Julian Assange is a weirdo. On the other hand, WikiLeaks is a valuable tool against too much power and too many government secrets. We know from the Pentagon itself that though America was embarrassed by WikiLeaks, it has not been further harmed. The US, not Sweden (which has legitimate charges against Assange), seems to be pulling the strings here and that is troubling.
So Assange is holed up in the embassy of Ecuador in London. He is safe there (well, that's debatable) but he's fully vulnerable when he's in those spaces between embassy and diplomatic car, and between diplomatic car and plane. The Brits are out to get him.
NPR's reporter, Philip Reeves interviewed some of the key people involved in decisions about Assange's safety.
REEVES: Assange's supporters fear that if he's sent to Sweden, he will then be extradited to the U.S. They're worried that he'll be tried for espionage over the publication by WikiLeaks of many thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables. They believe Assange will be denied a fair trial in America and is even at risk of execution. Ecuador's government, a strong critic of U.S. foreign policy, has concluded that these fears are justified.
Outside Ecuador's London embassy, a big crowd of journalists and Assange supporters is gathered to see what happens next. The police watch on warily, and after a scuffle, arrest a couple of pro-Assange demonstrators. A waiting game has begun. Britain says Ecuador's decision makes no difference. It has a binding obligation to extradite Assange, and it's going to do that, it says. The issue now is how and when.
Under international law, embassies worldwide are treated as if they're sovereign territory of the nations occupying them. The security services of the host nation can't just enter and arrest someone. However, Britain is now brandishing another law that it passed in the 1980s. That says it can revoke the embassy building's diplomatic status if that building is not being used purely for diplomatic purposes. British Foreign Minister William Hague again.
HAGUE: The harboring of alleged criminals or frustrating the due legal process in a country, in the host state, is not a permitted function of diplomats under the Vienna Convention.
REEVES: Just before Ecuador announced that it has granted asylum to Assange, Britain sent its government a note about this law. This was a warning from the British government that at some point it might decide to send the British police into the embassy to arrest Assange. Ecuador was furious. It saw this as a threat to storm its London embassy in violation of international law. That note is causing controversy within Britain. Britain's former ambassador to Moscow, Tony Brenton, says acting on it would set a dangerous precedent.
TONY BRENTON: You expose British and other diplomats everywhere to similar treatment, and that makes the whole profession much more insecure. It makes it much more difficult to do normal business between nations.
REEVES: Some experts argue that acting on the British law would be illegal as it would violate international law that guarantees the diplomatic sanctity of embassies. These include Lord Alex Carlile, one of Britain's top legal experts.
LORD ALEX CARLILE: In my view, as a matter of law, we can't just go barging in to the embassy of Ecuador. It is immune from entry by the British authorities. So I'm afraid the patience will have to continue. Mr. Assange has nowhere to go, and when he does eventually emerge, he will be arrested and he'll be extradited to Sweden.
And that, apparently, is pretty much a done deal. I wish the US would call off its dogs and let Sweden and Britain (and Ecuador) work out their differences, if any then remain. The US -- once again -- is embarrassing itself.
__
Check out this interesting wrap-up of the rise and fall of Wikileaks.
Comments