Most Australians back Assange, poll finds

[struggle4progress]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

August 9, 2012 - 9:21AM
Phillip Coorey, chief political correspondent

... UMR Research, the company Labor uses for its internal research, sampled the views of 1000 people at the end of July, when Mr Assange was ensconced inside the embassy.

It finds 58 per cent believe he will not receive a fair trial in the US while 22 per cent believe he will be afforded proper justice. Another 20 per cent are unsure ...

The poll finds opinion is evenly split over assistance given to Mr Assange so far by the Australian government. It finds 38 per cent believe the government should do more, 36 per cent believe it is doing enough and 25 per cent are unsure.

Mr Assange is not a particularly popular person in Australia either, with 40 per cent having a favourable view of him, 30 per cent having a negative view and 30 per cent unsure ...


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/most-australians-back-assange-poll-finds-20120808-23uwh.html

[lordsummerisle]

1. What's the latest

on his seeking asylum ?

[msanthrope]

2. Ecuador isn't going to make an official announcement until after the Games. nt

[struggle4progress]

3. Ecuador ambiguously said they wouldn't reach a decision before the Olympics ended;

some people think that means we can expect an announcement from Ecuador as soon as the games end, though perhaps it was just a stalling tactic -- for all I know Ecuador might just sit on its hands indefinitely, hoping somebody blinks

Ecuador naturally likes Assange because with the cables he seemed to poke the US State Department right in the eye, but they'd be on very thin ice if they insisted strongly that they have some right to spirit Assange out of the UK to Ecuador. I think they'd be on thin ice even if the whole scenario was played out in Latin America, because the Latin American notion of "diplomatic asylum" is really not intended to shield people from prosecution for common criminal acts but is intended rather to protect individuals who are in instant danger of political prosecution, and it's actually very hard to make such a case about Assange: no matter what he says out of court, he certainly didn't argue in court that he was in instant danger of political prosecution. The ice would be even thinner for Ecuador under European notions of diplomatic law: there is no "diplomatic asylum" in Europe. So if the UK sued Ecuador, in the International Court of Justice, to hand over Assange, the International Court of Justice would probably rule on behalf of the UK

I suspect Ecuador is still hoping for some gratifying reaction from the US State Department, but as far as I can tell there won't be any reaction from State, because (after all) these are matters between the UK and Sweden and Ecuador, in which the US has absolutely no interest: the Swedish investigation involves alleged ordinary crimes in Sweden, a matter entirely for the Swedes; the warrant has been litigated in English court, to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs, and that was a matter involving European treaties, in particular how Swedish-issued international warrants are to be viewed by the UK, a matter between Sweden and the UK; a refugee in Ecuador's London embassy is a matter between Ecuador and the UK -- I have no idea what Sweden's interests and options here are. Nor do I know whether the UK wants to ask Ecuador to hand over Assange. But none of it involves the US State Department, and so we should expect to hear nothing from State about the matter

[JDPriestly]

4. But, in the end, Ecuador's government will grant Assange asylum if

it chooses to do so. That's really pretty much the way asylum works. And the British probably won't care one way or the other. They probably want to stay on the good side of Ecuador.

Why would Ecuador have waited until after the Olympics if they were going to decide against asylum? Makes no sense to me.

If Ecuador grants Assange asylum, and the UK wants to threaten a break in diplomatic relations over Ecuador's decision, then Ecuador is wise to wait until after the Olympics.

There is a third possibility. That Ecuador will simply leave Assange in its embassy. Remember Cardinal Mindszenty who lived in the American embassy in Budapest for 15 years waiting to leave Hungary or come to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zsef_Mindszenty

[struggle4progress]

5. There is no question that the UK will not violate Ecuador's embassy

to seize Assange: the only obvious option, for them to act so, would involve terminating relations with Ecuador, a move for which the UK would surely see no point

But that does not necessarily mean the UK has no options here: Ecuador's embassy is not Equador, but a portion of the UK temporarily ceded to the control of Ecuador's ambassador. The diplomatic understandings were not obtained, so that Ecuador could decide who in the UK is, and who in the UK is not, subject to the rule of law, as common established by the internal governmental mechanisms of the UK: the general rule will be that persons in the UK are, in consequence of the sovereignty of the UK, subject to the standard rule of law in the UK. For diplomatic reasons, the UK, by a process of its own law, has agreed to certain negotiated immunities for several diplomatic personnel and residences and working places. These negotiated immunities do not confer on the affected diplomatic personnel any right to override the sovereignty of the UK, or the power of the UK courts, while on UK soil; the negotiated immunities only confer certain freedoms upon the immediate persons and effects of the several diplomatic personnel affected. The European diplomatic community decided, centuries ago, that the standard diplomatic immunities did not include a general right to shield common criminality from otherwise standard justice mechanisms of the host country. There would be recognized, in that community, some possible diplomatic room to offer temporary refuge in an embassy, when a person is in instant danger of political prosecution. That is not the same as asylum, because asylum can only be offered on the territory of the country offering it. The few small rooms, in the flat of Ecuador's embassy, are not part Ecuador's territory: they are still UK territory, and they are also surrounded by UK territory

[JDPriestly]

6. I hope that you read the Wikileaks article on Cardinal Mindszenty.

15 years he spent in the American embassy in Hungary, which was at the time a communist country and a satellite of the USSR.

15 years.

The entire embassy and everyone in it would be subject to diplomatic immunity.

We still claim diplomatic immunity as to what happens in our embassies.

Here is a recent article from Israel. And this just concerns a consulate, not an embassy -- and an employee, an Israeli national. The Israeli labor court was not even given jurisdiction over wages in the US embassy, much less over those staying in it.

Almost four years after an Israeli labor court ordered the U.S. consulate to pay a former employee NIS 114,000, the consulate is still refusing to pay up, citing diplomatic immunity.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/u-s-consulate-claims-diplomatic-immunity-ignores-labor-court-ruling.premium-1.443397

This is an international, not a national issue. If Ecuador's embassy should be invaded by the UK police, then that would probably be a serious breach of the diplomatic relations between Ecuador and the UK.

I suspect that Ecuador and the UK are seeking to negotiate a way to get Assange out of the UK and into Ecuador. How safe he will be there is hard to tell.

[struggle4progress]

7. You confuse "diplomatic immunity" and "diplomatic asylum"

Diplomatic immunity is well-established: the UK simply won't be storming into Ecuador's embassy to seize Assange

Diplomatic asylum is a mostly Latin American notion, supported by local treaties, that typically allows political targets to seek refuge in an embassy and negotiate safe-passage from the host country. This is not generally recognized as a right under international law

There is some widespread agreement that embassies may shelter in place political refugees who are in instant danger, but perhaps one should style that as "diplomatic refuge" since it offers rather less than the Latin American notion of "diplomatic asylum." Diplomatic refuge is most commonly offered in times of social breakdown

To my knowledge, no new international law was produced by the Mindszenty affair? Mindszenty had been sentenced to life imprisonment in Hungary, in a trial the US regarded as political, but was freed by the Hungarian revolution and fled to the US embassy as a political refugee when the revolution was defeated. His refuge in the US embassy was protected buy diplomatic immunity. But so far as I know, there was no general agreement, under international law, that the US embassy's willingness, to shelter him in place, terminated Hungary's right to demand his return. Safe passage to Vienna was eventually negotiated under a compromise brokered by the Pope, but this (again) has no force as precedent under international law: it simply reflects a compromise to which the parties (US and Hungary) happened finally to agree, as sovereigns. That agreement, in itself, has no binding value as precedent anywhere. In particular, it is irrelevant to any discussions between Ecuador and the UK

Your suggestion, that the UK seeks to negotiate a way to transport Assange to Ecuador, is absurd prima facie. The UK cannot so negotiate without abandoning the rule of law. Over the course of nearly two years, the Swedish prosecutors have pursued Assange's extradition through the UK courts, and the UK courts have agreed Assange must be handed to the Swedish prosecutors. Assange, repeatedly losing his suit, finally disdained further appeal and jumped bail. There cannot be a provision allowing officials freely to ignore court decisions merely because the losing party objects and refuses to cooperate

[JDPriestly]

8. We have offered and given political asylum to people from other countries

many times in the past. To important figures and nobodies. It's common.

Ecuador will do what it wants including offering asylum, just like we do. We trade prisoners. Lots of countries do that. The UK is our ally but not our slave. And Sweden's claim is bizarre.

Certainly having sex without a condom without first obtaining consent is a terrible thing to do -- but worth what Sweden is investing in it?????

It's too bizarre to be trusted. I can't blame Assange for fighting extradition. I suspect he will get out of the UK without going to Sweden one way or another. Assange has a lot of friends and family, and the whole affair is beginning to be an embarrassment to both the UK and Sweden.