecuadorean embassy in England before they were able to do so. And that, in and of itself, would be a huge step. I don’t think that that’s going to happen, and it looks like we’re going to be facing a long standoff.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, the—Ecuador’s foreign minister has said that his country sought assurances from Sweden and the United States that Assange would not be extradited from Sweden to the United States, before making a decision, and they were not giving such assurances. That seems to buttress THE FEAR OF ASSANGE THAT THE REAL EFFORT HERE IS TO GET HIM INTO U.S. CUSTODY VIA SWEDEN. YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF ECUADOR, THAT HE COULD NOT GET THOSE ASSURANCES FROM THE UNITED STATES?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think this is a very important point and one that ought to be emphasized, that Ecuador, in considering its international obligations in whether to grant Julian asylum, first sought the assurances that we had been asking our Australian government to ask on his behalf and who had also refused to request. So Ecuador took every step it possibly could, before taking this decision, to seek the assurances it required to assuage concerns about onward extradition to the U.S. It is worth emphasizing that this grant of asylum is with respect to the risk of onward extradition to the United States, and Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE THOSE ASSURANCES.

As he—HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO COOPERATE WITH THE SWEDISH ALLEGATIONS. AGAIN, HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED IN SWEDEN YET. They simply want his testimony. And in the course of their consideration of his application, THE ECUADOREAN GOVERNMENT ALSO OFFERED THE SWEDISH AUTHORITIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW JULIAN in relation to the Swedish sexual offense charge—allegations, IN THE EMBASSY, AND THEY ALSO REFUSED THAT OFFER. So ECUADOR ACTUALLY DID TRY TO GET THE ASSURANCES THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW JULIAN TO ANSWER THOSE ALLEGATIONS IN SWEDEN AND TO ASSUAGE FEARS ABOUT ONWARD EXTRADITION TO THE U.S. THEY REFUSED TO GIVE THEM, AND AS A RESULT, ECUADOR HAS GRANTED ASYLUM.

AMY GOODMAN: After the announcement that Julian Assange had been granted political asylum in Ecuador, ONE OF HIS LAWYERS IN SWEDEN, PER SAMUELSSON, URGED SWEDISH PROSECUTOR MARIANNE NY TO TRAVEL TO LONDON TO QUESTION ASSANGE.

PER SAMUELSSON: We can solve everything. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ARREST WARRANT WAS THAT THEY WANTED AN INTERROGATION WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN SWEDEN. NOW IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT IN SWEDEN because he has been granted political asylum, but then WE CAN DO IT IN LONDON. And that was—that is what we have been wanting all the time. And now I think IT’S TIME FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO CHANGE HER MIND AND GO ALONG THE LINE AND DO IT QUICKLY IN LONDON. THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE SOLVED. THEN THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT WILL DISAPPEAR, AND JULIAN ASSANGE CAN LEAVE THE EMBASSY AND GO TO ECUADOR AND SEEK PROTECTION FROM THE UNITED STATES.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Per Samuelsson, one of Julian Assange’s lawyers in Sweden. Jennifer Robinson, final comment on this and how long Julian Assange can remain in the Ecuadorean embassy in London?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: First of all, I agree entirely with Per Samuelsson, our colleague in Sweden, that IF THE SWEDISH PROSECUTOR WERE TO GO TO LONDON AND INTERVIEW HIM, THIS COULD ALL BE OVER, AND HE COULD GO TO ECUADOR TO SEEK PROTECTION FROM THE UNITED STATES. We have been offering his testimony from the U.K. as—from as early as October 2010. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR THIS ARREST WARRANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT HAS KEPT HIM UNDER HOUSE ARREST IN THE U.K. FOR MORE THAN 18 MONTHS. And if they were—if they took the option to use the mutual legal assistance treaty that is available to them, we wouldn’t—we simply wouldn’t be in this position. And that’s the best possible outcome for everyone involved, including the women in Sweden who have made these allegations.

As to the question about his—how long he could remain in the Ecuadorean embassy, we certainly wouldn’t like it to be an indefinite position. But, of course, ECUADOR HAS GRANTED PROTECTION, AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMOVES THE DIPLOMATIC STATUS OF THE ECUADOREAN EMBASSY, JULIAN CAN REMAIN IN THERE INDEFINITELY UNTIL HE SAFE PASSAGE CAN BE NEGOTIATED. Of course, we wouldn’t like to see that, and we think that the British government ought to give meaningful recognition of asylum rights by granting him safe passage. But unless and until that’s granted, he is subject to arrest when he walks outside the embassy. And at this stage, he is not willing to do that.

AMY GOODMAN: Jennifer Robinson, I want to thank you for being with us, the London-based legal adviser for Julian Assange. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll speak with perhaps the United States’ most famous whistleblower, Dan Ellsberg. Stay with us.

==============

MORE ON JULIAN ASSANGE CASE IN DEMOCRACY NOW

DANIEL ELLSBERG: I CONGRATULATE ECUADOR FOR STANDING UP TO BRITISH EMPIRE TO PROTECT JULIAN ASSANGE
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/daniel_ellsberg_i_congratulate_ecuador_for

EXTRACTS:

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: For more on Julian Assange, we’re joined by Daniel Ellsberg, perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower. He leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He joins us from Berkeley.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Dan Ellsberg, your response to the latest developments of the decision of Ecuador to grant asylum?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, I congratulate Ecuador, of course, for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act. And I think they’ve done the right thing. I appreciate what they’ve done.

AMY GOODMAN: And the British government first threatening to raid the Ecuadorean embassy in London, also saying they would arrest Julian Assange if he attempted to leave to go to Ecuador, but also saying they’d actually raid the embassy?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: It’s an outrageous proposal, which actually undermines the security of every diplomat in the world, in this country right now. I would say it has a chilling effect right now, the very fact that that possibility has been raised. I’m old enough to remember the occasion that gave rise to that, actually. I remember when a Libyan official shot from the Libyan embassy in London and killed a British female officer—Vivian [Yvonne Joyce Fletcher], I think her name was—in 1984. The result of that was that they removed diplomatic recognition from Libya altogether, sent everybody home. They didn’t raid the embassy on that occasion, but that led three years later to a law that permitted them, under extraordinary circumstances, to do that again.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dan Ellsberg, again, the extraordinary efforts that are being taken here by the British government—and, obviously, the Swedish government—supposedly just to question him on allegations of a sexual attack, not even actual charges.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEXUAL CHARGES IN SWEDEN, ESSENTIALLY, THAT THAT’S A COVER STORY—whatever substance there may be to that story. But the procedures that have been followed here are extraordinary: a red notice here, very unusually given, never under these circumstances, to arrest him and these heavy efforts to extradite him, after HE HAD OFFERED EITHER TO BE QUESTIONED BY THE PROSECUTOR HERSELF OR BY SOME REPRESENTATIVE OF HER IN THE SWEDISH EMBASSY OR THE BRITISH EMBASSY OR BY BRITISH POLICE IN LONDON, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessary—all of that being refused. Why?

[WE ARE] In a situation where THIS MAN IS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES BY NO COUNTRY—NOT BY SWEDEN, NOT BY BRITAIN, NOT BY THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY IN FACT BE A SECRET INDICTMENT ALREADY WAITING FOR HIM IN THE UNITED STATES, BEING DENIED OR LIED ABOUT RIGHT NOW BY MY COUNTRY. BUT NO CHARGES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC. So, here, all this emphasis just to get him charged—just to get him questioned, rather, when he’s offered himself for questioning, even right now in the Ecuadorean embassy.

THE STATE OF ECUADOR HAS ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY PROPOSED THAT THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE ECUADOREAN EMBASSY OR ELSEWHERE AND IN LONDON. AND THAT HAS BEEN REFUSED. ALL OF THIS SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT THIS IS MERELY A WAY OF GETTING HIM TO SWEDEN, WHICH APPARENTLY WOULD BE EASIER TO EXTRADITE HIM FROM TO THE UNITED STATES THAN BRITAIN. If Britain were totally open to extraditing him, it would have happened by now. Two years have passed. But HE’S AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN, A MEMBER OF THE COMMONWEALTH, AND THE CRITERIA FOR EXTRADITING SOMEBODY WHO’S BEEN TELLING THE TRUTH AND IS WANTED FOR WHAT CAN ONLY BE A POLITICAL CRIME IN ANOTHER COUNTRY ARE APPARENTLY MORE STRINGENT HERE THAN THEY MIGHT BE IN SWEDEN.

So I think that—in fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasn’t been made as clear what might be waiting for him as I think one can conjecture.

THE NEW NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—and I’m a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional. But on its face, THAT ACT COULD BE USED AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE OR BRADLEY MANNING, IF HE WEREN’T ALREADY IN MILITARY CUSTODY. Julian Assange, although a civilian, and not an American civilian at that, would seem to me, a layman, to be clearly subject to the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, putting in military detention for suspicion of giving aid to an enemy, which he’s certainly been accused of by high American officials. I don’t see why he couldn’t be put in indefinite contention, without even the charges that I faced 40 years ago for doing the exact same things that he did.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange’s statement after the Ecuadorean government granted him political asylum, he said, "I’m grateful to the Ecuadorean people, President Rafael Correa and his government. It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin American nation. While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented U.S. investigation against WikiLeaks must be stopped."

And Assange went on to say, "While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorean government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days. The task of protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, its supporters and its alleged sources continue." That from Julian Assange’s statement yesterday. Final comment, Dan Ellsberg?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Absolutely. There’s no reason to believe that he would get what in past years, including my time when I was prosecuted, would pass for a fair trial or for fair treatment in this country. I’m sorry to say that there’s been something like a coup some 10 years ago, an executive coup against our Constitution and against the separation of government. It’s outrageous that Bradley Manning’s trial has again been postponed by the action of the government 'til next spring. He will have spent—he's already spent more than 800 days in confinement, 10 months of it and more in conditions that Amnesty International called torture. The idea that President Obama ended torture is simply not true. He didn’t end it even in this country, in terms of isolated commitment, incommunicado, basically, and conditions of nudity, in some cases, intended to humiliate him—all intended to press him to cop a plea and reduce his sentence from the life sentence they’re asking to a much lower sentence, if he will only implicate Julian Assange in ways that would allow them to bring a trial without great embarrassment.

Now, let me enlarge on that for a moment. They don’t have to extradite anyone to bring someone under these charges under the WikiLeaks disclosures. Everything Julian Assange could possibly be charged with under our law was committed as an act by Bill Keller, the president—sorry, the managing editor of—the executive editor of the New York Times. I don’t mean the New York Times should be indicted or that Keller should be indicted. That would be an outrage, just as it is an outrage to think of indicting Julian Assange for exactly the same thing. But meanwhile, Bradley Manning is facing charges that he aided the enemy, absurd charges that amount virtually to treason. And many people have even called for execution of either of them. Well, obviously, the same charges then could lead to Julian Assange being tried under the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has just been found unconstitutional by a courageous and right-thinking judge in the first—in the district of Manhattan—

AMY GOODMAN: Dan Ellsberg, thanks so much for being with us, perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower. He leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, joining us from University of California, Berkeley

=================