Ratner here presents a comprehensive and cogent understanding of why Julean Assange has taken refuge. Whatever your opinion, his facts and reasoning have to be taken into consideration. -Ed
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/20/julian_assange_of_wikileaks_seeks_asyl um Julian Assange of WikiLeaks Seeks Asylum in Ecuador in Attempt to Avoid Extradition to U.S. NERMEEN SHAIKH: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has taken refuge in Ecuadors embassy in London and asked for asylum. Assange made the move Tuesday in a last-ditch bid to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex crime accusations. Earlier today, police in London announced Assange is now subject to arrest because his decision to spend the night at the Ecuadorian embassy violated the conditions of his bail. Assange is seeking asylum because he fears extradition to Sweden may lead to his transfer to the United States, where he could potentially face charges relating to WikiLeaks. In an apparent reference to the United States, an Ecuadorian official said Assange fears being extradited, quote, "to a country where espionage and treason are punished with the death penalty." The Ecuadorian government says Assange can stay at the embassy for now as it reviews his request for asylum. In a statement, the Ecuadorian embassy said, quote: "As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito." *** Go to <http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/20/julian_assange_of_wikileaks_seeks_asy lum> http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/20/julian_assange_of_wikileaks_seeks_asyl um for the video In 2010, Ecuador invited Assange to seek residency there but quickly backed away from the idea, accusing him of breaking U.S. laws. AMY GOODMAN: In a moment, well be joined by one of Julian Assanges lawyers. But first I want to turn to a recent episode of Julian Assanges TV show, The World Tomorrow, on RT, in which he interviewed Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. JULIAN ASSANGE: President Correa, why did you want us to release all the cables? PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Those who dont owe anything have nothing to fear. We have nothing to hide. Your WikiLeaks have made us stronger, as the main accusations made by the American embassy were due to our excessive nationalism and defense of the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian government. Indeed, we are nationalists. Indeed, we do defend the sovereignty of our country. On the other hand, WikiLeaks wrote a lot about the goals that the national media pursue, about the power groups who seek help and report to foreign embassies. We have absolutely nothing to fear. Let them publish everything they have about the Ecuadorian government. AMY GOODMAN: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange interviewing Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa on his show, The World Tomorrow, on RT. Well, for more on Julian Assanges decision to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and in Ecuador, were joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Michael, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about this surprise move of Julian Assange. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I was completely surprised by it. In fact, I got a tweet fromor, no, a text message from you, Amy, that said, "Michael, Julian Assange has gone into the Ecuadorian embassy." So that really surprised me. On the other hand, if you look at what he was facing, I hadIve been really very upset and nervous for, really, since he lost the decision in the High Court of England on the 14th of June, because heres his situation. Hes about to be extradited now to Sweden. Sweden does not have bail. Now, these are on allegations of sex chargesallegations, no chargesand theyre to interrogate Julian Assange. But despite that, he would have been in prison in Sweden. At that point, our view is that there was a substantial chance that the U.S. would ask for his extradition to the United States. So here you have him walking the streets in Londonsure, under bail conditions; going to a jail in Sweden, where hes in prison, almost an incommunicado prison; U.S. files extradition; he remains in prison; and the next thing that happens is whatever time it takes him to fight the extradition in Sweden, hes taken to the United States. Theres no chance then to make political asylum application any longer. In addition, once he comes to the United Stateswe just hold up Bradley Manning as example one of what will happen to Julian Assange: a underground cell, essentially abuse, torture, no ability to communicate with anybody, facing certainly good chance of a life sentence, with a possibility, of course, of one of these charges being a death penalty charge. So, he was in an impossible situation. And in my view, it was ait is a situation of political persecution of Julian Assange for his political activities. And it does fit within the asylumthe asylum application procedure under the Declaration of Human Rights, which is what President Correa and/or at least what the embassy in London was mentioning. His choices were terriblenot that theyre so great right now. I mean, now hes in the embassy in London. Hes asked for political asylum. The Ecuadorians will decide whether to give him political asylum or not. Assuming they do, whatever time it takes, what happens then? He gets political asylum, how does he then leave the embassy? And thats a difficult question. He made needthe Ecuadorians could ask the British for a safe passage to get him out of London and into Ecuador. On the other hand, its conceivable that the English couldthe Britishers, the U.K., could arrest him if he tries to leave the embassy, even if its in a diplomatic car. And while I think that might be illegal, its taking a big chance. So now he is in the embassy and having to stay there indefinitely until the situation can resolve. But let me just say, the other situation was so terrible, in my view, the extradition to Sweden, which was reallyits not about the charges in Sweden. Theres no charges. Its not about the allegations in Sweden or the interrogation. I think if the United States tomorrow said, "We will not be prosecuting WikiLeaks or Julian Assange, there will be no indictment of him, the grand jury is over," etc., etc., I dont think Julian AssangeI havent spoken to him about thisI dont think he would have any issue about going to Sweden for interrogation on these charges. Its reallywhat this is about is the United States wanting to get their hands on him, put him into an underground cell with no communications, giving him life imprisonment. And, of course, people have already called for his death in the United States. And he was faced with really a terrible situation, consideringconsidering that he is the person who, as a publisher and journalist, has exposed massive U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and the WikiLeaks cables. NERMEEN SHAIKH: His extradition proceedings were supposed to commence next week, June 28th. Do you have any idea how long an application for political asylum, such as the one that hes filed, normally takesI mean, for Ecuador to make a decision? MICHAEL RATNER: Im not sure I understood, the extradition proceedings. He was NERMEEN SHAIKH: Sorry, sending him to Sweden, the decision to MICHAEL RATNER: Right, the decision to go to Sweden, he would have had to be in Sweden by July 7th. So its very soon. You canas people in the United States know, if you apply for political asylum, those political asylum applications can take a week, or they can drag on for two, three, four, five, six, seven years. So we dont know what Ecuador will do. We do know that, from what you played on President Correa, that he was sympathetic to WikiLeaks, even thoughits interestingsome of those cables skewered some of the current government in Ecuador. And in fact, the U.S. ambassador lost his job for calling some part of the Ecuadorian police corrupt. The U.S. ambassador was kicked out. So that even though some of those skewered some part of the Correa government, President Correa was willing to say, "I believe in what WikiLeaks is doing. We need transparency, and WikiLeaks is taking a very positive step." AMY GOODMAN: For people who arent following this that closely, you talked about thean indictment againstagainst Assange by the United States, a grand jury, a secret grand jury. What do you understand the U.S. wants with Assange? And why wouldnt they have moved on that while he was in Britain? I mean, he wasnt walking a free man, but he was able to walk around during the day. MICHAEL RATNER: Right. AMY GOODMAN: And he was home at night. So they could have gotten him any time. MICHAEL RATNER: Right. It would havefor the U.S. to move within Britain, of course, it would have complicated matters a great deal, because then hes facing a Swedisha Swedish prosecution, and then the U.S. comes in. So what happens to the U.S.to the U.S. indictment? And then, of course, Julian Assange gets notice that hes been indicted in the United States, and of course it makes his situation more precarious. And in addition, he would have probably been able to remain on the streets in London, whereas the U.S., really, I think, probably understood that as soon as he gets into Sweden, hes in prison, he maythose charges may not amountnot charges, those allegations may not amount to anything once he testifies, once he gives evidence, and then they can keep him in prison with this warrant. And I also think that, if you look at the situation, Sweden versus the U.K., the U.K. can take years to get someone extradited. I mean, we know of the caseI forgot his name, but the young man who supposedly hacked into the Pentagon computer to find out about UFOsseven, eight years on his extradition. Incredible extradition lawyers in London. Its a big country. Sweden, whatever we think of Sweden, its justice system certainly seems to have some problems, because Julian Assange would be in jail without bail. And also, its a smaller country and just can be knocked around more by the United States. AMY GOODMAN: And why the U.S. wants Julian Assange? Why the U.S. would prosecute him over WikiLeaks? This is nothing to do with the sex crimes charges. MICHAEL RATNER: No, its nothing, but its the ultimate issue in this case. The allegations about sex crimes, as I said, I think will be disposed of quickly. I dont think those are the issues underlying. It hasit has really AMY GOODMAN: And we should sayI shouldnt say "sex crimes charges" MICHAEL RATNER: Right. AMY GOODMAN: because he wasnt charged. MICHAEL RATNER: He wasnt AMY GOODMAN: Allegations of sex crimes thatwhere he would be questioned in Sweden, and possibly let go. MICHAEL RATNER: Oh, thats very conceivable. I mean, its very conceivable. But when you say "possibly let go," its important to understand, hes in prison while that proceeding is going on. The minutethe minutethere would be someone in courtassuming theres an indictment of Julian Assange, there would be someone in courtwhen they say, "We order you released," they would file the warrant at that moment, and Julian Assange would not be able to leave the court, would be back in prison, and would be in the United States, where only his lawyers will probably be able to communicate with him. And I probably wouldnt be able to say a word about what he ever said to me. But lets look at what hes facing. The claim would be that hes being investigated for espionage, essentially for transmitting, you know, quote, "secrets" of the U.S. government, that were classified, that could harm the United States in some way. And thats the espionage indictment. Thats what Bradley Manning is being looked at for, under military law. And thats what they would want to look at Julian Assange for. And theres a grand jury thats been going on really since at least 2011. We have the Stratfor emails that says thatthat say that theres a sealed indictment against Julian Assange. We have recently two people who have some association with WikiLeaks being questioned again by the FBI byaround whatabout Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. AMY GOODMAN: Who is that? MICHAEL RATNER: Zimmerman and McCarthy. One is from France, one is from Iceland. Again, questioned by the FBI about Julian Assange. This is an active investigation. We have, in Bradley Mannings case, what came out at the Article 32 AMY GOODMAN: The young U.S. private who is accused of releasing tens of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks. MICHAEL RATNER: Right, and Bradley Manning is in a court-martial proceeding going on in Fort Meade. As part of that examination, as part of that court-martial proceeding, an FBI agent was asked about who else is being investigated here, and he said seven other civilians are being investigated with regard towith regard to WikiLeaks. And who are they? He saidhe didnt give the names, but he said these are "Are these people who are managers or founders of WikiLeaks?" And he said, "Yes, they are." So were talking about an active investigation, most probable an indictment already. This is what Julian Assange was facing: never to see the light of day again, in my view, had he gone to Sweden. And so, hes in not a great situation now, in the sense that, look at, hes sitting in an embassy in London. He has to get political asylum. And then, how does he get out of the embassy? NERMEEN SHAIKH: But in response to some of these criticism, Swedish authorities have said that the European Court of Human Rights would intervene if Assange was to face the prospect of, quote, "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the U.S. MICHAEL RATNER: Wellwell, first of all, wait a second, Im not sure I understand that at all. The European Court of Human Rights only has jurisdiction over Europe. So, once hes in the United States, theres not much the European Court of Human Rights can do. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights recently came down with a major decision concerning four English Muslim men, and what they said was so negative and so outrageous, in my view, and such a denial of rights, that I would not depend on the European Court of Human Rights. They basically disregarded the fact that people spend years in solitary in the United States, that they get life sentences, that they have no waythat they havetheyre in communications managements units where they cant speak to each other. And despite all of that evidence in the European Court of Human Rights, they just approved the extradition of four youngof four people from the United Kingdom. So I would not put anything on the European Court of Human Rights as positive for this case. AMY GOODMAN: Lets go to Julian Assange in November, after he lost his initial appeal. JULIAN ASSANGE: I have not been charged with any crime in any country. Despite this, the European arrest warrant is so restrictive that it prevents U.K. courts from considering the facts of a case, as judges have made clear here today. We will be considering our next step in the days ahead. The full judgment will be available on swedenversusassange.com <http://www.swedenversusassange.com/> . No doubt there will been many attempts made to try and spin these proceedings as they occur today, but they are merely technical. So please go to swedenversusassange.com <http://www.swedenversusassange.com/> if you want to know whats really going on in this case. Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: That was Julian Assange last November. Michael Ratner, your response? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, he was talking about the restrictions on the arrest warrant and the case that actually he lost in Britain. His argument in Britain was that the Swedish prosecutor had asked for his extradition, and under the European arrest warrant, it needs to be a judge. A prosecutor has a bias, because the prosecutor wants to prosecute. And that had never really been considered by the British courts. It went all the way up to the highest court in Britain, which was a surprise, to begin with. And in the end, the highest court in Britain came down five-to-two against Julian Assange. But I think most people thinkmany of us think that was a political decision. What they didnt want to do was invalidate another European countrys process for extraditing people under the European warrant. So he lost that case in what many people would say was a politicala political decision. And thats when he was ordered to surrender and go to Swedennot go, hes picked up by the Swedish in Britain, hes put on an airplane, hes handcuffed, taken into Sweden, goes into a prison in Sweden. U.S. then, at some point, files their extradition warrant, and he, as I said, really never seesnever sees the light of day. NERMEEN SHAIKH: On his show, The World Tomorrow, Julian Assange asked Rafael Correa, Ecuadors president, about U.S. involvement in Latin America. Lets just go to that clip. JULIAN ASSANGE: What do Ecuadorian people think about the United States and its involvement in Latin America and in Ecuador? PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, as Evo Morales says, the only country that can be sure never to have a coup détat is the United States, because it hasnt got a U.S. embassy. In any event, Id like to say that one of the reasons that led to police discontent was the fact that we cut all the funding the U.S. embassy provided to the police. Before and even a year after we took office, we took a while to correct this. Before, there were whole police units, key units, fully funded by the U.S. embassy, whose officers in command were chosen by the U.S. ambassador and paid by the U.S. And so, we have increased considerably the polices pay. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Michael Ratner, your response? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, first of all, you have to remember, President Correa got rid of the U.S. military base in Ecuador. The WikiLeaks cable talked about the corruption of the police within Ecuador. And what you see President Correa says, well, they were being paid by the U.S. embassy. And, of course, his great line is that the only reason theres not a coup in the United States is theres no U.S. embassy, essentially, to plan it. So youre seeingyoure seeing a good part of this world understand the importance of what Bradley Manning allegedly did and understanding the importance of the publication by WikiLeaks of the diplomatic cables. Obviously not just in Ecuadorthe secret war in Yemen, in cases that my office has been concerned with about prosecution of Rumsfeld and others in Spainwe see the U.S. interference all over. And the positive part, a strong positive of WikiLeaks, is they exposed to the world not just the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but incredible hypocrisy in our own State Department. AMY GOODMAN: Finally, any precedent for people staying in embassies for years? MICHAEL RATNER: Not such great ones, in the sense that theyve been there for a long time. I mean, the one that comes mostly to mindof course, the Chinese guy, he only stayed in the U.S. embassy for a couple of weeks, Chen, because then you had the U.S.every diplomat in the world say, "Well, lets deal with the Chinese and get him out of the embassy and get him into the United States." We should only have that situation where thewhere people are going to the Ecuadorian embassy andor saying to the British, "Lets get him out and get him to Ecuador." I would love that. But the precedent that I think of, Amy, is Cardinal Mindszenty. Cardinal Mindszentymost people are too young for the Cold Warhe was a Catholic prelate in Poland, opposition to the Polish government, took refuge in the U.S. embassy in Warsaw, spent 13 years in the embassy in Warsaw. So, theres precedent for very long times in the embassy. I dontlook at, I want to see Julian AssangeI want to see no prosecution in the United States. I want to see him be able to go answer questions in Sweden without having the threat of immediate extradition to the United States, to deal with that and then to walk this world as a free person, having really done an incredible service to the peoples of the world. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, I want to thank you for being with us, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. This is Democracy Now! Were going to Rio+20. Were going to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil to talk about the largest U.N. summit on climate change ever. Stay with us. _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2179 / Virus Database: 2437/5082 - Release Date: 06/20/12 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
