US rejects 'diplomatic asylum' for Assange

[Lars77]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKYWl4EWbuSdL0fRiztlDzKfBuqg?docId=CNG.aecbd662d77fe1aaff8529efdade4379.511

WASHINGTON — The United States said Friday that it did not believe in "diplomatic asylum" after Ecuador offered to let WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stay indefinitely in its embassy in London.

Ecuador has turned to the Organization of American States, which met Thursday and Friday in Washington, after deciding to offer asylum to the Internet activist who is wanted in Sweden on sexual assault allegations.

Under a 1954 agreement, the Organization of American States agreed to allow asylum in diplomatic missions for "persons being sought for political reasons," although not individuals indicted for "common offenses."

"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," the State Department said in a statement.

[Cleita]

1. K&R

[datasuspect]

2. this country is a rogue state in a lot of ways.

[Purveyor]

3. Sadly, I'm believing that more and more as time passes. It won't last. Trust me the gig is about

up.

This country is broke and we have swaggered our ass on the world stage for just about the last time.

War with Iran should do the 'trick'...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Since 1954?

[datasuspect]

14. nah. i'd say since JFK had the temerity to think he ran shit.

[hifiguy]

35. Ding, ding, ding!

The CIA and military intelligence killed a President of the United States who dared to stand up to them and did it in broad daylight, then got away with it unscathed.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. No country apart from those in Latin America party to the OAS Convention recognises it.

"Diplomatic asylum" is not an accepted concept in international law.

[datasuspect]

12. good thing we can do summary executions without trials anywhere on the globe then.

or in other words, those zany meskins down in south mexico america and their silly laws, treaties, and agreements! what were they thinking?

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. Fang Lizh and Chen Guangcheng used it at the US embassy.

While the United States did not sign or ratify the 1954 convention on diplomatic asylum, it has often used the safety of its embassies to protect activists in authoritarian countries.

In May, Chinese human rights campaigner Chen Guangcheng fled to the US embassy in Beijing after evading house arrest and beatings.

China eventually allowed Chen to leave for the United States to study.

Fang Lizhi, a key figure in the pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, lived in the US embassy in Beijing with his wife for more than one year before he was allowed to go into exile in the United States in a deal brokered with Japan.

....

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. No, actually, they didn't

A negotiated solution staved off a similar diplomatic drama between the United States and China this year. The blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng had escaped house arrest and sought refuge inside the U.S. embassy. Unlike the Assange case, however, Chen did not ask for asylum and none was granted. Instead, New York University invited Chen to study there, and China agreed to let him go.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/17/world/uk-assange-international-law/index.html

After the high drama of a 400-mile dash to freedom across northern China, Chen Guangcheng, a blind legal activist now reportedly under the protection of U.S. diplomats in Beijing, confronts more mundane challenges: filling in forms, listening to warnings about potential peril ahead, and waiting while U.S. and Chinese officials haggle over his fate.

That, at least, is what happened back in the summer of 1989 when Fang Lizhi, a dissident Chinese astrophysicist, entered the U.S. mission in Beijing a day after the June 4 Tiananmen Square massacre and asked diplomats there for protection.

The diplomats “were mildly discouraging but didn’t rule out helping,” recalled Perry Link, a Princeton University China scholar who accompanied Fang. They explained that Fang would need to get to American soil before he could request political asylum.

To get the ball rolling, Fang filled in a visa application, the first step in what he hoped would be a swift journey to safety. It was more than a year before he got to the United States, ostensibly for medical treatment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/dissident-drama-recalls-story-of-fang-lizhi/2012/04/28/gIQA3WSeoT_story.html

There's a difference between sanctuary and asylum.

[leveymg]

20. Tell that to Cardinal József Mindszenty who spent 15 years at the US Embassy in Budapest.

This Administration and the State Dept. are getting really practiced at transparent multiple standards.

[hack89]

31. There appears to be a difference between political and diplomatic asylum

not sure what the difference is but I am still looking.

Wiki has this to say:

A right of diplomatic asylum is not established in international law. The International Court of Justice has emphasized that in the absence of treaty or customary rules to the contrary, a decision by a mission to grant asylum involves a derogation from the sovereignty of the receiving state. The Organization of American States agreed a convention in 1954.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_law#Diplomatic_asylum

[leveymg]

41. The right to asylum is conferred under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. No distinction

in the '51 Convention and '67 Protocols between the two for a grant of asylum by a signatory state to a person with "a well-founded fear of persecution." Each state is left to its own administrative methods for granting asylum. All states consider their embassies to be their sovereign territory, and it's up to each to decide whether to grant refugee status at an embassy.

The "distinction" that the State Dept is trying to draw is just more obfuscation.

[hack89]

43. Then why is the OAS the only group that appears to recognize diplomatic asylum?

there must be some sort of difference.

[leveymg]

45. It's the only group to recognize a difference that doesn't otherwise exist in refugee law.

There must have been some occasion where the OAS felt it necessary to highlight the fact that asylum in embassies is part of the right and power of a signatory state to grant asylum more generally. It doesn't otherwise change the same right and power elsewhere.

[hack89]

47. CNN has just posted a primer on the matter

The prevailing view that diplomatic asylum is not part of accepted international law was settled in a case between Peru and Colombia before the International Court of Justice in 1950.

Victor de la Haya, a Peruvian, led an unsuccessful rebellion in Peru and was wanted by authorities there. He hid in the Colombian embassy in Lima and asked for, and received asylum from Colombia. Peru, however, refused to grant safe passage. Sound familiar?

The court ruled that diplomatic asylum is not recognized unless treaties or other agreements are in place between countries.

So today, "in general international law there isn't actually a right to grant diplomatic asylum, or at least other states aren't required to respect it," said Matthew Happold, an international law expert at the University of Luxembourg.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/world/uk-assange-international-law/index.html

[leveymg]

50. That predates the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. Moot. Sorry.

Happold is as FOS as the DOS on this one.

Look up the Convention and Protocols. It's perfectly clear that any Convention signatory may convey refugee status, and that procedure is up to each state, and that all other signatories must respect that status. I'm speaking from decades of experience in the refugee and immigration law fields.

You seem to have turned this vendetta against Assange into a job. Don't bother lecturing others on these matters here unless you really know what you're talking about.

[hack89]

51. There doesn't appear to be an international consensus forming around your theory

so I guess we will just have to see how this plays out.

[leveymg]

52. That's because the 800lb gorilla still dominates that consensus, and others keep their mouths shut

if they know what's good for them.

[backscatter712]

53. That's right. You only have the right to asylum if the US likes you. n/t

[hack89]

56. OK nt.

[hack89]

54. But the accords also have specific definitions of what a refugee is and is not

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded
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

Where exactly is he a refugee from? Australia - the country of his nationality? Can't be Sweden or Britain - they are not the countries of his nationality are they?

The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with
respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to
make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of
refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

The accords cannot be use to protect common criminals.

[backscatter712]

59. Ah, that explains why the UK gave up Pinochet to Spain!

Oh wait...

[hack89]

61. Pinochet never claimed refugee status or asylum from any country

he claimed immunity from prosecution as a former head of state under the State Immunity Act 1978.

[leveymg]

66. Again, you are wrong. Pinochet's immunity claim was rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Immunity_Act_1978

In 1998 the defence attempted to use it during Augusto Pinochet's arrest and trial, but Lord Nicholls said that the Act flouted a battery of international legislation on human rights abuses to which Britain is a signatory, and would have meant, according to the arguments of Pinochet's legal team, that British law would have protected even Adolf Hitler.

[hack89]

70. Since I never claimed it was accepted, how can I be wrong?

I was just pointing out that Pinochet's case was not an asylum case.

[leveymg]

72. Your point was misleading. Made it seem that Pinochet had immunity, which he didn't.

No doubt, Pinochet's lawyers decided for obvious reasons not to formally seek asylum in the UK. He didn't need it for a long time, because for years action against him was delayed. He had friends who looked out for him:

[hack89]

74. Since I merely said that he "claimed immunity"

I can't see how you can think I claimed he actually did have immunity. Especially in the context of the discussion.

You are trying to hard here - you don't need to put words in my mouth to argue your point.

[leveymg]

62. I've already explained that to you, hack. You're simply wrong on all counts.

Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2012, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

1) If the refugee claimant's home country won't protect that individual, the person fearing persecution is entitled to a grant of refugee status in any signatory state. It doesn't have to be Australia that would do the persecuting - he's entitled to asylum in any third country that finds that Australia would deliver the claimant into the hands of potential persecutors, no matter whom they may be. It's called the protection again "refoulement" under the UN Convention. Refugee protection has universal jurisdiction by all countries that signed it, and local immunities don't apply -- Australia and the US -- are obligated by its terms. No exceptions for 800 lb. gorillas or snappy dressers with really big guns.

2) The exclusion to refugee eligibility is for "particularly serious non-political crime", and crime requires a conviction. An exception to the conviction requirement is made for those who are determined to have persecuted others in wars or otherwise.

You don't know what you pretend to be writing about.

[backscatter712]

64. Upton Sinclair said it best:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[hack89]

69. Considering how no one else seems to agree with you

I question your expertise. If posting pictures of big cannons is part of your logic then perhaps you have edged towards conspiracy land.

Time will tell - you can have the last word if you wish.

[leveymg]

73. Aside from CNN, you've cited no sources. What are they?

I seriously doubt there is any sort of professional consensus that there is any real distinction between refugee status and "diplomatic asylum." What you're repeating is spin that's coming from some sources at Foggy Bottom and Whitehall to justify the harassment of Assange and the government of Ecuador.

[hack89]

75. Time will tell. nt

[tama]

39. Luis Posada

In legalese diplomatic asylum may be a special OAS case of more general concept of political asylum. Which US at least de facto grants to dictators and terrorist murderers like Posada. According to Wikipedia:

"2010 Texas trial
“ The bottom line is that the Justice Department is trying to hold him accountable for horrible acts of terrorism ... This trial can confirm what everybody already knows, (that) Luis Posada is a leading purveyor of terrorism. ”

— Peter Kornbluh, National Security Archive, Feb 25, 2010 [61]

Posada was accused of lying to U.S. authorities and about his alleged involvement in bomb attacks in Havana in 1997, and went on trial in Texas.[61][17] However many of his backers in the Cuban exile community gathered thousands of dollars for his defense during what they termed a "radio marathon" on Radio Mambí.[61] The tried case against Posada began after he sailed illegally into the United States and applied for political asylum. However, he was not being tried for killing the 73 people aboard the Cubana airliner or the tourists in Havana; his charges revolved around lying to immigration agents about his trip to the U.S. and illegally crossing the border.[61] Prosecutors allege that he deceived them about his passport and arrived on a boat named the Santrina, not on a bus as he had told the government during interviews.[61]

A footnote in a document filed by Posada's lead defense attorney on January 28, 2010, is quite revealing about the kind of classified information that Posada Carriles threatens to expose in the course of the trial. His attorney, Arturo Hernández, argues in that motion, "The Defendant's CIA relationship, stemming from his work against the Castro regime through his anti-communist activities in Venezuela and Central America, are relevant and admissible to his defense." The motion furthermore alleges that the US government had been complicit in bomb-setting in Cuba and asked the court to compel the government to declassify all information that shows the "involvement, knowledge, acquiescence and complicity [of the U.S. Government] in sabotage or bombings in Cuba." Also, the motion requests disclosure of "[t]raining, instructions, memos or other documents reflecting orders to the Defendant to maintain secrecy and not disclose his relationship or information regarding his activities on behalf of the U.S. Government or any of its Agencies." Venezuelan state attorney José Pertierra has interpreted the "bombings" in question as being the 1997 bombings of tourism areas in Cuba, and not necessarily the Cubana Airliner bombing (which did not occur "in Cuba&quot .[62]

Posada was found not guilty on all charges against him.[17][42] After the trial he hugged his lawyers and told reporters he was grateful to the US, the court and the jury for what he said was a fair trial, saying that, "What happened here should serve as an example for justice in my country, Cuba, which is unfortunately in the hands of a dictator."[63]"

"He currently resides in Miami, where he openly attends "right-wing exile fundraisers" and participates in public protests against Fidel Castro's Cuba.[23]"

To me that reads that Posada threatened to publicly expose his participation in US state terrorism if the charges against him are not made go away and political asylum granted. And got what he wanted.

[byeya]

5. Way to go Hillary, you Goldwater girl you.

I hope Assange is able to get to safety.

[hifiguy]

6. Tough shit. Ecuador is a soverign nation

that is entitled by international law to make its own decisions on such matters whether Big Daddy USA likes it or not.

More proof that what's going on here is much more than meets the eye.

[datasuspect]

8. so was Iraq

[leveymg]

25. so was Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958) . . .

etc., etc. - we've been overthrowing sovereign governments, some of them multiple times, for decades. It's about the only way we're still #1. We're #1. It's why we're so beloved around the world, and feel so secure inside our own borders.

[hifiguy]

27. I laugh, but only ironically.

You are so right.

[leveymg]

29. U.S. foreign policy has been in reruns so long, it's broadcast in black-and-white.

[backscatter712]

7. If all it was was a case of "date rape" or a "broken condom", the US wouldn't give a shit.

They'd just say this was an issue between the UK and Sweden and stay out of it. They're not doing that.

The fact that they're speaking up at all indicates they've got skin in this game, and they want Assange badly.

[datasuspect]

9. some super important wealthy people ended up with egg on their face

they will not take that kind of shit.

[RobertEarl]

22. Revenge

That's what it is all about. Assange made many VIPs look very, very stupid and they want revenge.

And the politiicans want to make an example of Assange to keep anyone else from exposing their dastardly actions.

[tsuki]

32. Revenge, possibly, but I tend to think it is a case of

"successful defiance" that they cannot allow. That is why they have tried to assassinate Castro so many times.

[hifiguy]

15. Yep. And if they get him

he will never be seen alive again.

[datasuspect]

17. yep.

we can kill anyone, anywhere without due process of law.

whatever is expedient for our owners. whatever they want, they will get.

[The Magistrate]

11. Why Our Government Thinks It Has Any Say In This, Sir, Mystifies Me....

[datasuspect]

13. UHHHMERICA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!!

because we are the champions! USA! IN YOUR FACE!




oy.

[The Magistrate]

16. Number One In Bestness, Sir

Or so I have seen it claimed....

[hack89]

30. Because they are a member of the Organization of American States?

and Ecuador just presented the issue to the OAS?

[The Magistrate]

34. Evidently, Sir, We Do Not Consider Its Conventions Binding On Us....

But that aside, Ecuador does recognize this, along with other O.A.S. members, and the man is in an Ecuadorean embassy, which is located on the soil of the United Kingdom, not the United States. So it is very hard to see where the United States fits into this, unless one is ready to drop the pretense that the United States is not seeking to lay hands on Mr. Assange, and was at least hoping this could be contrived were he in Sweden, the government of which is known to have, on at least one occasion, connived at the abduction from Swedish soil by U.S. agents of persons our government wanted custody of.

[hack89]

44. Since we specifically did not sign that convention in 1954

why would it be binding?

We fit in only as a member of an organization that was asked to support Ecuador's actions in Britain. Since diplomatic asylum is not commonly recognized in international law and since America specifically rejected it in 1954, America gave the OAS it's official position on the matter.

[struggle4progress]

40. ... "We believe this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom and that

that the OAS has no role to play in this matter" ...

from the link in the OP, quoting the State Department regarding the proposed OAS meeting on the matter

[backscatter712]

55. Oh, that's right, the OAS has no say, only the US does! n/t

[struggle4progress]

67. The OAS plans a meeting on Ecuador's asylum; the US belong to the OAS; so the US is asked

to comment on the matter; and the US says it's not an OAS issue

I presume that's exactly the stance that the US will take at the OAS meeting: the matter is between Ecuador and the UK. It would be consistent with what Ecuador says the US told them about the extradition request:

... Finalmente, el Ecuador dirigió una comunicación al Gobierno de Estados Unidos para conocer oficialmente su posición sobre el caso Assange ... La respuesta de los Estados Unidos ha consistido en que no puede ofrecer información al respecto del caso Assange, alegando que es un asunto bilateral entre Ecuador y Reino Unido ...

[Marrah_G]

42. Things that make you go hmmmmm

[kenny blankenship]

19. Let's be frank: the US doesn't recognize international law, period

It has shown nothing but contempt for international law and its various organs -eg: the World Court, the ICC, the UN- since the enShrubefication of 12 December 2000. And nothing has changed. The US uses international law like Kleenex on a whore's nightstand. It helps itself to tissues freely as needed. (Included as part of the package price, isn't it, or doesn't ten dollars buy a good time anymore?) When it's not needed, it is avoided, disregarded and probably not even noticed.

[dembotoz]

21. the problems with other countries is that the are ummmmm independent?????

if we invade their embassy don't other nations have the right to invade ours?????


quite often this county makes me sad

[Downwinder]

23. Send out the drones.

[riderinthestorm]

26. Oh well THAT'S going to go over well with the Central and Latin American countries

Obama and Admin are THIS desperate??!! They're willing to piss off even the emerging economies down there? Our closest future trading partners (including one of the biggest, Brazil, who are all allied with even the smallies like Ecuador?)

[lunatica]

28. Like I keep saying, this is an International Incident

I can't wait for the movie!

[malaise]

33. Huh then why did they let that blind guy from China hide in the US Embassy

and them move him and his family to the US.

No international law only applies to the imperialists.

[tammywammy]

37. See post 24. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

36. That the US felt it had to weigh in on this AT ALL says everything

I mean if Assange is of no concern to the US, then there was no need to issue this very public statement slamming the Ecuadoreans.

The US's very statement indicts them.

Right now, this is a matter between the UK and Ecuador. Period.

[backscatter712]

60. Exactly - the US has made it clear they're very interested in this case.

Very unusual if this was only about a broken condom and sex-while-sleeping in Sweden.

[fascisthunter]

38. What the US says is becoming irrelevent

because of it own corruption. Only a weirdo would be proud of corruption.

[flobee1]

46. I googled pics of the embassy

the buildings on each side are close enough that he can escape through one side or the other. I'd be willing to bet that he left some time ago.

[backscatter712]

68. Not likely - London cops are everywhere in that area, specifically looking for him.

His best bet is to stay in the embassy - he's got asylum, and thus protection for the time being.

[struggle4progress]

77. The Ecuadorian embassy is only one flat in that building

[Jack Rabbit]

48. So, the state who housed Cardinal Mindszenty for decades in its Budapest embassy

. . . suddenly doesn't believe in diplomatic asylum.

O Dick Cheney, thou art mighty yet.

[hack89]

49. The Hungarian government had the legal high ground in that particular case

Just like the British do now.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. As Emil Zola said, "The law is an ass."

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

[center]-- Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail[/center]

[hack89]

58. So who was right in that case - the US or the Hungarians? nt

[Jack Rabbit]

63. If one is a lawyer, the Hungarians at least had a case

If one is a human rights activist, Cardinal Mindszenty was right all along and the US was right to give him asylum.

[leveymg]

65. Under the '51 UN Convention, the US could grant asylum to the Cardinal. Certainly, today, Ecuador

can do so with recognition of Assange's refugee status consistent with the '51 Refugee Convention and the '67 Protocols, as well.

[99Forever]

71. Is this the face the Obama Administration really wants to show to World?

The face the Obama Administration wants to show the American voter?

Can they really be that blind to what sort of light this puts them in?





This is a deal breaker for MANY people.

[struggle4progress]

78. The US won't take sides in the disagreement between the UK and Ecuador! Quick! Fetch my salts!

[Ezlivin]

76. 9/11 gave us the right to any fucking thing we want

We were victims and we have the right to destroy this world, if necessary, to make it better.

At least that's the reasoning I see in our government now.

[struggle4progress]

79. DU rages as US stays out of bilateral dispute! News at 11 or whenever our meds kick in!