Julian Assange’s right to asylum

  WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is asking Ecuador for asylum, while Sweden seeks to extradite him from England.  Many friends of the Bradley Manning Support Network are asking Ecuador to grant Assange’s request here via RootsAction.

“Assange’s fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational… consider the treatment of Bradley Manning

By Glenn Greenwald, UK Guardian (Op-Ed). June 20, 2012

If one asks current or former WikiLeaks associates what their greatest fear is, almost none cites prosecution by their own country. Most trust their own nation’s justice system to recognize that they have committed no crime. The primary fear is being turned over to the US. That is the crucial context for understanding Julian Assange‘s 16-month fight to avoid extradition to Sweden, a fight that led him to seek asylum, Tuesday, in the London Embassy of Ecuador.

The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama’s party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange’s lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.

For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden’s “restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody”, including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Assange’s fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded. One need only look at the treatment over the last decade of foreign nationals accused of harming American national security to know that’s true; such individuals are still routinely imprisoned for lengthy periods without any charges or due process. Or consider the treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking to WikiLeaks: a formal UN investigation found that his pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were “cruel, inhuman and degrading”, and he now faces capital charges of aiding al-Qaida. The Obama administration’s unprecedented obsession with persecuting whistleblowers and preventing transparency – what even generally supportive, liberal magazines call ”Obama’s war on whistleblowers” – makes those concerns all the more valid.

Read more at guardian.co.uk

6 thoughts on “Julian Assange’s right to asylum

  1. I believe that Assange has done nothing wrong and all attempts to protect him from the US government should be made. The US Government needs to put on trial for their crimes against humanity. Bradley Manning did not aid terrorists, he exposed the United States Military for crimes committed against innocent civilians.

    • I heartily endorse all efforts to keep Julian Assange out of U.S hands, as they have proved to be completely biased and unlawful. It is time to prosecute Blair and Bush for leading us into an unjust war. It is time to release Bradley Manning and not victimise seekers of the truth.

  2. cmon, he is standing convicted for sexual harassment/rape on a girl while staying in Sweden, it has nothing to do with wikileaks other than he’s the founder of wikileaks.
    / Petrus – swedish citizen

    • Sorry, but you seem to have not followed the proceedings. He was never charged with these crimes, both woman had sex with him volontarely, only after they found out they were not the only ones did they press charges. These woman were instructed to press charges against him.

  3. Isn’t Ecuador a big offender of human rights?

    http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

    “Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. In a referendum held in 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.

    Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.

    Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted. ”

    Why would he seek asylum in such a place? Why would he want to go to a nation that suppresses free speech?

  4. In a perfect world, Julian Assange would go to Sweden and face the allegations of sexual misconduct without fear of being extradited to the USA. However this world being far from perfect, a skunk-like stench of political maneuvering emanates from the legal case in Sweden. Not only was the process was mishandled from the beginning but it was then thrown out of court. After being mysteriously resurrected it was heavily built upon even, one suspects, to the dismay of the two women involved who from a very private incident now have no possible life.
    It is not a question of whether one ‘likes’ Assange or not. The question is: are we, the world, going to allow such a grotesque legal manipulation set a precedent for what we call justice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>