Ecuador President Says No Decision Made On Assange Asylum Request

[midas]

Scott here is another intriguing possibility to enable him to have safe passage to Ecuador

instead of refugee status Ecuador could theoretically appoint Assange one of its representatives to the United Nations

under rule 25 of the UN General Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. It’s true that a Credentials Committee (on which the United States sits at the moment, as a matter of interest) would consider and report on Assange’s appointment, and that the General Assembly would then make a decision on it – and could presumably reject him.

BUT

under rule 29, he would be “seated” provisionally until the General Assembly made its decision – and crucially, would have the same rights as other representatives. That presumably includes the special kind of diplomatic immunity granted by article IV, section 11 of the New York Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which says:

Representatives of Members to the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations, shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities:

(a) immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind;

Note that the immunity from personal arrest or detention applies not only while a representative exercises his functions, but in a more absolute sense when travelling to and from the place of meeting.

http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-04/privileges-and-immunities-un.xml

[chooka]

It is reasonably pretty good in the embassy which is exactly where he will be spending many years if Equador decides to hide him from facing jusice.

He still won't be able to go outside the grounds, but at least the Americans can't execute him and that is what he was seeking asylum on. The persecution he was facing from the U.S.

The US can more easily execute him if he is in Ecuador than if he is in the European Union and that is what Assange "claims" he is worried about. It just proves that Assange is a liar about his fears. When he goes to Ecuador and winds up dead with a year, I hope his supporters don't start crying around here since you guys wanted him there.

I think there is a huge difference to being on death row in a U.S prison and being assasinated. I do not think that the U.S would stoop that low as to assasinate the guy. If that was to happen the eyes of the world would automatically turn to the U.S.

[midas]

It is reasonably pretty good in the embassy which is exactly where he will be spending many years if Equador decides to hide him from facing jusice.

He still won't be able to go outside the grounds, but at least the Americans can't execute him and that is what he was seeking asylum on. The persecution he was facing from the U.S.

The US can more easily execute him if he is in Ecuador than if he is in the European Union and that is what Assange "claims" he is worried about. It just proves that Assange is a liar about his fears. When he goes to Ecuador and winds up dead with a year, I hope his supporters don't start crying around here since you guys wanted him there.

I think there is a huge difference to being on death row in a U.S prison and being assasinated. I do not think that the U.S would stoop that low as to assasinate the guy. If that was to happen the eyes of the world would automatically turn to the U.S.

I don't think they will care about that considering the helicopter strike featured in the video

that wikileaks exposed showed them killing around a dozen Iraqi civilians and two Reuters staff

and no one even had their wrists slapped

[Scott]

The entire area of diplomatic immunity is WAY over my head when it comes to the intricacies of the regulations and how they are enforced. Can a non-citizen be granted a diplomatic assignment for a country? Are other countries required to recognize diplomatic status? Can the appointment be made outside of the country?

Ecuador, in theory, may be able to appoint him as anything--even a member of it's diplomatic coup, but his credentials have to be recognized by the UK for example. If they don't, then they can arrest him on his previous charges.

Since the US has not formally filed any charges and does not appear to have contacted any country regarding extradition, I would believe the two countries that might be the most contentious would be the UK and Sweden.

[midas]

The entire area of diplomatic immunity is WAY over my head when it comes to the intricacies of the regulations and how they are enforced. Can a non-citizen be granted a diplomatic assignment for a country? Are other countries required to recognize diplomatic status? Can the appointment be made outside of the country?

Ecuador, in theory, may be able to appoint him as anything--even a member of it's diplomatic coup, but his credentials have to be recognized by the UK for example. If they don't, then they can arrest him on his previous charges.

Since the US has not formally filed any charges and does not appear to have contacted any country regarding extradition, I would believe the two countries that might be the most contentious would be the UK and Sweden.

I don't think there would be much of a problem granting him instant citizenship and under the

United Nations rules there would be a period where he has provisional status

until the Gen assembly meets.

The Credentials Committee consists of nine members -China, Guyana, Kenya, Madagascar,

Monaco, Peru, Russian Federation, Tonga and the United States so it seems

UK and Sweden would have no ability to disregard his appointment at least during the period when

a newly appointed representative has provisional status.

Edited August 15, 2012 by midas

[koheesti]

It is reasonably pretty good in the embassy which is exactly where he will be spending many years if Equador decides to hide him from facing jusice.

He still won't be able to go outside the grounds, but at least the Americans can't execute him and that is what he was seeking asylum on. The persecution he was facing from the U.S.

The US can more easily execute him if he is in Ecuador than if he is in the European Union and that is what Assange "claims" he is worried about. It just proves that Assange is a liar about his fears. When he goes to Ecuador and winds up dead with a year, I hope his supporters don't start crying around here since you guys wanted him there.

I think there is a huge difference to being on death row in a U.S prison and being assasinated. I do not think that the U.S would stoop that low as to assasinate the guy. If that was to happen the eyes of the world would automatically turn to the U.S.

Heck, anyone can kill Assange now and get away with it. Everyone will just assume it was the CIA anyway. Maybe the Särskilda Skyddsgruppen will even take him out for making their country look worse than he made the USA look.

Edited August 15, 2012 by koheesti

[chuckd]

Scott here is another intriguing possibility to enable him to have safe passage to Ecuador

instead of refugee status Ecuador could theoretically appoint Assange one of its representatives to the United Nations

under rule 25 of the UN General Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. It’s true that a Credentials Committee (on which the United States sits at the moment, as a matter of interest) would consider and report on Assange’s appointment, and that the General Assembly would then make a decision on it – and could presumably reject him.

BUT

under rule 29, he would be “seated” provisionally until the General Assembly made its decision – and crucially, would have the same rights as other representatives. That presumably includes the special kind of diplomatic immunity granted by article IV, section 11 of the New York Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which says:

Representatives of Members to the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations, shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities:

(a) immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind;

Note that the immunity from personal arrest or detention applies not only while a representative exercises his functions, but in a more absolute sense when travelling to and from the place of meeting.

http://www.jus.uio.n...munities-un.xml

But does this so-called diplomatic immunity become retroactive for previous crimes or charges?

Maybe Ecuador could help out Manning at the same time. I'm certain the US Army would release him to the UN upon certification of his diplomatic relations. Then again, maybe not.

Classic case of straw clutching.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think there would be much of a problem granting him instant citizenship and under the

United Nations rules there would be a period where he has provisional status

until the Gen assembly meets.

Sounds like another daydream. Whatever happens from now on, Julian Assange is still an example to others of what happens when you distribute top secret documents on the internet. At best, he is going to be stuck in one building that he can not leave for quite some time

Edited August 15, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Here is the flaw in this argument. He is not in Ecuador. If they grant him some sort of 'instant' citizenship--if that is even possible and appoint him as a UN diplomat, he still has to get to either Geneva or New York. The UK could still arrest and detain him, whether they would be within their rights to hold him, I don't know, but his breach of law in the UK was before his diplomatic immunity. What would Ecuador have to gain by creating a diplomatic row of epic proportions over a native Australian? They would quickly find themselves somewhat of a pariah, I am afraid.

The UN would probably object to someone with previously outstanding legal problems such as his, being granted diplomat status. Diplomatic immunity is not extended to everyone from a country who work or are appointed to a UN position. It is rather narrow.

Do you think Ecuador is going to get rid of their current sitting UN Ambassador or first secretary for Assange? Do you think such an action might cause a little bit of a political problem in the country? These are pretty plum positions we are talking about.

Unless Ecuador has some reason to want to create an incident with either Britain or Sweden (maybe the Falkland's--how aligned are they with Argentina), this would be a very questionable move.

There are too many possible 'no' responses to make this feasible, I think.

[koheesti]

I don't think there would be much of a problem granting him instant citizenship and under the

United Nations rules there would be a period where he has provisional status

until the Gen assembly meets.

Sounds like another daydream. Whatever happens from now on, Julian Assange is still an example to others of what happens when you distribute top secret documents on the internet. At best, he is going to be stuck in one building that he can not leave for quite some time

Maybe they'll find him beneath an airport runway in Ecuador 50 years from now like they found Che in Bolivia.

[midas]

I don't think there would be much of a problem granting him instant citizenship and under the

United Nations rules there would be a period where he has provisional status

until the Gen assembly meets.

Sounds like another daydream. Whatever happens from now on, Julian Assange is still an example to others of what happens when you distribute top secret documents on the internet. At best, he is going to be stuck in one building that he can not leave for quite some time

an example to others of what happens when you distribute top secret documents

Ellsberg distributed top-secret documents ( wheras in Assange 's case they were only secret )

Ellsberg received the Inaugural Ron Ridenhour Courage Prize, a prize established by The Nation Institute and

The Fertel Foundation.^[41] In 1978 he accepted the Gandhi Peace Award.

I think Julian Assange will be content with a movie made in his honour

[midas]

Here is the flaw in this argument. He is not in Ecuador. If they grant him some sort of 'instant' citizenship--if that is even possible and appoint him as a UN diplomat, he still has to get to either Geneva or New York. The UK could still arrest and detain him, whether they would be within their rights to hold him, I don't know, but his breach of law in the UK was before his diplomatic immunity. What would Ecuador have to gain by creating a diplomatic row of epic proportions over a native Australian? They would quickly find themselves somewhat of a pariah, I am afraid.

The UN would probably object to someone with previously outstanding legal problems such as his, being granted diplomat status. Diplomatic immunity is not extended to everyone from a country who work or are appointed to a UN position. It is rather narrow.

Do you think Ecuador is going to get rid of their current sitting UN Ambassador or first secretary for Assange? Do you think such an action might cause a little bit of a political problem in the country? These are pretty plum positions we are talking about.

Unless Ecuador has some reason to want to create an incident with either Britain or Sweden (maybe the Falkland's--how aligned are they with Argentina), this would be a very questionable move.

There are too many possible 'no' responses to make this feasible, I think.

I accept what you say but equally \what would UK have to gain by creating a diplomatic row of epic proportions over a broken condom

when the prosecution in Sweden have already acknowledged both sexual encounters were consensual and we are initiated by the

victims? because the Foreign Minister of Ecuador has already described the behaviour of the Swedish authorities as laughable,

by escalating this to a diplomatic row, UK would be signalling that there is indeed a much bigger agenda and that they are just

kowtowing to the USA.

[Ulysses G.]

If the UK were "kowtowing to the USA", why would they not have made an arrangement to let the USA extradite him before now? Why go through all the trouble of sending him to Sweden which does not have a "special relationship" with the USA and is very unlikely to cooperate? This whole conspiracy thing is just smoke and mirrors to provide an excuse for Assange to escape facing justice for the crimes that he is suspected of. Being stuck in the embassy forever is not as bad as jail, but it is not going to be pleasant either.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Baloo22]

The U.S could put an end to all the controversy and end his asylum plea by simply comming out a saying, We are not interested in Julian and we will not make any attempt to extradite from any country or seek prosecution. We are not interested in Julian and he is free to go. Whole issue resolved and end of debate. Very simple for them to do Yes/No

There is currently no good reason for the U.S. government to make such a comment. Why should they? Because little gnat-boy Julian and his caterwauling acolytes want them to? Gnat-boy is doing just fine getting himself into being the subject of a sex-crime investigation in Sweden and his criminal actions in the UK. Let him stew in his Ecuadorean broom-closet for while.

[Scott]

Naughty, naughty Midas--your trying to engage me in an argument over the original charges against Assange. In all seriousness, I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

I don't think it would be the British would be escalating the situation, it would be the Ecuadorians that would be flaunting British law. Of course, the Ecuadorians are free to grant him asylum and they are free to negotiate for his free passage out of Britain, which the UK could do.

If I were Britain, I would be most happy to be rid of him--they don't really seem to have a big issue with him, but they do have to think of their relationship with other countries.

[chuckd]

Ellsberg distributed top-secret documents ( wheras in Assange 's case they were only secret )

Ellsberg received the Inaugural Ron Ridenhour Courage Prize, a prize established by The Nation Institute and

The Fertel Foundation.^[41] In 1978 he accepted the Gandhi Peace Award.

I think Julian Assange will be content with a movie made in his honour

Is this argument anything like being a little bit pregnant? Classified documents are Classified documents whether they be Confidential or Top Secret.

As somebody so eloquently put it, Assange might be happy before long with finger puppets in his broom closet at the Ecuadorian Embassy.

[midas]

If the UK were "kowtowing to the USA", why would they not have made an arrangement to let the USA extradite him before now? Why go through all the trouble of sending him to Sweden which does not have a "special relationship" with the USA and is very unlikely to cooperate? This whole conspiracy thing is just smoke and mirrors to provide an excuse for Assange to escape facing justice for the crimes that he is suspected of. Being stuck in the embassy forever is not as bad as jail, but it is not going to be pleasant either.

Why go through all the trouble of sending him to Sweden which does not have a "special relationship" with the USA and is very unlikely to cooperate?

you seem to be suffering from the same memory loss as chuckd

all we seem to do in these threads is to regurgitate issues which have been covered long ago in previous threads

to do with this case.

Anyway once again it's very easy to work out the reasons for the manoeuvring in this case and you are entirely wrong because it is certainly no conspiracy what Douglas McNabb the senior partner of international extradition attorneys McNabb Associates describes ( see link below ).

simply if USA tried to extradite him from the UK they would have had to adhere to all sorts of rigourous standards

and the whole procedure would have been very formal.

In the case of Sweden much easier for the USA to " borrow " Assanange under the very unique supplement to the extradition

treaty between Sweden and USA which is eloquently explained by Douglas McNabb.

http://international...adition-treaty/

Edited August 15, 2012 by midas

[midas]

Naughty, naughty Midas--your trying to engage me in an argument over the original charges against Assange. In all seriousness, I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

I don't think it would be the British would be escalating the situation, it would be the Ecuadorians that would be flaunting British law. Of course, the Ecuadorians are free to grant him asylum and they are free to negotiate for his free passage out of Britain, which the UK could do.

If I were Britain, I would be most happy to be rid of him--they don't really seem to have a big issue with him, but they do have to think of their relationship with other countries.

Naughty, naughty Midas--your trying to engage me in an argument

who moi ?

[geriatrickid]

Mr. Assange would not qualify for diplomatic immunity as the charges arise from an event that would be unrelated to his status. Diplomatic immunity is sacrosanct and I cannot see many countries such as China or Russia support the action. It would set a dangerous precedent. Think of the implications. Western governements could extend similar treatment to Russian and Chinese dissidents.

[Ulysses G.]

Exactly. All the wishful thinking that his fans can muster is not going to get Assange diplomatic immunity.

[midas]

The U.S could put an end to all the controversy and end his asylum plea by simply comming out a saying, We are not interested in Julian and we will not make any attempt to extradite from any country or seek prosecution. We are not interested in Julian and he is free to go. Whole issue resolved and end of debate. Very simple for them to do Yes/No

There is currently no good reason for the U.S. government to make such a comment. Why should they? Because little gnat-boy Julian and his caterwauling acolytes want them to? Gnat-boy is doing just fine getting himself into being the subject of a sex-crime investigation in Sweden and his criminal actions in the UK. Let him stew in his Ecuadorean broom-closet for while.

because they and their international proxies have repeatedly made statements to the contrary.

it just provides further ammunition to those countries who are critics of USA that

America can never be trusted

[Exsexyman]

I don't think there would be much of a problem granting him instant citizenship and under the

United Nations rules there would be a period where he has provisional status

until the Gen assembly meets.

Sounds like another daydream. Whatever happens from now on, Julian Assange is still an example to others of what happens when you distribute top secret documents on the internet. At best, he is going to be stuck in one building that he can not leave for quite some time

Maybe they'll find him beneath an airport runway in Ecuador 50 years from now like they found Che in Bolivia.

You wish!

[Ulysses G.]

NBC is reporting that Assange has still not been granted asylum and that the British government has threatened to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if he is not surrendered. Also, the British have no intention of allowing this wanted criminal to get to an airport.

However, granting asylum would offer no legal protection in Britain where police will arrest him once they get a chance.

Assange has no way of leaving his refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London without being arrested, even if Quito grants him asylum shortly, lawyers say.

"The question of asylum is arguably a red herring," said former British government lawyer Carl Gardner.

Assange, who is also liable to arrest for skipping bail, would still have to find a way of getting from central London to South America without passing through British territory. http://worldnews.nbc...of-embassy?lite

Edited August 15, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

If the UK were "kowtowing to the USA", why would they not have made an arrangement to let the USA extradite him before now? Why go through all the trouble of sending him to Sweden which does not have a "special relationship" with the USA and is very unlikely to cooperate? This whole conspiracy thing is just smoke and mirrors to provide an excuse for Assange to escape facing justice for the crimes that he is suspected of. Being stuck in the embassy forever is not as bad as jail, but it is not going to be pleasant either.

Very unlikely to co-operate?

Very unlikely to cooperate if anything untoward is being done. Of course, if everything is legal, Sweden would cooperate with prosecuting this wanted criminal who has flouted both Swedish and British law. They are known for fairness and following the law - unlike Ecuadore.

[chooka]

UK govt threatens to enter Ecuador embassy

The British government has told Ecuador it is "determined" to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is seeking political asylum, and believes it can forcibly enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

A number of police officers gathered outside the Ecuadorian embassy, close to the Harrods store in Knightsbridge, on Wednesday night.

The dramatic development comes two months after Assange, an Australian, suddenly walked into the embassy in June in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden where he faces allegations of sexual assault.

http://news.ninemsn....ecuador-embassy

[Ulysses G.]

Perhaps the British government will be forced to use the famed SAS to extract this wanted criminal from his hideout in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chooka]

Perhaps the British government will be forced to use the famed SAS to extract this wanted criminal from his hideout in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Wouldn't using the military against another countries embassy be an act of war?

[Ulysses G.]

They are hiding a wanted criminal.

[chooka]

They are hiding a wanted criminal.

To be a criminal 1st you need to be "CONVICTED" of a criminal offence., They are not hiding him as they openly admit he is there. They do not deny it. They are protecting and assessing a person who may possibly be facing persecution or death.

[Ulysses G.]

He is wanted for jumping bail to avoid questioning on sex charges and he is hiding in the embassy. Those are very serious charges no matter what fantasies he uses to try to beat the rap.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ulysses G.