Ecuador granted asylum to Julian Assange today, an act that will further escalate the conflict between Britain and Ecuador. As I discussed on BBC last night, there are some common legal misunderstandings about the status of an embassy, but as a practical matter Assange should be beyond the reach of the English. While the government has threatened to strip the embassy of diplomatic status and grad Assange, it is in my view an empty threat. However, Assange is not likely to see Ecuador any time soon since he can be arrested trying to leave the country.
Assange has embarrassed the United States with disclosures on Wikileaks that revealed, among other things that the government has lied to the public on critical matters. This includes disclosures of how the Obama Administration threatened Spain in order to protect Bush officials from being investigated for war crimes and torture.
It is widely believed that the United States government is pressuring both the government of England and Sweden on arresting Assange to allow it to extradite him. There is a rumored sealed indictment in the United States, which may prosecute Assange for espionage — a highly troubling prosecution for journalists and whistleblowers.
The British threat to raid the embassy is not legally unfounded. There is a common misunderstanding about embassies which are not legally “the soil of the foreign government.” An embassy in London sits on English soil and that country has jurisdiction over it. However, siting on that land is a building occupied with people with diplomatic immunity. As such, it is considered inviolate.
The British government is threatening to use a 1987 British law it says permits the revocation of diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power occupying it “ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post.” The use of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act however would trigger an international outcry and beg for acts of retaliations.
The the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires diplomats to comply with the laws of the host country and international law does not expressly endorse diplomatic asylum in such cases. That 1961 convention suggests that Ecuador is legally obligated to turn over Assange.
However, countries routinely are faced with such requests — most of which are turned away. However, the United States recently faced this very same dilemma in Beijing when a blind activist fled to our own embassy. Likewise, the U.S. faced this problem when Cardinal Mindszenty took refuge in our embassy in Budapest following the Hungarian uprising in 1956.
Ecuador may take a different view due to the agreement following the 1949 controversy over Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre, leader of the Peruvian APRA movement, who took refuge in the Colombian embassy in Lima. The International Court of Justice ruled against the claim of diplomatic asylum. This led to countries in Latin America adopting of convention supporting such claims, but England is not part of that agreement.
Technically, Ecuador could conceivable get Assange as far as the airport if he rides in an embassy car with a diplomat. However, he has to step out of that car at some point and will face arrest.
It is a classic standoff. The extent to which Britain has pursued the case and issued the threatening letter to Ecuador probably reflects the degree of pressure coming from the Obama Administration. Officials have made it clear that they want Assange’s head on a pike and the best way to do that is to get him to Sweden on the sexual assault charges. Ecuador has offered to let Swedish prosecutors interview Assange at the embassy, but that country has refused.
I would be astonished if England uses its law to strip the embassy of its status. However, I would not be surprised to learn that Obama officials are pushing for precisely that step. Many of Assange’s supporters are likely to point out that we would have to wait for the next Wikileaks dump to learn the truth on that one.
Source: CNN
Unless the Obama administration sees some advantage in letting Assange get to Ecuador, he won’t get there. Breaking or bending treaties does not have to be blatant or cause an international stir. And when the situation “seems” to warrant, as most American Indians can tell you, we are infamous for breaking treaties blatantly when we think we can get away with it. But most of the time, as in the case of Pinochet, inconvenient agreements are quietly “dismantled” or worked around in the background by carrot and stick. Also, one of the problems of being the big super duper power is that you can’t allow the tiny ones, any more than the big ones, to make a fool of you, particularly when the stakes are high. It takes a lot of energy and tax payer resources to stay king of this pile of lies. And given the premium this administration places on absolute control over information getting to the public, the stakes are very high in the case of Julian Assange.
Assange does hold some cards, not least of which is public awareness, and he does indeed have the ear of some wealthy and moderately powerful individuals such as Michael Moore. He may even hold the key to some highly embarrassing information (though by sheer abundance — perhaps — the most amazing revelations produce little more than a grudging collective yawn these days) . And true, this administration is not absolute, nor absolutely powerful. So it is difficult to simply make him disappear or fall out of the sky by accident But it is a very long way from there to allowing him to disappear into the woodwork of Ecuador, unless, of course, there is some perceived advantage in doing so.
@OS: it is too simple and contains real words, which I don’t think any experienced hacker would do.
I think there is a very good chance that Assange’s decryption key is something we already “know,” something that can be easily remembered and passed by word-of-mouth once released and successfully used. Here is an example: Not counting spaces but including punctuation every third letter of Othello’s third line of dialogue.
The third line of Othello’s dialogue is apropos: Not I: I must be found. My Parts, my Title, and my perfect Soule shall manifest me rightly. Is it they?
The decryption key would be: tIseu.PtmienyrcoeamiseglIte
However, I could have easily as chosen a passage from the Constitution, a treaty, a famous novel, a work of Newton or Darwin or the Magna Carta. The “twists” are so infinitely numerous they cannot all be searched or even formulated by a computer.
I could say the key is: “The entire first amendment, in reverse, with the word ‘rescinded’ then appended.” I can use books, songs, anything that can be easily retrieved by millions.
Keys like that prevent computerized guessing. Easily remembered keys are valuable for their proliferation properties when revealed, and they are impossible to lose. This combines the two, instead of an easily remembered key, we have an easily remembered formula for producing a long and complex key.
Another advantage of such keys, besides the fact that it can be whispered in person; is that it appears innocuous in email, text message, or website. It can be rephrased, abbreviated, misspelled, said in any language, and still produce the same result. It is not fragile, like a sequence of letters that must be reproduced precisely. That robustness makes it far less likely to be lost, mis-copied, or flagged in electronic communications or surveillance.
If it ever comes out (and I sincerely hope it does not come to that), I would be about 50% surprised to see just a randomized string of characters, I suspect Assange is more clever than that.
David Blauw:
There is a vast and deep literature on human brain structure, function, and societal consequences of human brain structure and function. Some of this is to be found in the work of theoretical biology, such as done by the late Walter Elsasser, the late Robert Rose, the late Francisco Varela the alive A. H. Louie, and many others.
There is a vast and deep literature within the fields of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, and psychology, including and not limited to, the work of the late Alice Miller (The Drama of the Gifted Child, and many more works), W. Ronald D. Fairbairn (An Object Relations Theory of the Personality, et cetera), neurologist Robert C. Scaer (The Body Bears the Burden – both editions, and The Trauma Spectrum), Peter A.Levine (Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma, et cetera), Henry Petroski (The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems, et cetera), Erich Fromm (Escape From Freedom, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, et cetera), James Reason (Human Error, et cetera), Anthony Storr (Human Destructiveness, et cetera), Ervin Staub (The Roots of Evil), Philip Zimbardo (The Lucifer Effect, et cetera)…
The recent work in theoretical biology has made clear to people (me, for one) who can do the mathematics of theoretical biology that reductionism is inherently incapable of accurately modeling living systems; the mode of thinking that pervades the doctrine of stare decisis is grounded in pre-reductionist social values, and is less capable than is reductionism in bringing useful light to bear on the self-destructive aspects of the apparent human enigma of hatred compounded by hatred until it overwhelms human brain working memory capacity and thereby initiates diverse forms of psychotic breaks, some of which have become ensconced in social mandates.
Want to do the system dynamics modeling yourself, to have an independent understanding of social system stability modeling? The last time I checked, there was a free version of Vensim available for non-commercial personal use.
For those that have the integrity of will and the necessary acumen, I advocate doing duly diligent system dynamics modeling of espionage and see for yourself whether it is possible to decently model espionage and not end up with espionage being profoundly pro-social from a whole world viewpoint and equally pro-social from the viewpoints of individual persons…
But you know the Chinese adage about revenge: he who seeks revenge is best to dig two graves.
————————————————-
Yup.
If some intelligent being were to look at this from afar…they would realize that Assange can be called a ‘Hero’, or treated like every human being should be treated. He didn’t just do the average citizen a favour….he did the US (and other) governments a favor. The only people who could possibly find fault are the ones that have not just broken law, but have trounced it viciously, willingly and with fervor and done great harm to the trust and physical and mental well-being of the American people. If it were me, I’d put him on the payroll and get the house back in order. He knows where all the dirt is. He knows, and like most people who know….that intelligence is a powerful tool that could be used to correct the bigger problem. And this is the crux of the bigger problem…these ‘behaviors’ are now so entrenched in the way business is being done that everyone but those committing it recognizes it. I can’t think of a better active definition for ‘inneffective’ or self defeating. He has always shown himself to be willing to talk and to co-operate when treated fairly.
Woosty,
I think you may be on to something…….
Gene,
I recall that Julian has more documents as well as anonymous to be released upon his extradition to the US…..
Gene, there is another old saying that you better be careful what you pray for, you might just get it; and don’t forget, the Almighty invented humor along with the rest of everything else.
Julian Assange created his “Insurance” file which is gigantic. You can get a lot of files in a zip file of more than 65 gigabytes. A lot of people downloaded it. It is so huge that even using something like BitTorrent it takes a while to download. Every reporter and blogger on the planet, not to mention spy agencies, have downloaded that file. Once in private computers, it is no longer on the ‘net and cannot be called back or deleted. It has been a while since I did the math, but IIRC, it has a really long encryption code string for security. I calculated that using the best modern supercomputers, it would take 1×10^51 hours to break the decryption code through brute force. That exceeds the age of the universe since the Big Bang. On the other hand Assange has some sort of system that if he is arrested and convicted (or “disappears”), the decryption code will be released by multiple anonymous proxies “into the wild.” Everybody will have it.
As I said, the authorities better be careful what they wish for. So far Julian Assange has been one step ahead of them for years now, with regard to sensitive stuff being released. He is every secretive government bureaucrat’s nightmare, so no wonder they want him out of the picture. Just don’t forget that “Insurance” file now residing on thousands, if not millions, of privately owned computers. There was a dispute between Assange and one of his former trusted employees who allegedly had the key and released it in 2010. I have examined that “key” and do not believe it to be genuine–it is too simple and contains real words, which I don’t think any experienced hacker would do. It has to be either a partial decryption, or a red herring. My Amazon password is more secure than that. WikiLeaks and Assange say that is not the full key, which is still secure. So, who knows. At any rate, there is still some very sensitive stuff still out there, which has not been released, IMHO. There was a new insurance file release on Feb. 22, 2012. That file has not been compromised as happened with the security breach in 2010.
The 65 GB file of 2/22/2012 is on Pirate Bay:
https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7050943/WikiLeaks_Insurance_release_02-22-2012
@Waldo: do you really believe they would work from a practical standpoint?
Sure, if you discount money, as you well should. Assange operates in a world where one can do outrageously expensive things funded by donors with outrageously fat wallets. He has Michael Moore (a wealthy filmmaker and Hollywood liberal elite insider) funding him, and Moore can pick up the phone and find ten like himself in a matter of hours.
Hollywood elite has Julian’s financial back; not for personal gain but because they have no shortage of imagination or intelligence, and recognize true real-life heroism when they see it. $50K here or there is a gesture to them, for many of Julian’s backers it is literally less than a day’s work.
I am not sure why you think they are impractical, in fact some have been done before. Unless you just think the USA is invincible in international diplomacy, but I do not think that is true. We have and will break treaties, but breaking treaties is like breaking contracts in business, it makes life more difficult in future dealings because it permanently destroys faith in treaties, and that in turn leads to war and losses of power and respect.
It is my belief that ultimately getting Assange is not important enough to escalate this to violating a treaty between nations, I think that would have greater reverberations than either the USA or Britain want right now. I think a lot of saber rattling will be done, and Assange ends up in Ecuador for some time.
Also, I am not sure how British law works, but at least in America our treaty obligations and provisions cannot be overridden by Congress or States or even Presidential order (even though we have illegally ignored some such provisions in the past and not been called on it), As a practical matter I do not see how British Parliament can pass a law that takes precedence over the Vienna treaty they signed.
Treaties are worthless if you can sign them and then just pass a law that lets you violate them at will. Embassy compounds are inviolate by treaty.
I’m hoping this is backfiring. The states of S. America have two emergency meetings called. The US is running roughshod over the world. We have many lackeys, the UK being one. The smaller states have got to see that the US is coming for them. All our dictatorial former BFFs could explain that to them.
I hope this is a spark that unites smaller states to stand up to the US. It is going to take a large part of the international community as well as people of conscience within the US to say-ENOUGH.
This heavily armed, lawless government must be confronted in a united, peaceful manner. Space weapons, “special” bullets for the Social Security Administration, arming the military with riot gear, overthrowing multiple heads of states-these are all related by a lack of rule of law and a complete contempt for human life and well-being.
We have every good thing in this nation, good people, natural resources, the capacity for justice–yet we squander these goods in favour of that which destroys them. Perhaps this can be a beginning to stand with others for the greater good of the earth and its people.
W=^..^
You may be correct. I’ve read several places that Assange has secure data caches to be released should the US get their hands on him. This could backfire on the bad guys within our government quite spectacularly. But you know the Chinese adage about revenge: he who seeks revenge is best to dig two graves.
Darren Smith
1, August 17, 2012 at 3:44 am
I have a simple solution to all of this.
———————————————-
Sorry, nobody asked you.
And they wouldn’t and they won’t.
The reason Assange is in trouble is because ‘nobody’ was out of line. If ‘nobody’ had played by the ‘rules’ in the first place then they could be somebody…well, a different sort of somebody anyway….but Assange knows that nobody is somebody and he taught the world how to make sure that somebody can never again prance about in the clothes of ‘nobody’.
And some nobody fears that Assange left alone is dangerous,
Nobody asked me either but I suspect that action against Assange will do much more damage than leaving him alone ever could…
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
In my early twenties I frequented a bar where I would have beer and play cribbage. Often I played against a guy in his 50s, (which 30 years ago was ancient to me) We played for very low stakes …and he cheated. I knew he cheated and I watched him cheat. I played against him repeatedly, for the purpose of amazement. He was a (seemingly) friendly and happy guy, and he smiled as he won more often than he should have.
To this day I am amazed. I did not get hurt by this but I did get educated. There are many things in this life I do not understand. The majority of these things are the actions and purpose that motivate human beings.
I have a simple solution to all of this.
In my view, in the end, the entirety of the wikileaks announcements did the free world more good by far than harm, but, the US gov’t has a legitimate right to be able to go after people who to the detriment of the public release secret information. Those to me are the issues.
Eventually it is fairly clear Julian will be in US custody at some point. The gov’t should threaten him with a massive prison penalty and a huge fine and be very public about it. But for some “unknown” reason the federal prosecutor makes a colossal legal blunder the information of which somehow manages to find it’s way into the hands of Julian’s defense team. Of course, nobody knows how this happened. Nevertheless after a month or so, a motion of the defense team finds its way to the court to toss out the case and it is granted. Julian is released, the government makes a face saving appeal, which is denied, and he is cleared.
But, the gov’t tried to throw the book at Julian and his spying ilk, hence the deterrant factor, but those darn courts ruined everything 😉
Dredd
“Yes, it is becoming an enemy of the state, because it is often not the particular reality they choose to adopt:”
The Karl Rove quote is chilling. I take it to be void of all moral integrity.
It is a strategy, and plan to perpetuate rulership and domination for domination sake. I put on my most cynical hat to say this, yet based on Roves quote much validity is in it.
Adolph Hitler would have benefited from Roves advice. A question I can’t answer is, would Rove have allowed himself to benefit from giving Hitler advice. Power and Fame have trumped morals and reason in many a human. ….. The shoes I wear must first and foremost fit my feet, and I can only wear my shoes. Ones that are too big or are other peoples, bring disbalance to my morals and reason.
Gene,
Brunner a great, visionary writer and “Zanzibar” his best book.
As a neurological, and therefore, biological, process, deception is curious study in the theory of self-referential sets. Like, the set of men who shave themselves and the set of men who do not shave themselves in the set of men and women in a town where there is exactly one barber who shaves, and only shaves, every man in town who does not shave himself.
Yeah, that is Bertrand Russell’s barber paradox, stated in set theory form.
The simple solution, the barber is a member of the set of women of the town who do not shave is summarily rejected as being a trivial solution.
So, what is the non-trivial solution, if set theory is used with decent skill?
The name, “barber” is a member of the set of names of professions and other occupations, and is not a member of either the set, “men” or the set, “women” of the town.
Thus, when the man whose profession is being the sole town barber is not engaged in his profession of shaving other men or doing haircutting, this man is not the barber because he is not in his professional role, and so is one of the men who shaves himself, and there is no paradox when set theory is understood with a modicum of accuracy.
Deception is self-referential, being of the set of human errors, such that, from a biological standpoint, a person who is deceived is necessarily unaware of being deceived because being aware of being deceived is indistinguishable from being undeceived.
I have explored modeling of espionage using system dynamics modeling methods, and the result I found may be surprising to some folks. Espionage increases social stability by reducing indeterminacy regarding possible threats.
Therefore, while the theory espoused regarding espionage is endangerment of social stability, the theory in use is inescapably one of enhancement of social stability.
Given that theories in use are in use, and therefore will always prevail (as in “actions speak louder than words”), theories merely espoused, even if in the form of treason-to-question dogmas, never promote personal or social safety when they contradict theories actually in use.
In my view, whistle-blowers who blow the whistle on severe problems tend to be trashed while their actions tend later to save others from being trashed. That is, to me, functionally dastardly, deceptive, and disingenuous.
Roger Boisjoly, the former Morton Thiokol engineer who was told to leave the room so those who remained could vote to unintentionally murder the teacher in space was eventually fired for attempting to prevent the Challenger disaster. He died this past February, at age 73.
Sometimes, only a very few people accurately recognize real and present danger and protest, only to be excoriated for not doing groupthink.
Groupthink simply is not my style, nor my method.
What is deception? The Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers absolutely prohibits deception in the practice of professional engineering.
For me, in my work, to avoid using deception, I have to know what deception is, and what deception is not. or I will, sooner or later, unwittingly violate my profession’s Code of Ethics without being able to understand what I am doing.
And the human tragedy dances on, but to where?
Copy that, shano.
I love that Garzon is helping him. His past marks him as a brave and judicious man.
Kate,
John Brunner was a classic purveyor of dystopian science fiction. His novel “Stand on Zanzibar” should be required reading.
HenMan 1, August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm
A dangerous business, telling the truth.
=================================
Yes, it is becoming an enemy of the state, because it is often not the particular reality they choose to adopt:
(When You Are Governed By Psychopaths – 3, quoting Karl Rove).
They just said on the news that Assange will be making a statement outside the Ecuadorian embassy on Sunday.
Have any of you ever read the great science fiction story by British author John Brunner, “The Protocols of the Elders of Britain”? He wrote it in 1974, I think; very scary and prescient.