Group items tagged

That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked togive adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them; That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity; That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights; That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense; Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation; Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;

“Persons who find themselves in a situation of asylum and refuge shall enjoy special  protection to ensure the full exercise of their rights. The State shall respect and ensure the principle of non-refoulement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement], and shall provide emergency legal and humanitarian assistance.”

In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030114/am/30114s01.htm] is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.

Enfin, après deux années d’exubérance de la droite conservatrice, dans la vague de Tea Party, c’est la gauche progressiste US qui exulte. Elle est du côté de la révolte, du soulèvement contre un pouvoir jugé oppressif et arbitraire. Tea Party, lui, se trouve exposé dans son côté le plus ambigu, – lequel n’a jamais été dissimulé à nos yeux, tant ce mouvement est insaisissable dans son identification, – notamment par le biais indirect des liens entre le gouverneur Walker, qui se réclame de l’esprit de Tea Party, et les frères milliardaires Koch qui le subventionnent, – tout comme ils subventionnent Tea Party d’ailleurs, au nom de leur hostilité à tout ce qui est service public (et de tout ce qui est, ajouteront les critiques, faveur et puissance pour le corporate power). (Au reste, ces liens ne sont pas plus incestueux et révélateurs que ceux de l’administration Obama et des démocrates avec Wall Street, ce qui n’enlève rien au mouvement de Madison, soutenu par les démocrates et Obama.)

Pour l’instant, à Madison, Wisconsin, tous les ingrédients de la crise sont là, et les grands esprits progressistes, même les plus prudents comme Noam Chomsky, y voient les prémisses de la grande révolte attendue aux USA. Une détermination et une organisation exceptionnelles des foules, avec des actes entravant effectivement le fonctionnement des institutions de l’Etat du Wisconsin ; un soutien affirmé des officiels démocrates de l’Etat, avec des actes à mesure (“exil” dans l’Ohio, pour échapper à l’obligation de présence au vote de la loi Walker, qui permettrait d’atteindre le quorum) ; une détermination affichée comme sans faille du gouverneur Walker pour imposer sa loi ; après un temps d’hésitation, la crise de Madison élevée au rang de grande crise intérieure US, et traitée comme telle par les réseaux de communication, et aussi par les commentateurs et intellectuels comme on l’a vu plus haut avec Chomsky. (Pour l’instant, on s’abstiendra de dire un mot sur Obama, dont le soutien au mouvement est trop calculé pour avoir un impact décisif.)

The showdown over union rights that has paralysed politics in Wisconsin is spreading to other American states, threatening to trigger a national "workers war" of a kind not seen since Ronald Reagan fired air traffic controllers en masse 30 years ago. The State Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, was overflowing for the 10th day yesterday by protesters infuriated by legislation being pushed by the newly elected Governor Scott Walker which would strip most collective-bargaining rights from state workers, including teachers and librarians. Governor Walker is serving notice he will begin mass layoffs next week unless Democrats who have fled the state to avoid voting on the law return soon.

The law in question would end the ability of public workers to negotiate collectively for anything except salaries.

Walker: I mean paying for the senators to be put up. I know they’re paying for these guy—I mean, people can pay for protesters to come in and that’s not an ethics code, but, I mean, literally if the unions are paying the 14 senators—their food, their lodging, anything like that…[*** Important regarding his later acceptance of a Koch offer to “show him a good time.” ***] [I was stunned. I am stunned. In the interest of expediting the release of this story, here are the juiciest bits:] Walker: …I’ve got layoff notices ready…

But there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them. I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.

Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.

Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad. They have shown themselves prepared to ignore common decency and, in some cases, to break the law. David Cameron is happy to have some of the worst offenders in his Cabinet. Take the example of Francis Maude, who is charged with tackling public sector waste – which trade unions say is a euphemism for waging war on low‑paid workers. Yet Mr Maude made tens of thousands of pounds by breaching the spirit, though not the law, surrounding MPs’ allowances.

There was Baghdad in the aftermath of the US invasion – a frenzy of arson and looting that emptied libraries and museums. The factories got hit too. In 2004 I visited one that used to make refrigerators. Its workers had stripped it of everything valuable, then torched it so thoroughly that the warehouse was a sculpture of buckled sheet metal.Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam Hussein and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn't Baghdad, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.

Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam Hussein and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn't Baghdad, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.

Argentina's mass looting was called el saqueo – the sacking. That was politically significant because it was the very same word used to describe what that country's elites had done by selling off the country's national assets in flagrantly corrupt privatisation deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the people with a brutal austerity package.