[…] *Q. *… And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest that you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that you're not aware of it?
*MS. NULAND:* My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. […] *Q*: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that the Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- they agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United States under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a credible argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in the United States? *MS. NULAND:* No. *Q*: No? *MS. NULAND:* No. *Q*: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show up in the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you don't view that as -- *MS. NULAND:* I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. *Q*: OK. *MS. NULAND:* OK? *Q*: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face prosecution? *MS. NULAND:* Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not headed to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get into all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I reject that completely. *Q*: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the intention was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face prosecution in the United States? *MS. NULAND:* Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we were all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? Obviously, we have -- *Q*: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. *MS. NULAND:* Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going to send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? *Q*: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against him. *MS. NULAND:* I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on what their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade into it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? […] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm Victoria Nuland Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC August 16, 2012 *TRANSCRIPT:* *12:44 p.m. EDT* *MS. NULAND:* Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on your minds. *Q*: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? *MS. NULAND:* This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes. I don't have anything particular to add. *Q*: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a completely neutral, independent observer of it? *MS. NULAND:* Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject ourselves. *Q*: Have you not interjected yourself at all? *MS. NULAND:* Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he may end up going, no. *Q*: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. *MS. NULAND:* I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to that at all. *Q*: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States recognizes diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, presumably, within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? *MS. NULAND:* Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer to the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. *Q*: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic asylum. *MS. NULAND:* With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our legal position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get back to you. *Q*: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of the -- of the OAS and those signatories. And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest that you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that you're not aware of it? *MS. NULAND:* My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. [...] *Q*: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that the Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- they agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United States under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a credible argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in the United States? *MS. NULAND:* No. *Q*: No? *MS. NULAND:* No. *Q*: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show up in the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you don't view that as -- *MS. NULAND:* I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. *Q*: OK. *MS. NULAND:* OK? *Q*: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face prosecution? *MS. NULAND:* Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not headed to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get into all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I reject that completely. *Q*: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the intention was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face prosecution in the United States? *MS. NULAND:* Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we were all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? Obviously, we have -- *Q*: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. *MS. NULAND:* Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going to send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? *Q*: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against him. *MS. NULAND:* I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on what their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade into it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? *Q*: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it doesn't involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and that kind of thing. *MS. NULAND:* Right. *Q*: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved yourselves at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was going to raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other country, you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? *MS. NULAND:* As I said -- *Q*: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in Beijing to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to that, correct? *MS. NULAND:* As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have cited British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, international -- as compared to international law. So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether they have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under British law, I'm going to send you to them. *Q*: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there is international law here too, and presumably the United State would oppose or would condemn or at least express concerns about any government entering or violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the world, no? *MS. NULAND:* Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to what the status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the moment is. So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we are on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? *Q*: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in 1979, presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? *MS. NULAND:* That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of this on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? *Q*: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the Justice Department. Does that include -- *MS. NULAND:* I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to what Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. *Q*: Is there a U.S. case against him? *MS. NULAND:* I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't have the details. OK? Thanks, guys. (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) *DPB #146* -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org nai...@justforeignpolicy.org
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
