Wednesday, August 15, 2012

ACOGIDA DE JULIAN ASSANGE EN LATITUD DEL MERIDIANO CERO: DECISIÓN JURÍDICO-POLÍTICA INMINENTE… ASÍ LO HAN ANUNCIADO...


 *

Veladamente, subyacen en tan viciada causa criminal, las intenciones revanchistas de EU-OTAN para "echarle el guante al canguro" aún invicto y ponerle la correa con miras a ejecutarlo letalmente, en su oportunidad...
Independientemente de que es de dominio global el soslayo y la falta de respeto a los Derechos Humanos y al Derecho Internacional de que goza tiempo ha el gobierno de los EU, a todas luces resulta ingenuo dar credibilidad a supuestas negativas de su persecución, emanadas por el actual inquilino de Washington (¿res inter alios acta?) --quien de ser reelecto, su estadía se extendería sólo 4 años--; aun suponiendo sin conceder, que de buena voluntad lo haya hecho en su personalidad de Premio Nobel de La Paz y en su caso, su posible otorgamiento de “clemente perdón” con la consiguiente "cadena perpetua" a un reo a todas luces inocente, no sólo por falta de precedentes judiciales en la especie (al efecto) del muy cacareado y supuesto "espionaje" que le pretenden incriminar los "Vecinos Distantes' al oriundo de Australia, quien aún no asoma ojos rasgados…

Dicha amenaza del gobierno británico impacta no sólo al Derecho Internacional Público, precisando la solidaridad que este ocioso tecleador hiciera tiempo ha a la CELAC y a la comunidad internacional, en aras de defender el Derecho a la Información y a la Libertad de Expresión...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuCihj75ur4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R0NWL0Ff_k&feature=related

http://news.yahoo.com/assange-faces-arrest-even-ecuador-grants-asylum-163635713.html
---

Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
Ecuador: Decision on Julian Assange Asylum Tomorrow - ABC News

1 Favorite


    • 6:50 PM - 15 Aug 12via Twitter for BlackBerry®· Details
    ---
    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    La vida es un bien jurídico tutelado superior a las intenciones que subyacen en la causa criminal, US-NATO lo saben...
    7:38 PM - 15 Aug 12via web · Details
    ---
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaKir1Z6OVc
    ---
    WikiLeaks‏@wikileaks
    Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has stated that no decision has been made on Julian 's asylum.
    Details
    ---
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3t7MAwaaM

    ---
    1m
    ◄


    8:02 PM - 15 Aug 12via web · Details

    ---
    RT en Español‏@ActualidadRT
    "Aquí se trata no solo de un ataque a la soberanía de , sino de la soberanía de toda América Latina”
      
    ---
    FERNANDO CORDERO C.‏@fcorderoc6m  *
    Adjunto el documento que contiene la insólita y prepotente amenaza británica contra la soberanía del Ecuador


    powered by Photobucket


    9:33 PM - 15 Aug 12via Twitter for BlackBerry®·
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzy5ye-RwME&feature=related

    ---
    http://www.un.org/es/law/

    Extradition Act 2003

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents

    Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46



    Espionage Act 1917

    http://ows.edb.utexas.edu/site/espionage-act-and-limitations-first-ammendment/espionage-act

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWespionage.htm






    Freedom of Speech in the United States, by Thomas L. Tedford. 

    "Decision on Assange Asylum Thursday: Ecuador Official
    PHOTO: On June 19, 2012, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino announced in Quito that Julian Assange is seeking asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London, and that Ecuador's government is studying the request.
    On June 19, 2012, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino announced in Quito that Julian Assange is seeking asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London, and that Ecuador's government is studying the request. (Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP Photo)





    By RAISA BRUNER
    Aug. 15, 2012
    Ecuadorean officials said today that they would announce their final decision on whether to grant asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tomorrow, but also claimed that the British government had threatened to raid the country's London embassy to get Assange back.
    "Today we've received a threat by the United Kingdom, a clear and written threat that they could storm our embassy in London if Ecuador refuses to hand in Julian Assange," said Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.
    Patino said that Ecuador will announce its decision on Assange's asylum request Thursday morning. Some media outlets reported yesterday that Assange had been granted asylum, but Ecuadorean officials said at the time that no decision had been reached.
    PHOTO: On June 19, 2012, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino announced in Quito that Julian Assange is seeking asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London, and that Ecuador's government is studying the request.
    Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP Photo
    On June 19, 2012, Ecuador's Foreign Minister... View Full Size
    PHOTO: On June 19, 2012, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino announced in Quito that Julian Assange is seeking asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London, and that Ecuador's government is studying the request.
    Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP Photo
    On June 19, 2012, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino announced in Quito that Julian Assange is seeking asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London, and that Ecuador's government is studying the request.

    Julian Assange Seeks Asylum in Ecuador Watch Video

    The Secrets of Wikileaks Watch Video

    Julian Assange: Wikileaks Watch Video

    Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy on June 19, after a U.K. court declined to block his extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning in connection with alleged sexual assaults.
    Assange has said he fears that Sweden will hand him over to the United States.WikiLeaks has released thousands of confidential U.S. documents on the web, including many State Department cables.
    Should Assange win asylum in Ecuador, he would still have to get from the embassy, which is considered Ecuadorean soil, to an airport to board a flight to South America without being arrested by British police.
    British diplomatic officials in the U.S. did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment. According to the BBC, a Foreign Office spokesman said the U.K. government is "committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."
    The British government has also reportedly reminded the Ecuadorean government that under law it can revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy, which would enable officials to enter the building and apprehend Assange."

     http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ecuador-decision-julian-assange-asylum-tomorrow/story?id=17014684

    "Quito acusa a GB amagar asalto a embajada por el caso Julian Assange

    Recibe sede diplomática amenaza expresa y por escrito; sería acto hostil, señala canciller de Ecuador.
    Reuters

    Publicado: 15/08/2012 17:39
    Quito. Ecuador denunció el miércoles que el gobierno británico amenazó con tomar por asalto su embajada en Londres si no entrega a Julian Assange, y anunció que el jueves informará su decisión sobre el pedido de asilo que le cursó el fundador de Wikileaks.
    El ex pirata informático australiano está refugiado en la sede diplomática ecuatoriana desde el 19 de junio y es buscado por la justicia por un caso de violación en Suecia.
    "Hoy hemos recibido por parte del Reino Unido la amenaza expresa y por escrito que podrían asaltar nuestra embajada en Londres si Ecuador no entrega a Julian Assange", dijo el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores del país sudamericano, Ricardo Patiño, a periodistas.
    En caso de concretarse esa medida, "será interpretada por el Ecuador como un acto inamistoso, hostil e intolerable, y además como un atentado a nuestra soberanía que nos obligaría a responder con la mayor contundencia diplomática", enfatizó tras reunirse con el presidente Rafael Correa. Patiño agregó que su gobierno ya tomó una decisión sobre el pedido que le cursó Assange y la anunciará el jueves a las siete de la mañana hora local (1200 GMT).
    Assange, quien enfureció a Washington en el 2010 cuando su sitio de internet publicó miles de cables secretos diplomáticos, ha dicho que solicitó protección a Ecuador porque se considera un perseguido político y teme ser extraditado a Estados Unidos donde cree que su vida correría peligro.
    Aún si Ecuador le concede asilo, Assange podría ser detenido por la policía británica durante el viaje hacia el aeropuerto por haber incumplido las condiciones de su libertad bajo fianza.
    La embajada ecuatoriana en Londres está en el lujoso barrio de Knightsbridge, lejos de cualquier terminal aérea.
    "Consistentemente hemos dejado en claro nuestra posición al gobierno de Ecuador. El Reino Unido tiene la obligación legal de extraditar a Suecia al Señor Assange por cuestionamientos sobre presuntos delitos sexuales y seguimos comprometidos a cumplir esa obligación", dijo un portavoz del ministerio de asuntos externos."

    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2012/08/15/173950602-amaga-gb-con-tomar-por-asalto-embajada-de-ecuador-y-arrestar-a-assange

    "Julian Assange: UK issues 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder" (Video)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623#TWEET196466

    El caso Assange: "Reino Unido atenta contra la soberanía de toda América Latina"

    Los expertos destacan que la amenaza británica de asaltar la Embajada de Ecuador en Londres viola todos los derechos internacionales

    Publicado: 15 ago 2012 | 23:55 GMTÚltima actualización: 16 ago 2012 | 0:33 GMT
    AFP / Will Oliver
    Las amenazas de asaltar el recinto de la Embajada de Ecuador en Londres donde se encuentra Julian Assange no solo representan un atentado contra la soberanía de Ecuador, sino de toda América Latina, afirman los expertos.
    “Es una violación clarísima de los derechos internacionales y es un hecho muy dramático. Aquí se trata no solo de un ataque a la soberanía de Ecuador, sino de la soberanía de toda América Latina”, comenta a RT el analista político Jorge Capelán.

    “Las consecuencias de esta agresión por parte de Inglaterra hacia Ecuador van a resultar también en una polarización aún mayor en América Latina, porque Ecuador ha llamado a reuniones extraordinarias a UNASUR, a la CELAC y a la OEA”, añade.Ecuador anunciará si concede asilo político a Julian Assange este jueves a las 12:00 GMT en la Cancillería del país.

    El Gobierno de Ecuador se hizo hoy eco de un informe que le ha remitido el Gobierno del Reino Unido en el que amenaza con tomar medidas para arrestar a Julian Assange, el fundador de WikiLeaks, que ha pedido asilo en el país andino y se encuentra en la embajada ecuatoriana en Londres. En la nota, el Reino Unido se muestra “decidido” a extraditar a Assange a Suecia.En particular, en la carta recibida por la Embajada de Ecuador las autoridades británicas dicen contar con una base jurídica, fundamentada en la Ley sobre Instalaciones Diplomáticas y Consulares de 1987 (Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987) para arrestar a Assange en las instalaciones de la embajada."

    http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/51568-assange-reino-unido-atenta-soberania-america-latina-ecuador-wikileaks
    "Envió Londres escrito de que podría asaltar la embajada
    Amenazó GB con sacar por la fuerza a Assange: Ecuador
    Sería un acto hostil e intolerable, responde el canciller Patiño
    Advierte que se respondería con la mayor contundencia diplomática
    Hoy decide Quito si concede el asilo al fundador de Wikileaks"
    Reclama la entrega de Julian Assange fundador de Wikileaks

    GB amenaza con tomar por asalto embajada de Ecuador

    El gobierno de Correa anuncia hoy decisión sobre solicitud de asilo


    Foto
    Una pancarta con mensajes en apoyo de Julian Assange cuelga sobre una barrera puesta en la calle por los policías que montan guardia en la embajada ecuatoriana en LondresFoto Ap


    Reuters y Afp


    Periódico La Jornada
    Jueves 16 de agosto de 2012, p. 25

    Quito, 15 de agosto. Ecuador denunció hoy que Gran Bretaña amenazó con tomar por asalto su embajada en Londres si no entrega a Julian Assange, al tiempo que anunció que este jueves informará su decisión sobre el pedido de asilo del fundador de Wikileaks.

    Assange es buscado por Suecia para ser juzgado por dos casos de demandas de tipo sexual; él teme que de ser llevado al país nórdico posteriormente sea extraditado a Estados Unidos donde, alega, podría enfrentar la pena de muerte por haber divulgado, a finales de 2010, cientos de miles de cables del Departamento de Estado.

    El ex pirata informático australiano está refugiado en la sede diplomática ecuatoriana desde el 19 de junio.

    La Corte Suprema británica ya validó la orden de detención de Suecia y el gobierno reiteró este miércoles que está determinado a extraditarlo a ese país.

    Hoy hemos recibido por parte del Reino Unido la amenaza expresa y por escrito que podrían asaltar nuestra embajada en Londres si Ecuador no entrega a Julian Assange, dijo a periodistas el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores del país sudamericano, Ricardo Patiño.

    El ingreso no autorizado a la embajada de Ecuador sería una violación flagrante de la Convención de Viena, sostuvo el jefe de la diplomacia ecuatoriana.

    Patiño advirtió que de concretarse un asalto a su sede diplomática en Londres, será interpretada por Ecuador como un acto inamistoso, hostil e intolerable, y además como un atentado a nuestra soberanía que nos obligaría a responder con la mayor contundencia diplomática.

    Aun si Ecuador le concediera asilo, asunto sobre el que ya se tomó una decisión, y que será anunciada el jueves a las 7 horas locales (12:00 GMT), según informó Patiño, Assange podría ser detenido por la policía británica durante el viaje hacia el aeropuerto por haber incumplido las condiciones de su libertad bajo fianza.

    Gran Bretaña tiene una obligación legal de extraditar a Assange a Suecia para que responda a los cargos de agresión sexual y estamos decididos a cumplir esa obligación,, dijo el portavoz del Foreign Office.

    Bajo la ley británica podemos darles un aviso semanas antes de ingresar al recinto y la embajada ya no tendrá protección diplomática, agregó el vocero del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Reino Unido.

    Pero esa decisión aún no ha sido tomada. No vamos a hacer esto de la noche a la mañana. Queremos hacer hincapié en que deseamos una solución diplomática aceptable, refirió.

    Londres podría justificar un asalto a la embajada ecuatoriana por una ley de 1987 sobre el estatus de las representaciones diplomáticas y consulares que permite revocar la inmunidad diplomática de una embajada en territorio británico.

    El vocero de Wikileaks, Kristin Hrafnsson, dijo a Afp que la amenaza de intervenir en la embajada de Ecuador era extremadamente seria y afirmó que el equipo legal refutaba su legalidad. La organización llamó a través de Twitter a sus seguidores a protestar delante de la embajada ubicada en el lujoso barrio de Knightsbridge, lejos de cualquier terminal aérea.

    Fuentes consultadas por Reuters indicaron que si Assange recibiera el asilo y quisiera salir de la embajada puede ser detenido. Assange evitaría esa posibilidad sólo en un automóvil diplomático, pero la legación está en el primer piso del edificio y no cuenta con estacionamiento privado por lo que la única salida de que dispone es la puerta principal, donde hay policías apostados.

    Ecuador dijo que Assange hizo una petición de asilo por escrito en la que explicó que solicitó protección al gobierno del presidente Rafael Correa porque se considera un perseguido político y teme ser llevado a Estados Unidos.

    Correa dijo recientemente que siente simpatía por Assange, pero que también siente respeto por el sistema legal británico y el derecho internacional. El único vínculo conocido entre ambos es una entrevista que Julian Assange condujo en mayo con Correa en el canal de televisión Rusia Today, patrocinado por el Kremlin. Ambos intercambiaron comentarios halagadores durante la entrevista de 25 minutos y Correa bromeó con Assange acerca de que se había unido al club de los perseguidos.

    La madre de Assange, Christine, visitó Ecuador hace dos semanas y se reunió allí con el canciller para hacer gestiones por el caso de su hijo. Luego dijo a los periodistas que había entregado evidencia de que Washington buscaban detenerlo, pero no dio detalles de la misma.
    Enlaces:

    Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks

    Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks"

    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/08/16/mundo/025n1mun

    http://mexico.cnn.com/videos/2012/08/16/ecuador-dara-asilo-a-julian-assange
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq0IQ-QH3No

    "Julian Assange asylum: Ecuador is right to stand up to the US

    The United States would paint itself as a promoter of human rights, but any right to make that claim is long gone
    Ecuador's president Rafael Correa
    Ecuador's president Rafael Correa: 'Correa made this decision because it was the only ethical thing to do'. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
    Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating international law and diplomatic conventions that it is difficult to even find an example of a democratic government even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.

    When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry and defiant response, released the written threats to the public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?
    "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."
    Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning – not criminal charges or a trial – by a foreign government?
    Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange was both predictable and reasonable. But it is also a ground-breaking case that has considerable historic significance.
    First, the merits of the case: Assange clearly has a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to be extradited to Sweden. It is pretty much acknowledged that he would be immediately thrown in jail. Since he is not charged with any crime, and the Swedish government has no legitimate reason to bring him to Sweden, this by itself is a form of persecution.
    We can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal. A few weeks ago the Ecuadorian government offered to allow Assange to be questioned in its London embassy, where Assange has been residing since 19 June, but the Swedish government refused – again without offering a reason. This was an act of bad faith in the negotiating process that has taken place between governments to resolve the situation.
    Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily questioned in the UK.
    But, most importantly, the government of Ecuador agreed with Assange that he had a reasonable fear of a second extradition to the United States, and persecution here for his activities as a journalist. The evidence for this was strong. Some examples: an ongoing investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks in the US; evidence that an indictment had already been prepared; statements by important public officials such as Democratic senator Diane Feinstein that he should be prosecuted for espionage, which carries a potential death penalty or life imprisonment.
    Why is this case so significant? It is probably the first time that a citizen fleeing political persecution by the US has been granted political asylum by a democratic government seeking to uphold international human rights conventions. This is a pretty big deal, because for more than 60 years the US has portrayed itself as a proponent of human rights internationally – especially during the cold war. And many people have sought and received asylum in the US.
    The idea of the US government as a human rights defender, which was believed mostly in the US and allied countries, was premised on a disregard for the human rights of the victims of US wars and foreign policy, such as the 3 million Vietnamese or more than one million Iraqis who were killed, and millions of others displaced, wounded, or abused because of US actions. That idea – that the US should be judged only on what it does within its borders – is losing support as the world grows more multipolar economically and politically, Washington loses power and influence, and its wars, invasions, and occupations are seen by fewer people as legitimate.
    At the same time, over the past decade, the US's own human rights situation has deteriorated. Of course prior to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, millions of African-Americans in the southern states didn't have the right to vote, and lacked other civil rights – and the consequent international embarrassment was part of what allowed the civil rights movement to succeed. But at least by the end of that decade, the US could be seen as a positive example internally in terms of the rule of law, due process and the protection of civil rights and liberties.
    Today, the US claims the legal right to indefinitely detain its citizens; the president can order the assassination of a citizen without so much as even a hearing; the government can spy on its citizens without a court order; and its officials are immune from prosecution for war crimes. It doesn't help that the US has less than 5% of the world's population but almost a quarter of its prison inmates, many of them victims of a "war on drugs" that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the rest of the world. Assange's successful pursuit of asylum from the US is another blow to Washington's international reputation. At the same time, it shows how important it is to have democratic governments that are independent of the US and – unlike Sweden and the UK – will not collaborate in the persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency. Hopefully other governments will let the UK know that threats to invade another country's embassy put them outside the bounds of law-abiding nations.
    It is interesting to watch pro-Washington journalists and their sources look for self-serving reasons that they can attribute to the government of Ecuador for granting asylum. Correa wants to portray himself as a champion of free speech, they say; or he wants to strike a blow to the US, or put himself forward as an international leader. But this is ridiculous.
    Correa didn't want this mess and it has been a lose-lose situation for him from the beginning. He has suffered increased tension with three countries that are diplomatically important to Ecuador – the US, UK and Sweden. The US is Ecuador's largest trading partner and has several times threatened to cut off trade preferences that support thousands of Ecuadorian jobs. And since most of the major international media has been hostile to Assange from the beginning, they have used the asylum request to attack Ecuador, accusing the government of a "crackdown" on the media at home. As I have noted elsewhere, this is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of Ecuador, which has an uncensored media that is mostly opposed to the government. And for most of the world, these misleading news reports are all that they will hear or read about Ecuador for a long time.
    Correa made this decision because it was the only ethical thing to do. And any of the independent, democratic governments of South America would have done the same. If only the world's biggest media organisations had the same ethics and commitment to freedom of speech and the press.
    Now we will see if the UK government will respect international law and human rights conventions and allow Assange safe passage to Ecuador.
    Article history

    Media

    World news


              

    World news

    Buy WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's war on secrecy
    WikiLeaks
    1. Buy the book (UK)
    2. Buy the book (US)
    3. Buy the ebook
    Related
    ---
    "William Hague's statement on Ecuador's decision to offer political asylum to Julian Assange"
    http://www.itv.com/news/2012-08-16/william-hagues-statement-on-ecuadors-decision-to-offer-political-asylum-to-julian-assange/

    ---
    "No se sabe cuándo podrá viajar a Quito: canciller

    Ecuador le concede asilo político a Julian Assange

    Se tomó en cuenta tradición nacional de acoger en su territorio a refugiados y de no exponer a ningún ciudadano a peligro alguno para su vida, justifica el gobierno ecuatoriano."
         
     

    "Respaldo


    Londres. Un grupo de personas se manifiesta este jueves frente a la embajada ecuatoriana en esta capital expresando su apoyo a Julian Assange, fundador de Wikileaks, a quien le fue concedido asilo político por parte de Ecuador. Ap"

    "Decisión 'nada cambia' y procederá la extradición a Suecia: Londres

    "Estamos determinados", expuso la Cancillería británica, tras conocer la postura de Quito."

    “Victoria significativa”, la decisión de Correa, opina el fundador de Wikileaks

    Teme que de ser extraditado a EU no recibirá un juicio justo; teme que las cosas sean más estresantes.
    ---

    (VIDEO) Fernando Buen Abad: "Latinoamérica debe respaldar decisión de asilo de Ecuador"

    Por: |

    http://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/n212138.html




    Fernando Buen Abad D‏@FBuenAbad
    Asilo y emancipación informativa - Por: Fernando Buen Abad Domínguez
    Details                   
    3h
    ◄ Hay secretos q deben ser repudiados y propalados cuando en ellos subyacen crímenes de guerra y de lesa humanidad...            

    7:45 AM - 17 Aug 12via Twitter for BlackBerry®· Details

    ---
    ---

    "Júbilo en Londres

     Simpatizantes de Julian Assange celebraron en las afueras de la embajada de Ecuador la decisión del gobierno de Rafael Correa de concederle asilo diplomático, al considerar que su vida e integridad corren riesgo por los cientos de miles de documentos secretos de Estados Unidos que publicó en el portal de Wikileaks. El ex hacker australiano de 41 años se mostró agradecido y dijo que el anuncio  es "una gran victoria". Foto AP
    Nadie nos va a atemorizar, señala el presidente Correa
    Ecuador asila a Assange; GB niega salvoconducto
    Quito analiza acudir a organismos internacionales para trasladarlo

    Será extraditado a Suecia, insiste Londres; no es mi asunto: EU"

    "Wikileaks en la mira

    EU dificulta las negociaciones, acusan defensores del australiano

    Washington responde que es un asunto entre ecuatorianos, británicos y suecos

    Foto
    El gobierno de Rafael Correa concedió asilo a Julian Assange. En la imagen, el mandatario (centro) se dispone a abordar un avión en el aeropuerto de Quito, ayerFoto Ap /Presidencia de Ecuador
    David Brooks
    Corresponsal
    Periódico La Jornada
    Viernes 17 de agosto de 2012, p. 3
    Nueva York, 16 de agosto. El gobierno de Estados Unidos pretendió estar al margen de la disputa diplomática ante el anuncio de Ecuador de otorgar asilo a Julian Assange para protegerlo de la persecución estadunidense, mientras abogados del australiano festejaron la decisión del gobierno de Rafael Correa, la cual consideraron un acto humanitario consagrado en los principios del derecho internacional.
    Es un asunto entre los ecuatorianos, los británicos y los suecos. No tengo nada en particular que agregar, fue la respuesta de la vocera del Departamento de Estado, Victoria Nuland, cuando periodistas le preguntaron la reacción de Estados Unidos ante la decisión de Ecuador. Rechazó versiones de que Washington estaba presionando a Londres con el fin de que ingrese a la embajada de Ecuador para detener a Assange: mi información es que no nos hemos involucrado en esto.

    Cuando periodistas insistieron sobre si Estados Unidos está actuando en esta disputa, Nuland reiteró: es un asunto entre los países involucrados y no tenemos planes de interponernos, no en torno a su ubicación actual o sobre adónde podría ir. Evadió responder a preguntas sobre derecho internacional, asilo, soberanía de las embajadas y más. Rechazó que Washington estuviera persiguiendo a Assange, aunque no descartó la existencia de un proceso judicial estadunidense en torno a Wikileaks.

    Para los defensores del australiano aquí, la decisión de Ecuador fue un triunfo en defensa de los derechos humanos y la libertad de la prensa y un acto valiente para detener la persecución estadunidense a Assange.

    Vincent Warren, director ejecutivo del Centro de Derechos Constitucionales (CCR) en Nueva York, organización que representa a Assange y forma parte de su equipo de defensa legal internacional, declaró: aplaudimos a Ecuador por otorgar asilo... una acción que correctamente ofrece protección a un periodista que enfrenta persecución por parte de Estados Unidos. La decisión, agregó, fortalece el compromiso global con los derechos humanos, incluyendo el rendimiento de cuentas de los gobiernos y la libertad de prensa.

    Señaló que el asilo es un acto humanitario por parte de Ecuador, un principio que los mismos Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido y Suecia han adoptado y reiterado en otras ocasiones.

    Tanto el gobierno de Ecuador como el equipo de abogados de Assange en Europa y Estados Unidos consideran que el punto clave en esta disputa es el papel de Washington y su persecución del fundador de Wikileaks.

    En entrevista con La Jornada, Warren afirmó que existe información de que un proceso legal se ha iniciado, si no concluido, en Estados Unidos para elaborar una acusación secreta contra Assange.
    Por otro lado, recordó que, entre otras indicaciones del interés de Washington en proceder contra Assange, están las declaraciones –desde que se filtraron documentos oficiales a través de Wikileaks– de varios funcionarios y políticos denostando a Assange en lugar de considerarlo un periodista, y calificándolo como alguien parecido a un terrorista.

    Más allá de esto, Warren indicó que es muy significativo que las negociaciones de Assange con las autoridades suecas, en las que aceptaba ser entrevistado, pero con garantías de que no sería extraditado a Estados Unidos, además de las noticias recientes de que Ecuador intentó negociar tanto con el Reino Unido como con Suecia para solicitar garantías de que Assange no sería extraditado a Estados Unidos, ambos países rehusaron ofrecerlas. Y creo que eso apunta a la influencia de Estados Unidos.

    Subrayó que el jugador principal en esta pugna, el que está dificultando estas negociaciones, es Estados Unidos.

    Aunque no hay comprobación pública de un proceso legal estadunidense contra Assange –el cual puede mantenerse de manera secreta hasta anunciarse la formulación de cargos–, Warren señaló que a estas alturas es razonable esperar que Estados Unidos, en algún momento en este proceso, hará público o formalizará algún tipo de solicitud de extradición y/o presentará una acusación criminal formal contra Assange. Por ahora, afirmó que la tarea es trabajar para que se respete la decisión soberana de Ecuador, así como impedir que el Reino Unido y Suecia hagan el trabajo sucio de Estados Unidos.

    Michael Ratner, presidente de CCR e integrante del equipo de abogados de Assange, comentó que hoy “es un día muy importante para Julian, Wikileaks y la prensa libre”.

    Entrevistado por Amy Goodman, de Democracy Now, Ratner subrayó que Ecuador, un pequeño país, acaba de enfrentar, lo tenemos que entender bien, a dos de los países más poderosos del mundo: el Reino Unido y Estados Unidos. Esperemos que los británicos respeten el imperio de la ley.

    Para Ratner y los otros abogados y defensores de Assange, la mano de Estados Unidos es la clave en toda esta disputa, donde, según denuncian, hay una persecución de un hombre que, en función del periodismo, reveló documentos que más bien implican a Washington en una serie de posibles violaciones de ley. Pero en lugar de investigar esas violaciones, las autoridades persiguen a quienes difunden esas prácticas y acciones ocultas al público.

    Enlaces:

    Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks

    Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks"

    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/08/17/politica/003n1pol

    ---


    "Assange: asilo digno y persecución ominosa
    El gobierno ecuatoriano, presidido por Rafael Correa, anunció ayer la concesión de asilo diplomático al fundador de Wikileaks, Julian Assange, quien se encuentra refugiado en su embajada en Londres desde el pasado 19 de junio. Como se recordará, hasta esa fecha el australiano estuvo casi dos años sometido a arresto domiciliario en territorio inglés, como consecuencia de una demanda de extradición de Suecia para interrogarlo por presuntas agresiones sexuales, sin que hasta la fecha exista contra él una sola acusación formal.

    El también directivo de Sunshine Press ha expresado su temor de que la extradición a Suecia sea sólo una coartada para entregarlo al gobierno estadunidense, el cual, sin investigación de por medio, lo ha acusado de colaboración con terroristas por la tarea de Wikileaks de dar a conocer cientos de miles de documentos secretos del Pentágono y del Departamento de Estado. Tales revelaciones han confirmado la comisión de crímenes de lesa humanidad por las fuerzas militares de Washington en Afganistán y en Irak y han documentado el permanente e ilegal injerencismo de Estados Unidos en prácticamente todos los países en los cuales mantiene representaciones diplomáticas.

    La decisión de las autoridades de Quito de dar protección al informador perseguido tendría que ser considerada un trámite rutinario de aplicación del derecho internacional –particularmente de las convenciones de Viena y de Caracas– y de las leyes ecuatorianas, ante la cual el gobierno británico no tendría que objetar la salida de Assange, mediante la expedición de un salvoconducto, de la sede diplomática hacia el aeropuerto, y de allí a Ecuador. Pero los amagos de Londres de impedir a toda costa la partida del periodista han generado ya una crisis diplomática que contrasta con la insustancialidad de la investigación por delitos sexuales, y la dejan ver como una coartada para llevar a cabo una tarea política mayor: la de cobrar venganza contra el australiano por haber evidenciado algunos de los aspectos más impresentables del poder público en decenas de países.
    Si algo corrobora esa presunción es el conjunto de atropellos perpetrados por Washington contra el soldado Bradley Manning, acusado de haber entregado a Wikileaks la documentación que prueba los crímenes de guerra cometidos por los invasores en Afganistán e Irak. Mientras los autores materiales e intelectuales de esas atrocidades permanecen libres e impunes, el hombre que presuntamente dio a conocer sus delitos ha sido sometido a torturas, largos periodos de aislamiento y, a la postre, al juicio de una corte marcial que podría condenarlo a cadena perpetua.

    Se configura, de esta forma, un escenario poco usual, en el cual un gobierno democrático latinoamericano sale en defensa de los derechos humanos, la libertad de expresión y la integridad de un perseguido internacional, en tanto las autoridades de Washington, Estocolmo y Londres, que tanto se precian de promover la libertad, la justicia y la democracia, participan en una concertación trilateral para aplicar con Assange un escarmiento a todo ciudadano de cualquier país del mundo que ponga al descubierto la turbiedad interna del poder y, en general, para preservar la opacidad y la impunidad de las acciones gubernamentales en casi todo el mundo.

    En cuanto a la amenaza inglesa de recurrir incluso a un asalto a la legación ecuatoriana para capturar a Assange, denunciada anteayer por el propio Correa, cabe señalar que tal despropósito no tiene fundamento legal y que su realización sería un acto de inadmisible salvajismo.

    Las autoridades de Londres no debe descender a simas de barbarie semejantes, lo procedente es que, a la brevedad, otorguen un salvoconducto a Assange para que pueda abandonar el territorio británico. Para lograrlo será fundamerntal la movilización de la opinión pública mundial, que tanto debe, en materia de transparencia, democracia y acceso a la información, a Wikileaks y a su fundador."

    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/08/17/edito

    Press conference with Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca: Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange. (English translation)

    – 16 August, 2012Posted in: Editorial, US espionage investigation, WikiLeaks
    The text below is translated from the official Spanish transcript of today’s press statement issued by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca, explaining Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange. Here is a backup text in case Ecuadorian govt. website goes down : backup 1, backup 2.

    This translation was crowd-sourced with the help of @DUVFree, BCK, BM, and other anonymous volunteers. Thanks for your contribution!

    Note: links inserted in brackets have been added by WLPress for reference

    Declaration by the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on Julian Assange’s asylum application


    Ecuadorian nationals show their support for Assange outside of the Embassy of Ecuador in London.
    On June 19, 2012, the Australian national Mr. Julian Assange appeared at the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to request that the Ecuadorean State provide him with diplomatic protection, thus invoking the existing Diplomatic Asylum rules. The applicant had made his asylum request based on his fear of eventual political persecution by a third country, the same country whom could use his extradition to the Kingdom of Sweden to enable an expedited subsequent extradition.

    The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedures and with the utmost attention to this case, has reviewed and evaluated all aspects of this case, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange to support the fear he feels regarding this situation as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedoms.

    It is important to note that Mr. Assange has taken the decision to seek asylum and protection of Ecuador over alleged allegations of “espionage and treason,” which “instigate fear of the possibility of being handed over to the United States of America by British, Swedish or Australian authorities,“ said Mr. Assange, since the USA is chasing him for releasing compromising information sensitive to the U.S. Government. The applicant mentions that he “is a victim of persecution in various countries, which is deduced not only from their ideas and actions, but of his work of publishing information which compromises the powerful, uncovers the truth and therefore exposes corruption and abuses of human rights of citizens around the world.”

    Therefore, according to the applicant, the indictment for crimes of a political nature is the basis for his asylum request, because in his judgement he is facing a situation involving an imminent danger which he cannot escape. In order to assess his fear of possible political persecution, and that this persecution could end up becoming a situation which curtails and violates his rights, integrity, and could become a risk to his personal safety and freedom, the Government of Ecuador has considered the following:
    1. Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally known for his struggles for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
    2. Mr. Assange shared privileged documents and information generated by various sources that affected employees, countries and organizations with a global audience;
    3. That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life;
    4. 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;
    5. 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;
    6. 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;
    7. 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;
    8. Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation;
    9. Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;
    10. That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and the USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect international conventions and treaties, and would give priority to domestic law, in violation of explicit rules of universal application and,
    11. That, if Mr. Assange is remanded to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), a chain of events would begin that would prevent further protective measures from being taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.
    Thus, the Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity. This fear has driven him to exercise the right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK.

    Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador clearly defines the right of asylum. Under this provision, the rights of asylum and refugee status are fully recognized in Ecuador in accordance with international law and instruments of human rights. According to this constitutional provision:

    “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.”

    Similarly, the right to asylum is enshrined in Article 4.7 of the Foreign Service Act of 2006 (Ley Orgánica del Servicio Exterior), which establishes the ability of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador to hear cases of diplomatic asylum, in accordance with laws, treaties, and international norms and laws.

    It should be stressed that our country has stood out in recent years to accommodate a large number of people who have applied for territorial asylum or refugee status, having unconditionally respected the principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, while it has taken steps to provide refugee status in an expeditious manner, taking into account the circumstances of applicants, mostly Colombians fleeing armed conflicts in their own country. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and highlighted the important fact that the country has not confined these people to camps, but has integrated them into Ecuadorian society, with full enjoyment of their human and natural rights.

    Ecuador places the right of asylum in the category of universal human rights and beliefs, therefore, that the effective implementation of this right requires international cooperation that our countries can provide, without which it would be fruitless, and the institution would be totally ineffective. For these reasons, and recalling the obligation of all States to assist in the protection and promotion of human rights as provided by the United Nations Charter, we invite the British Government to lend its assistance in achieving this purpose.

    To that effect, the state of Ecuador can confirm, following analysis of the legal institutions related to asylum, that the foundation of these rights has set out fundamental principles of general international law, the same as for its universal scope and importance, because of its consistance with the general interest of the entire international community, and full recognition by all states. These principles, which are set forth in various international instruments are as follows:

    a) Asylum in all its forms is a fundamental human right creating obligations erga omnes, ie “for all” states.
    b) Diplomatic asylum, refuge (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, are comparable human rights, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: non-refoulement and non-discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status or any other similar criteria.
    c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (i.e. more favorable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.
    d) The protection occurs when the State granting asylum, required refuge, or powers of protection, consider that there is a risk or fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution, or is charged with political offenses.
    e) The State granting asylum qualifies the causes of asylum and extradition case, weigh the evidence.
    f) No matter which of its forms or modality, asylum always has the same cause and lawful object, i.e. political persecution, which makes it permissible, and to safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person, which is its legitimately intended purpose.
    g) The right of asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, i.e. the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, for which no derogation is permitted, making null all treaties and provisions of international law which oppose it.
    h) In cases not covered by existing law, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and rules of the principles of jus gentium [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium] derived from established customs, the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience [http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument].
    i) The lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States cannot legitimately be invoked to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.
    j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum or refuge, no extradition, no handing over, no expulsion and no transfer are convergent, to the extent necessary to enhance the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense, they are complementary to the international human rights law, the right of asylum and refugee law, and humanitarian law.
    k) The rights of protection of the human being are based on ethical principles and universally accepted values and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidaric, peaceful and humanitarian character.
    l) All States have a duty to promote the progressive development of international human rights through effective national and international action.

    Ecuador has judged that the laws applicable to the asylum case of Mr. Julian Assange comprise the entire set of principles, standards, mechanisms and procedures provided for international human rights instruments (whether regional or universal), which include among their provisions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political reasons, the conventions governing the right of asylum and refugee law, and which recognize the right not to be delivered, returned, or expelled when credible fear of political persecution exists; conventions governing extradition law recognize the right not to be extradited when this measure covers political persecution, and conventions governing humanitarian law, recognize the right not to be transferred when there is a risk of political persecution. All these forms of asylum and international protection are justified by the need to protect this person from possible political persecution, or a possible accusation of political crimes and / or crimes related to the latter, which in the opinion of Ecuador, not only endanger Mr. Assange, but also pose a serious injustice committed against him.

    It is undeniable that states, having agreed to numerous and substantive international instruments (many of them legally-binding), have the obligation to provide protection or asylum to persons persecuted for political reasons and have expressed their desire to establish a legal institution to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms based on a general practice accepted as law, which confers on such obligations a mandatory nature, erga omnes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erga_omnes], linked to the respect, protection and progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms that are part of jus cogens [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm]. Some of these instruments are mentioned below:

    a) United Nations Charter of 1945, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: the obligation of all members to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights;
    b) Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14);
    c) Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 27);
    d) Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: the protected person should in no case be transferred to a country where they fear persecution for his political views ( Article 45);
    e) Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 and Protocol of New York, 1967: prohibits returning or expelling refugees to countries where their lives and freedom would be threatened (Art. 33.1);
    f) Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954: The State has the right to grant asylum and classify the nature of the offense or the motives of persecution (Article 4);
    g) Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State is entitled to admit to its territory such persons as it considers necessary (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, political opinions or affiliation, or acts that may be considered political offenses ( Article 2), the State granting asylum may not return or expel a refugee who is persecuted for political reasons or offenses (Article 3); also, extradition is not appropriate when dealing with people who, according to the requested State, be prosecuted for political crimes , or common crimes committed for political purposes, or when extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);
    h) European Convention on Extradition of 1957, prohibits extradition if the requested Party considers that the offense is a political charge (Article 3.1);
    i) 2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967 provides for the granting of asylum to persons who have that right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonialism (Article 1.1). It prohibits the refusal of admission, expulsion and return to any State where he may be subject to persecution (Article 3.1);
    j) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, provides that the rules and principles of general international law imperatives do not support a contrary agreement, the treaty is void upon conflicts with one of these rules (Article 53), and if there arises a new peremptory norm of this nature, any existing treaty which conflicts with that provision is void and is terminated (Article 64). As regards the application of these Articles, the Convention allows States to claim compliance with the International Court of Justice, without requiring the agreement of the respondent State, accepting the court’s jurisdiction (Article 66.b). Human rights are norms of jus cogens.
    k) American Convention on Human Rights, 1969: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 22.7);
    l) European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977, the requested State is entitled to refuse extradition when there is a danger that the person is prosecuted or punished for their political opinions (Article 5);
    m) Inter-American Convention on Extradition of 1981, the extradition is not applicable when the person has been tried or convicted, or is to be tried in a court of special or ad hoc in the requesting State (Article 4.3), when, under the classification of the requested State, whether political crimes or related crimes or crimes with a political aim pursued, and when, the circumstances of the case, can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality; that the situation of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons (Article 4.5). Article 6 provides, in reference to the right of asylum, that “nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting the right of asylum, when appropriate.”
    n) African Charter on Human and Peoples of 1981, pursued individual’s right to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);
    o) Cartagena Declaration of 1984, recognizes the right to seek refuge, not to be rejected at the border and not to be returned. [http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36ec.html]
    p) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000: establishes the right of diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country not represented by the Member State of nationality, have the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, under the same conditions as nationals of that State (Article 46).

    The Government of Ecuador believes it is important to note that the rules and principles recognized in the international instruments mentioned above and in other multilateral agreements take precedence over domestic law of States, because these treaties are based on universal rules guided by intangible principles, whereof deriving greater respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights against unilateral attitudes of such States. This would compromise international law, which should instead be strengthened in order to consolidate the respect of fundamental rights in terms of integration and ecumenical character.

    Furthermore, since Assange applied for asylum in Ecuador, we have maintained high-level diplomatic talks with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.

    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.

    Assange’s lawyers invited Swedish authorities to take Assange statements in the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ecuador officially conveyed to Swedish authorities its willingness to host this interview without interference or impediment to the legal processes followed in Sweden. This measure is absolutely legally possible. Sweden did not accept.

    On the other hand, Ecuador raised the possibility that the Swedish government establish guarantees to not subsequently extradite Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish government rejected any compromise in this regard.

    Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially reveal its position on Assange’s case. Inquiries related to the following:
    1. If there is an ongoing legal process or intent to carry out such processes against Julian Assange and/or the founders of the WikiLeaks organization;
    2. Should the above be true, then under what kind of legislation, and how and under what conditions would such persons be subject to under maximum penalties;
    3. Whether there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.
    The U.S. response has been that it cannot provide information about the Assange case, claiming that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.

    With this background, the Government of Ecuador, true to its tradition of protecting those who seek refuge in its territory or on the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange, based on the application submitted to the President of the Republic, transmitted in writing in London, dated June 19, 2012, and supplemented by letter written in London dated June 25, 2012, for which the Government of Ecuador, after a fair and objective assessment of the situation described by Mr. Assange, according to his own words and arguments, endorsed the fears of the appellant, and accepts that there are indications which lead to the conclusion that he may face political persecution, or that such persecution could occur if timely and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it.

    The Government of Ecuador is certain that the British Government knows how to assess the justice and righteousness of the Ecuadorian position, and consistent with these arguments, it is confident that the UK will offer safe passage guarantees necessary and relevant to the asylum, so that their governments can honor with action the fidelity owed to law and international institutions that both nations have helped shape along their common history.

    It also hopes to maintain unchanged the excellent ties of friendship and mutual respect which bind Ecuador and the United Kingdom and their people, as they are also engaged in promoting and defending the same principles and values, and because they share similar concerns about democracy, peace, and well being, which are only possible if the fundamental rights of everyone are respected."
    English translation of press conference with Ecuadorian Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca on the decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange
    The text below is taken from http://www.mmrree.gob.ec/2012/com042.asp, a transcript of the press statement issued by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca today, explaining Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange. Here is a backup text in case Ecuadorian govt. website goes down : http://pastie.org/4521255 & http://www.webcitation.org/69xdGRSLN - most of the text below is translated by Google translate. Please help us verify and correct this translation! Thanks!
    Translation means preserving the meaning; feel free to change sentence structure so long as the meaning is not changed.
    After you have read / verified a paragraph, put a # after the last sentence so we can keep track of how many people have checked a particular section. Please put a $ instead if you are a native Spanish speaker.
    Declaration by the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on Julian Assange‘s asylum application$#
    On June 19, 2012, the Australian national Mr. Julian Assange appeared at the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to request that the Ecudorean State provide him with diplomatic protection, thus invoking the existing Diplomatic Asylum rules. The applicant had made his asylum request based on his fear of eventual political persecution by a third country, the same country whom could use his extradition to the Kingdom of Sweden to enable an expedited subsequent extradition. #. ##$#
    The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedures and with the utmost attention to this case, has reviewed and evaluated all aspects of this case, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange to support the fear he feels regarding this situation as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedoms. #$#
    It is important to note that Mr. Assange has taken the decision to seek asylum and protection of Ecuador over alleged allegations of “espionage and treason,” which “instigate fear of the possibility of being handed over to the United States of America by British, Swedish or Australian authorities,“ said Mr. Assange, since the USA is chasing him for releasing compromising information sensitive to the U.S. Government. The applicant mentions that he “is a victim of persecution in various countries, which is deduced not only from their ideas and actions, but of his work of publishing information which compromises the powerful, uncovers the truth and therefore exposes corruption and abuses of human rights of citizens around the world.” #$$#
    Therefore, according to the applicant, the indictment for crimes of a political nature is the basis for his asylum request, because in his judgement he is facing a situation involving an imminent danger which he cannot escape. In order to assess his fear of possible political persecution, and that this persecution could end up becoming a situation which curtails and violates his rights, integrity, and could become a risk to his personal safety and freedom, the Government of Ecuador has considered the following: ##$$#
    1. Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally known for his struggles for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;#
    2. Mr. Assange shared privileged documents and information generated by various sources that affected employees, countries and organizations with a global audience;#
    3. That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life;#
    4. That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked to give adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them;#
    5. 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;#
    6. 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;$#
    7. That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense;#
    8. Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation;#
    9. Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;#
    10. That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and the USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect international conventions and treaties, and would give priority to domestic law, in violation of explicit rules of universal application and,#
    11. That, if Mr. Assange is remanded to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), a chain of events would begin, preventing further protective measures from being taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country. #$#
    Thus, the Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity. This fear has driven him to exercise the right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK. ##$#
    Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador clearly defines the right of asylum. Under this provision, the rights of asylum and refugee status are fully recognized in Ecuador in accordance with international law and instruments of human rights. According to this constitutional provision: #$#
    “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.” #$#
    Similarly, the right to asylum is enshrined in Article 4.7 of the Foreign Service Act of 2006 (Ley Orgánica del Servicio Exterior), which establishes the ability of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador to hear cases of diplomatic asylum, in accordance with laws, treaties, and international norms and laws. ##$
    It should be stressed that our country has stood out in recent years to accommodate a large number of people who have applied for territorial asylum or refugee status, having unconditionally respected the principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, while it has taken steps to provide refugee status in an expeditious manner, taking into account the circumstances of applicants, mostly Colombians fleeing armed conflicts in their own country. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and highlighted the important fact that the country has not confined these people to camps, but has integrated them into Ecuadorian society, with full enjoyment of their human and natural rights. ##$
    Ecuador places the right of asylum in the catetegory of universal human rights and believes, therefore, that the effective implementation of this right requires international cooperation that our countries can provide, without which it would be fruitless, and the institution would be totally ineffective. For these reasons, and recalling the obligation of all States to assist in the protection and promotion of human rights as provided by the United Nations Charter, we invite the British Government to lend its assistance in achieving this purpose. ##$
    To that effect, the state of Ecuador can confirm, following analysis of the legal institutions related to asylum, that the foundation of these rights has set out fundamental principles of general international law, the same as for its universal scope and importance, because of its consistance with the general interest of the entire international community, and full recognition by all states. These principles, which are set forth in various international instruments are as follows: ##$
    a) Asylum in all its forms is a fundamental human right creating obligations erga omnes, ie “for all” states.#$
    b) Diplomatic asylum, refuge (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, are comparable human rights, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: non-refoulement and non-discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status or any other similar criteria.#$
    c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (i.e. more favorable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.#$
    d) The protection occurs when the State granting asylum, required refuge, or powers of protection, consider that there is a risk or fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution, or is charged with political offenses.$#
    e) The State granting asylum qualifies the causes of asylum and extradition case, weigh the evidence.#
    f) No matter which of its forms or modality, asylum always has the same cause and lawful object, i.e. political persecution, which makes it permissible, and to safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person, which is its legitimately intended purpose.#$
    g) The right of asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, i.e. the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, for which no derogation is permitted, making null all treaties and provisions of international law which oppose it.#$
    h) In cases not covered by existing law, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and rules of the principles of jus gentium [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium] derived from established customs, the principles of humanity and the solidarity of public conscience.#$
    i) The lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States cannot legitimately be invoked to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.#$
    j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum or refuge, no extradition, no handing over, no expulsion and no transfer are convergent, to the extent necessary to enhance the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense, they are complementary to the international human rights law, the right of asylum and refugee law, and humanitarian law.$#
    k) The rights of protection of the human person are based on ethical principles and universally accepted values and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidaric, peaceful and humanitarian nature.$#
    l) All States have a duty to promote the progressive development of international human rights through effective national and international action. ##
    Ecuador has judged that the laws applicable to the asylum case of Mr. Julian Assange comprise the entire set of principles, standards, mechanisms and procedures provided for international human rights instruments (whether regional or universal), which include among their provisions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political reasons, the conventions governing the right of asylum and refugee law, and which recognize the right not to be delivered, returned, or expelled when credible fear of political persecution exists; conventions governing extradition law recognize the right not to be extradited when this measure covers political persecution, and conventions governing humanitarian law, recognize the right not to be transferred when there is a risk of political persecution. All these forms of asylum and international protection are justified by the need to protect this person from possible political persecution, or a possible accusation of political crimes and / or crimes related to the latter, which in the opinion of Ecuador, not only endanger Mr. Assange, but also pose a serious injustice committed against him. ###
    It is undeniable that states, having agreed to numerous and substantive international instruments (many of them legally-binding), have the obligation to provide protection or asylum to persons persecuted for political reasons and have expressed their desire to establish a legal institution to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms based on a general practice accepted as law, which confers on such obligations a mandatory nature, erga omnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erga_omnes ), linked to the respect, protection and progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms that are part of jus cogens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm ). Some of these instruments are mentioned below: #$ # (I had a lot of trouble with this paragraph, can’t make sense of it).
    a) United Nations Charter of 1945, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: the obligation of all members to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights; #
    b) Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14); #
    c) Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 27); #
    d) Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: the protected person should in no case be transferred to a country where they fear persecution for his political views ( Article 45); #
    e) Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 and Protocol of New York, 1967: prohibits returning or expelling refugees to countries where their lives and freedom would be threatened (Art. 33.1); #
    f) Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954: The State has the right to grant asylum and classify the nature of the offense or the motives of persecution (Article 4); #
    g) Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State is entitled to admit to its territory such persons as it considers necessary (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, political opinions or affiliation, or acts that may be considered political offenses ( Article 2), the State granting asylum may not return or expel a refugee who is persecuted for political reasons or offenses (Article 3); also, extradition is not appropriate when dealing with people who, according to the requested State, be prosecuted for political crimes , or common crimes committed for political purposes, or when extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4); #
    h) European Convention on Extradition of 1957, prohibits extradition if the requested Party considers that the offense is a political charge (Article 3.1); #
    i) 2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967 provides for the granting of asylum to persons who have that right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonialism (Article 1.1). It prohibits the refusal of admission, expulsion and return to any State where he may be subject to persecution (Article 3.1); #
    j) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, provides that the rules and principles of general international law imperatives do not support a contrary agreement, the treaty is void upon conflicts with one of these rules (Article 53), and if there arises a new peremptory norm of this nature, any existing treaty which conflicts with that provision is void and is terminated (Article 64). As regards the application of these Articles, the Convention allows States to claim compliance with the International Court of Justice, without requiring the agreement of the respondent State, accepting the court’s jurisdiction (Article 66.b). Human rights are norms of jus cogens. #
    k) American Convention on Human Rights, 1969: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 22.7); #
    l) European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977, the requested State is entitled to refuse extradition when there is a danger that the person is prosecuted or punished for their political opinions (Article 5); #
    m) Inter-American Convention on Extradition of 1981, the extradition is not applicable when the person has been tried or convicted, or is to be tried in a court of special or ad hoc in the requesting State (Article 4.3), when, under the classification of the requested State, whether political crimes or related crimes or crimes with a political aim pursued, and when, the circumstances of the case, can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality; that the situation of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons (Article 4.5). Article 6 provides, in reference to the right of asylum, that “nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting the right of asylum, when appropriate”. #
    n) African Charter on Human and Peoples of 1981, pursued individual’s right to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3); #
    o) Cartagena Declaration of 1984, recognizes the right to seek refuge, not to be rejected at the border and not to be returned. [http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36ec.html] #
    p) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000: establishes the right of diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country not represented by the Member State of nationality, have the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, under the same conditions as nationals of that State (Article 46). #
    The Government of Ecuador believes it is important to note that the rules and principles recognized in the international instruments mentioned above and in other multilateral agreements take precedence over domestic law of States, because these treaties are based on universal rules guided by intangible principles, whereof deriving greater respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights against unilateral attitudes of such States. This would compromise international law, which should instead be strengthened so that respect for fundamental rights is consolidated in terms of integration and ecumenical character. # (Had trouble understanding this one, still seems unclear what is being said).
    Furthermore, since Assange applied for asylum in Ecuador, we have maintained high-level diplomatic talks with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States. ##
    In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hinderance, 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. ##
    Assange’s lawyers invited Swedish authorities to take Assange statements in the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ecuador officially conveyed to Swedish authorities its willingness to host this interview without interference or impediment to the legal processes followed in Sweden. This measure is absolutely legally possible. Sweden did not accept. ##
    On the other hand, Ecuador raised the possibility that the Swedish government establish guarantees to not subsequently extradite Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish government rejected any compromise in this regard. #$
    Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially reveal its position on Assange’s case. Inquiries related to the following: #
    1. If there is an ongoing legal process or intent to carry out such processes against Julian Assange and/or the founders of the Wikileaks organization;
    2. Should the above be true, then under what kind of legislation, and how and under what conditions would such persons be subject to under maximum penalties;
    3. Whether there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States. ##
    The U.S. response has been that it cannot provide information about the Assange case, claiming that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom. #
    With this background, the Government of Ecuador, true to its tradition of protecting those who seek refuge in its territory or on the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange, based on the application submitted to the President of the Republic, transmitted in writing in London, dated June 19, 2012, and supplemented by letter written in London dated June 25, 2012, for which the Government of Ecuador, after a fair and objective assessment of the situation described by Mr. Assange, according to his own words and arguments, endorsed the fears of the appellant, and accepts that there are indications which lead to the conclusion that he may face political persecution, or that such persecution could occur if timely and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it. ##
    The Government of Ecuador is certain that the British Government knows how to assess the justice and righteousness of the Ecuadorian position, and consistent with these arguments, it is confident that the UK will offer safe passage guarantees necessary and relevant to the asylum, so that their governments can honor with action the fidelity owed to law and international institutions that both nations have helped shape along their common history. ##
    It also hopes to maintain unchanged the excellent ties of friendship and mutual respect which bind Ecuador and the United Kingdom and their people, as they are also engaged in promoting and defending the same principles and values, and because they share similar concerns about democracy, peace, and well being, which are only possible if the fundamental rights of everyone are respected.##
    Did you like this? Share it:


     http://wikileaks-press.org/press-conference-with-foreign-minister-ricardo-patino-aroca-ecuador-grants-asylum-to-julian-assange-english-translation/
    ---

    "Ecuador pide reunión de cancilleres para analizar caso Assange

    Por: Redacción / Sinembargo - agosto 16 de 2012 - 20:58
    TIEMPO REAL, Último minuto - Sin comentarios
    Washington, 16 Ago (Notimex).- Ecuador pidió hoy a la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA) convocar a una reunión de consulta de cancilleres para discutir lo que consideró “amenazas” del Reino Unido a su gobierno.

    “El gobierno del Ecuador no puede dejar de rechazar y denunciar las amenazas vertidas explícitamente por el gobierno británico que cobran mayor vigencia este día ante la decisión de mi país de conceder asilo diplomático al señor Julián Assange”, señaló María Isabel Salvador representante permanente de Ecuador ante la OEA.

    Citó extractos de un documento escrito enviado por el gobierno británico a la representación diplomática ecuatoriana en el que se anuncia que eventualmente arrestarían a Assange en el interior de esa legación.

    “Sinceramente, esperamos no tener que llegar a este punto, pero si ustedes no puede resolver el asunto de la presencia del señor Assange en sus instalaciones, esta ruta está abierta para nosotros”, indicó la misiva, según Salvador.

    Sin embargo, el observador británico en el organismo, Philip Barton, minimizó la gravedad de las acusaciones ecuatorianas.

    Negó que su gobierno hubiera amenazado a autoridades ecuatorianas y solicitó retirar ese término de la propuesta de resolución presentada por Ecuador para que la OEA convoque a la reunión ministerial.

    Recordó que Reino Unido no acepta el principio de asilo diplomático “al mismo tiempo, creemos que el uso de las instalaciones de la embajada para evitar el arresto es incompatible con las obligaciones internacionales de Ecuador”.

    Por su parte, Joel Antonio Hernández García, embajador de México ante el organismo, dijo que su país “comparte y acompaña a Ecuador en su preocupación en torno a la inviolabilidad de los locales de la misión diplomática ecuatoriana en Londres”.

    Destacó como situación preocupante una posible violación al principio contenido en el artículo 22 de la Convención de Viena.

    Explicó que el derecho internacional reconoce que las sedes de las misiones diplomáticas son inviolables y que los agentes del Estado receptor no pueden penetrar sin el consentimiento del jefe de la misión.

    La mayoría de los representantes de los países miembros expresaron su apoyo al gobierno ecuatoriano para la realización de la reunión ministerial.

    Acordaron una cita este viernes a las 15:00 horas locales para la fecha y lugar en que los cancilleres se reunirán. La propuesta de Ecuador es que la cumbre se realice el próximo 23 de agosto con carácter urgente."

    http://www.sinembargo.mx/16-08-2012/336291
    ---

    "Abogado de Assange confía en que Australia resuelva conflicto por asilo"

    http://www.nosotrosdiario.mx/abogado-de-assange-confia-en-que-australia-resuelva-conflicto-por-asilo-10755


    http://www.gov.au/

    ---
    http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/08/16/actualidad/1345124128_899165.html
    ---
    "Wikileaks en la mira
    EU dificulta las negociaciones, acusan defensores del australiano
    Washington responde que es un asunto entre ecuatorianos, británicos y suecos
    Foto
    El gobierno de Rafael Correa concedió asilo a Julian Assange. En la imagen, el mandatario (centro) se dispone a abordar un avión en el aeropuerto de Quito, ayerFoto Ap /Presidencia de Ecuador
    David Brooks
    Corresponsal
    Periódico La Jornada
    Viernes 17 de agosto de 2012, p. 3
    Nueva York, 16 de agosto. El gobierno de Estados Unidos pretendió estar al margen de la disputa diplomática ante el anuncio de Ecuador de otorgar asilo a Julian Assange para protegerlo de la persecución estadunidense, mientras abogados del australiano festejaron la decisión del gobierno de Rafael Correa, la cual consideraron un acto humanitario consagrado en los principios del derecho internacional.

    Es un asunto entre los ecuatorianos, los británicos y los suecos. No tengo nada en particular que agregar, fue la respuesta de la vocera del Departamento de Estado, Victoria Nuland, cuando periodistas le preguntaron la reacción de Estados Unidos ante la decisión de Ecuador. Rechazó versiones de que Washington estaba presionando a Londres con el fin de que ingrese a la embajada de Ecuador para detener a Assange: mi información es que no nos hemos involucrado en esto.

    Cuando periodistas insistieron sobre si Estados Unidos está actuando en esta disputa, Nuland reiteró: es un asunto entre los países involucrados y no tenemos planes de interponernos, no en torno a su ubicación actual o sobre adónde podría ir. Evadió responder a preguntas sobre derecho internacional, asilo, soberanía de las embajadas y más. Rechazó que Washington estuviera persiguiendo a Assange, aunque no descartó la existencia de un proceso judicial estadunidense en torno a Wikileaks.

    Para los defensores del australiano aquí, la decisión de Ecuador fue un triunfo en defensa de los derechos humanos y la libertad de la prensa y un acto valiente para detener la persecución estadunidense a Assange.

    Vincent Warren, director ejecutivo del Centro de Derechos Constitucionales (CCR) en Nueva York, organización que representa a Assange y forma parte de su equipo de defensa legal internacional, declaró: aplaudimos a Ecuador por otorgar asilo... una acción que correctamente ofrece protección a un periodista que enfrenta persecución por parte de Estados Unidos. La decisión, agregó, fortalece el compromiso global con los derechos humanos, incluyendo el rendimiento de cuentas de los gobiernos y la libertad de prensa.

    Señaló que el asilo es un acto humanitario por parte de Ecuador, un principio que los mismos Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido y Suecia han adoptado y reiterado en otras ocasiones.

    Tanto el gobierno de Ecuador como el equipo de abogados de Assange en Europa y Estados Unidos consideran que el punto clave en esta disputa es el papel de Washington y su persecución del fundador de Wikileaks.

    En entrevista con La Jornada, Warren afirmó que existe información de que un proceso legal se ha iniciado, si no concluido, en Estados Unidos para elaborar una acusación secreta contra Assange.
    Por otro lado, recordó que, entre otras indicaciones del interés de Washington en proceder contra Assange, están las declaraciones –desde que se filtraron documentos oficiales a través de Wikileaks– de varios funcionarios y políticos denostando a Assange en lugar de considerarlo un periodista, y calificándolo como alguien parecido a un terrorista.

    Más allá de esto, Warren indicó que es muy significativo que las negociaciones de Assange con las autoridades suecas, en las que aceptaba ser entrevistado, pero con garantías de que no sería extraditado a Estados Unidos, además de las noticias recientes de que Ecuador intentó negociar tanto con el Reino Unido como con Suecia para solicitar garantías de que Assange no sería extraditado a Estados Unidos, ambos países rehusaron ofrecerlas. Y creo que eso apunta a la influencia de Estados Unidos.

    Subrayó que el jugador principal en esta pugna, el que está dificultando estas negociaciones, es Estados Unidos.

    Aunque no hay comprobación pública de un proceso legal estadunidense contra Assange –el cual puede mantenerse de manera secreta hasta anunciarse la formulación de cargos–, Warren señaló que a estas alturas es razonable esperar que Estados Unidos, en algún momento en este proceso, hará público o formalizará algún tipo de solicitud de extradición y/o presentará una acusación criminal formal contra Assange. Por ahora, afirmó que la tarea es trabajar para que se respete la decisión soberana de Ecuador, así como impedir que el Reino Unido y Suecia hagan el trabajo sucio de Estados Unidos.

    Michael Ratner, presidente de CCR e integrante del equipo de abogados de Assange, comentó que hoy “es un día muy importante para Julian, Wikileaks y la prensa libre”.

    Entrevistado por Amy Goodman, de Democracy Now, Ratner subrayó que Ecuador, un pequeño país, acaba de enfrentar, lo tenemos que entender bien, a dos de los países más poderosos del mundo: el Reino Unido y Estados Unidos. Esperemos que los británicos respeten el imperio de la ley.

    Para Ratner y los otros abogados y defensores de Assange, la mano de Estados Unidos es la clave en toda esta disputa, donde, según denuncian, hay una persecución de un hombre que, en función del periodismo, reveló documentos que más bien implican a Washington en una serie de posibles violaciones de ley. Pero en lugar de investigar esas violaciones, las autoridades persiguen a quienes difunden esas prácticas y acciones ocultas al público.

    Enlaces:
    Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks
    Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks"

    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/08/17/politica/003n1pol


    "Peligra vida de Assange, dice Ecuador al concederle asilo"


    "Acusado de violación y agresión sexual en Suecia"



    La Alba rechaza amenazas de GB contra la embajada ecuatoriana


    El caso podría llegar a la corte de La Haya, advierte Baltasar Garzón


    ---
    "Astillero
    Assange: el riesgo de informar

    Imperios al desnudo

    Slim, MVS, Televisa

    Retroceso global
    Julio Hernández López
    La más reciente revelación atribuible al fenómeno denominado Wikileaks es política y socialmente obscena (es decir, torpe, ofensiva al pudor), pues muestra en su más grotesca desnudez el perfil violento, irracional y descompuesto de los poderes mundiales afectados por la difusión masiva de los secretos operativos de gobiernos imperiales (y sus contrapartes naturales: los gobiernos dóciles, colonizados), diplomacias intervencionistas, empresas trasnacionales dominantes y élites financieras.
    La reacción directa de Reino Unido (y de Estados Unidos junto a él, apenas a la sombra) al amenazar con impedir el ejercicio soberano de Ecuador de dar asilo político a Julian Assange, es proporcional al daño que esas administraciones, en nombre de los factores de poder concurrentes en ellos, estiman que ha causado el ejercicio de una libertad, la de expresión, que con doble moral inocultable pregonan como gran logro de sus democracias pero que pretenden prohibir y castigar cuando transgrede los límites impuestos por sus cupulares intereses.
    Sin empacho alguno, haciendo a un lado doctrina, legislación vigente y espíritu de la diplomacia contemporánea, Reino Unido se atreve a amenazar a una nación, Ecuador, que en ejercicio de sus facultades soberanas ha decidido dar protección a un australiano al que Estados Unidos, en función de gendarme planetario, pretende castigar ejemplarmente por haber cometido el pecado extremo de dar a conocer al mundo los frutos del árbol tecnológico del bien y el mal, obtenidos mediante especializadas maniobras de virtuosismo internético.
    Las razones tomadas en cuenta por el presidente ecuatoriano, Rafael Correa, para brindar cobijo a Julian Assange han sido ruidosamente confirmadas a través de la cavernícola reacción de Londres, que se niega a otorgar salvoconducto al asilado y que amenaza con revocar el estatus diplomático de la embajada del país sudamericano en la capital británica e incluso entrar por la fuerza a hacerse del fundador del sitio Wikileaks para que se someta a un juicio en Suecia relacionado con cuatro acusaciones por delitos sexuales.
    Esas acusaciones han estado bajo sospecha de haber sido armadas, reactivadas o sobredimensionadas para tratar de encarcelar a Assange por los daños que provocó en el aparato planetario de poder con sus revelaciones sustraídas de archivos oficiales. Hay el fundado temor de que el eje Reino Unido-Suecia acabe colocando a Assange en una prisión estadunidense y que no haya para él un juicio justo, sino todo lo contrario. La reacción imperial atropellada de ayer demuestra sin lugar a dudas la necesidad de proteger a Assange. Lo que sucede hoy en Londres no es más que un episodio de la guerra de los poderes contra las nuevas formas tecnológicas de información (Internet en general, y Facebook y Twitter en especial, con productos como Wikileaks), que han roto las viejas formas de entendimiento y predominio de gobiernos opacos y medios de comunicación tradicionales. En México se vive un escalamiento parecido, que en consonancia con el previsto retorno de añejas prácticas controladoras a Los Pinos ha ido abonando en los medios convencionales y en el ejercicio periodístico las certezas de la intolerancia a la crítica, la promoción pecuniaria del halago por sistema y la amenaza de la separación, la agresión y el exilio. Las razones del retroceso mexicano son las mismas del abuso londinense: hacer que se vean los entretelones sombríos y violentos del ejercicio descarnado del poder crea conciencia de esos peligros y alienta la crítica y la oposición.
    ENCUENTRO PRIÍSTA. La nueva estrategia de seguridad pública para el país se basará en la colaboración eficaz entre los tres niveles de gobierno, dijo ayer Enrique Peña Nieto a munícipes electosFoto María Meléndrez Parada
    El más reciente escándalo mexicano de colusión de un gobierno (el calderonista) con poderes fácticos (en este caso el de Televisa) está relacionado precisamente con el control de una autopista digital, la banda ancha, que a la vez permitirá una fluidez más rápida y barata de datos, imágenes e información en general. La administración federal saliente pretende cerrar el paso en definitiva a una opción tecnológica y periodística que encabezaría la familia Vargas, de MVS, pero a la cual fácilmente podría añadirse, si no es que ya lo está, el poderío económico de Carlos Slim, quien aun siendo el hombre más rico del mundo (o casi, dependiendo de las fluctuaciones clasificatorias en turno), comprador compulsivo de negocios por todo el orbe, no ha podido hacerse de un canal de televisión abierta, doblegado políticamente por la alianza de Emilio Azcárraga Jean y Ricardo Salinas Pliego con Calderón.
    Nada hace suponer que Slim llegara a promover un tipo distinto de periodismo (en UnoTV, televisión por Internet, sus contenidos y conductores así lo confirman), y resultaría absurdo pensar que la enorme fortuna del empresario que despegó a partir de la compra muy ventajosa de Teléfonos de México durante el salinismo pudiera acabar promoviendo un periodismo que atentara contra esos intereses y el modelo injusto de sociedad que propicia la terrible desigualdad mexicana, con supermillonarios y supermiserables. Pero, aun así, la posible aparición de Slim en las frecuencias masivas mexicanas es vista con rechazo por el duopolio de pantallas y por gobiernos dependientes como el de Calderón.
    El castigo a MVS, las presiones contra Carmen Aristegui y el veto a Carlos Slim forman parte de una guerra de poderes en la que el periodismo está bajo fuego. Con Lydia Cacho fuera del país por nuevas amenazas, con periodistas muertos a los que en el estado de Veracruz ahora se pretende dar por ejecutados en función de que ellos mismos habrían causado la muerte de otros comunicadores (ellos se mataron entre sí, fue la primera explicación de FC cuando jóvenes de Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, fueron asesinados, y es la versión permanente para explicar enfrentamientos), y con el amago de que las asignaciones futuras de publicidad oficial corresponderán, disfrazadas, a los ánimos del priísmo en camino, la lucha en favor de Julian Assange y de la libertad de expresión y por el respeto a la soberanía de Ecuador también es nuestra. Es una lucha global en medio de un retroceso descarnado, obsceno. ¡Hasta el próximo lunes!
    Twitter: @julioastillero
    Facebook: Julio Astillero

    ---

    "Convoca OEA a reunión de cancilleres por el caso del fundador de Wikileaks

    EU, Canadá y Trinidad y Tobago votaron en contra discusión de “inviolabilidad” de embajada en GB.

    ---

    "Se trata de un asunto bilateral entre Quito y Londres, señala

    Washington no reconoce asilo de Ecuador a Assange

    La medida diplomática no forma parte de la Convención de 1954 de la OEA, aduce el Departamento de Estado.
    El comunicador australiano permanecerá en la embajada: Rafael Correa "

    "Assange seguirá en la embajada por tiempo indefinido, prevé Correa"


    "Marcos Roitman Rosenmann: Julian Assange, el caso Pinochet y los límites de la democracia británica"



    "Quito condena amenazas de GB por caso Assange
    Correa: no darán el salvoconducto; estará indefinidamente en la embajada"

    "El Gobierno australiano indicó que ha contactado en ocho ocasiones con el periodista

    Australia no pone inconveniente a una posible extradición de Assange a EE.UU."
     http://www.elpueblopresidente.com/mundo/11758.html

    ---
    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄ "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Art. 2 Right to life. 1.... 2:21 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details

    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄ "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally... 2:22 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details

    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄ " save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this... 2:23 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details

    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl


    ◄ penalty is provided by law.” 2:23 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details



    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄
    2:37 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details

    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄  2:53 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details

    ---

    barbara gunnell‏@eastendlady
    I don't know whether Swedes will "lend" Assange to US for questioning and neither does commentariat. So why not guarantee?
    Details 

    41s
    ◄ … …           
    3:21 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details

    ---

    barbara gunnell‏@eastendlady
    I don't know whether Swedes will "lend" Assange to US for questioning and neither does commentariat. So why not guarantee?
    Details

    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄ Be traist!



    Youtube
    3:43 PM - 18 Aug 12via web · Details

    ---

    "Garzón pide a Suecia garantías judiciales mínimas para Assange"

    http://www.lasprovincias.es/videos/actualidad/mundo/1793197853001-garzon-pide-suecia-garantias-judiciales-minimas-para-assange.html
    ---
    Respecto de las soberanías involucradas, Ecuador, Australia y el Reino Unido han abolido la Pena de Muerte, sólo en Estados Unidos (U.S.) es constitucionalmente permitida.

    "The Australian Constitution
    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution

    Law Council of Australia
    Death Penalty"

    http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/programs/criminal-law-human-rights/death-penalty/death-penalty_home.cfm

    "The Constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden
    The Instrument of Government (SFS nr: 1974:152)
    Chapter 2. Fundamental rights and freedoms
    Art. 4. There shall be no capital punishment."

    http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/52-26.pdf

    US Constitution
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty
    ---

    WikiLeaks‏@wikileaks
    Swedish due process, international law not followed in Assange case
    Details                 


    6m
    ◄ En Australia y en el Reino Unido está abolida la Pena de Muerte, sólo en los EU (U.S.) es constitucionalmente permitida.
    5:03 PM - 19 Aug 12via web · Details

    ---

    "Sunday, 19 August 2012

    Swedish Due Process, International Law, Not Followed in Assange Case
    Given Sweden's close relations with the United States, despite its pacifist/peaceable image, and violations of Swedish legal and police procedure in pursuing the case against Julian Assange, there is sufficient cause for the founder of the Wikileaks organisation that leaked hundreds of thousands of secret US embassy cables to the world's leading newspapers in late 2011, to worry that the Swedes would quite easily be persuaded to extradite him for prosecution in the USA with the possibility of being tried for a capital offence.

    Sweden contributes military forces under US-NATO control in Afghanistan; it contributed military assistance during the Libyan intervenion; its ministers report regularly on military and intelligence matters to the US embassy; its Afghanistan-based aid agencies supply intelligence to the United States on a regular basis. It collaborated with the United States on extraordinary rendition by the CIA of people who had applied for asylum to Sweden. And Assange's Wikileaks website exposed a whole range of US-Swedish cooperation that did not reflect well on Sweden's global image as "a good state".

    A country that is so close to the United States may be likely to extradite Assange. If that is assumed, then the violations of police and judicial procedures during the early part of the investigation of Assange's alleged sexual assault and rape of two Swedish women - which he denies - acquire an essentialpolitical context that appears lacking in most mainstream analyses of the matter - for example in The Guardian's editorial (17 August, 2012).

    Some issues that are pertinent - based on the legal opinion of Sven-Erik Alhelm, former Stockholm District Prosecutor, who now lectures at Lund University, among other roles, as submitted to the Stockholm Court are indicated below. Together, they case doubt on the nature of the investigation of rape allegations against Assange and, according to Alhelm, make a fair trial unlikely:

    1. The police interviewed both female complainants together rather than separately which, according to Alhelm, was "a mistake" that "contaminated the evidence" which was "not professional".

    2. The prosecution informed the media of Assange's identity during the investigation phase against normal procedure; rape trials are normally held in secret and the identity of suspects is maintained until after successful prosecution. "Such confirmation of the identity of a suspect to the meid is, in my view, completely against proper procedure and in violation of the Swedish law and rules regarding preliminary investigations." Alhelm also noted in his expert witness statement that the prosecutor should not have done this although there is no remedy against this in Swedish law. Hence, the word spread to the world's media that assnage was a rape suspect, despite the early stage of the preliminary investigation.

    3. Despite Assange making himself available for interview by police while still in Sweden, the Prosecutor chose not to do so, even though one of the alleged rape victims was re-interviewed while Assange was in the country. Failing to obtain the alleged suspect's side of events, at an early stage of the preliminary investigation, prevents the full picture of events from emerging, from all sides.

    4. Assange could still be interviewed in London, including at the Ecudorian embassy, and has indictaed his willingness to be interrogated by Swedish police, but to no avail. He is still not charged with any offence, which may be surprising given the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) that has been issued calling for his extradition.

    5. Alhelm argues that issuance of EAW is "against the principle of proportionality"

    6. The current Stockholm Prosecutor, Marianne Ny, may still seek British permission to interview assange in London but cliams it is against Swedish law - a claim Alhelm denies has any grounds under Swedish law.

    It is difficult to understand why Assange was not interviewd by Ny in Sweden when he was there and offering to be interrogated, or in London thereafter. To ask for extradition of an individual who was not interrogated when available and is still not charged with an offence would appear to be wholly disproportionate.

    At the very least, there are grounds for Assange credibly to claim that he is unlikley to be dealt with fairly in Sweden and, at worst, to be handed over to the US for prosecution for the most heinous of crimes - leaking official information on how American power really works.

    In that context, UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague's, thinly veiled threat to send in police to arrest Assange from within the Ecuadorian embassy in London, are reminiscent of the sort of gunboat diplomacy British imperial rule was built upon, with scant regard for international law.

    It demonstrates that Hague, in citing a 1987 UK law passed after the shooting from the Libyan embassy of a police woman, considers Assange a terrorist, just as much as many leading American politicians do, for leaking to the world's publics information vital to understanding the nature of US power. Indeed, the secret US embassy cables showed, among other things, that Hillary Clinton, Obama's secretary of state, orderd the CIA to violate the Vienna Convention to gain information on UN diplomats and representatives.

    Blow the whistle on anyone else, but not on the global powers that be - that's the message of the case against Julian Assange and the Wikileaks organisation. In pursuing Assange they way they are, the Swedish and UK authorities demonstrate their slavish compliance with US power.
    Posted byat "

    "August 19, 2012, 12:52 pmComment

    Video of Assange’s Speech at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London


    By ROBERT MACKEY"

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/video-of-assanges-speech-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-in-london/
    "Full transcript of Julian Assange's speech outside Ecuador's London embassy"
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/full-transcript-of-julian-assanges-speech-outside-ecuadors-london-embassy-8061466.html#
     

    "Julian Assange statement at Ecuadorean embassy – as it happened

    WikiLeaks founder asks US to end 'witch-hunt' in speech from balcony of Ecuador embassy"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-live?newsfeed=true
     
    "Julian Assange: Tormenta diplomática"
     
    http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=317497
    "Assange speech inspired millions: mother "
    • by: Andrew Drummond, AAP London Correspondent
    • From: AAP
    • August 20, 201212:46AM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuCihj75ur4


    "Traducción íntegra del discurso de Julian Assange, 19 de agosto de 2012

    http://anonymousnews.blogs.ru/2012/08/19/traduccion-integra-del-discurso-de-julian-assange-19-de-agosto-de-2012/

    Anonymous World Wide News

    We are Anonymous We are Legion We do not Forgive We do not Forget Expect us!"

    SCOTLAND SHOULD NOT BE COMPLICIT IN WAR CRIMES, GENOCIDES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: THE INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADJECTIVE...!

    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/06/scotland-should-not-be-complicit-in-war.html

    WikiLeaks‏@wikileaks
    New investigative documentary on Assange sex allegations more:



      

    "15:47Unasur apoya a Ecuador ante Reino Unido y exhorta al diálogo por Assange."

    ---

    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄ What's that? (8-18-2012)

    7:33 PM - 19 Aug 12via web · Details

    ---
    WikiLeaks‏@wikileaks
    Video: All speeches from Ecuadorian Embassy on Sunday - Julian , Tariq Ali, Craig Murray, and more
    Details


    Youtube
    201 Retweets          
    75 Favorites

    7:37 PM - 19 Aug 12via web · Details

    ---
    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    ◄ Yay..! …



    Youtube

    8:22 PM - 19 Aug 12via web · Details
       "El ex hacker afirma que EU podría llevar al mundo a una era de opresión al periodismoJulian Assange, fundador de Wikileaks, leyó ayer un mensaje desde un balcón de la embajada de Ecuador en Londres –en la que que se refugió desde el 19 de junio para evitar su extradición a Suecia–, en el cual criticó a Estados Unidos por amenazar la libertad de expresión. El australiano agradeció al presidente Rafael Correa por haberle concedido asilo político, así como la solidaridad de numerosos países latinoamericanos. Foto Reuters"   
    "Assange reaparece en público y pide a EU terminar la cacería contra Wikileaks

    Insta a liberar al soldado Manning, acusado de entregarle datos secretos
    Revela que la policía de GB hizo intento de arresto el miércoles pasado"

    IF BRADLEY MANNING HAD ACTED EARLIER, HE COULD HAVE PREVENTED MANY CRIMES, INJURIES AND DEATHS IN CERTAIN LATITUDES...

    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/12/if-bradley-manning-had-acted-before.html

    Unasur exhorta al diálogo para solucionar la crisis diplomática entre Ecuador y GB

    "9:29Ecuador espera rechazo de OEA a postura británica por caso Assange."


    "Ecuador ha mostrado voluntad de negociar con RU: Baeza"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVrGoim5sic&feature=youtu.be&a
    "Absurdas, las acusaciones de Assange sobre “caza de brujas”, refuta EU

    El fundador de Wikileaks intenta desviar atención para no enfrentar a la justicia en Suecia: portavoz.
    Afp
    Publicado: 20/08/2012 10:29

    Washington. Las acusaciones del fundador de Wikileaks, Julian Assange, refugiado en la embajada de Ecuador en Londres, de que Estados Unidos adelanta una "caza de brujas" en su contra son "absurdas", afirmó este lunes la portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Victoria Nuland.

    Nuland dijo a periodistas que Assange con sus "absurdas declaraciones" está "claramente tratando de desviar la atención del meollo de la cuestión, de si va a enfrentar la justicia en Suecia", donde es requerido en extradición para que responda por cargos de agresión sexual que él niega.

    En su primera comparecencia pública desde que inició su encierro en la embajada ecuatoriana el 19 de junio, Assange pidió el domingo a Estados Unidos que cese la "caza de brujas" contra Wikileaks, al tiempo que agradeció la "valentía" de Quito por haberle otorgado asilo diplomático.

    Nuland criticó a Ecuador por estar "tratando de crear problemas" en la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), organismo que a pedido de Quito convocó para este viernes una reunión de cancilleres para tratar el tema.

    La portavoz reiteró la posición de Washington de que el caso de Assange es un asunto entre Londres, Estocolmo y Quito, y que "no es un tema apropiado para que se trate en la OEA".

    Estados Unidos, Canadá y Trinidad y Tobago fueron los únicos tres países que votaron el viernes pasado en contra de la realización de la reunión de cancilleres de la organización de 34 países miembros.

    Ecuador pidió la reunión expresamente para que la OEA se pronunciara sobre presuntas amenazas de Londres de ingresar a la embajada para detener a Assange, pero el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Gran Bretaña, William Hague, ya ha desestimado esa posibilidad.

    "No vemos que la OEA pueda jugar un papel en una situación hipotética que no parece ser inminente", agregó Nuland.

    Ecuador espera que OEA condene amago de Londres

    En Quito, el canciller de Ecuador, Ricardo Patiño, dijo que es indispensable que la OEA reaccione ante la eventualidad de que la policía británica ingrese a la embajada ecuatoriana en Londres para detener a Assange.

    "Creemos que en un caso como este es indispensable que haya una reacción no por nosotros, por la OEA. Que la OEA reivindique a un país que está siendo amenazado y que es miembro de su organización", declaró el ministro al canal nacional Gama.

    Patiño destacó que ya se pronunciaron "contundentemente" en apoyo a Ecuador la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA) y la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (Unasur). "Creemos que es indispensable que la OEA también lo haga", agregó el canciller.

    Los dos organismos regionales se reunieron el sábado y domingo, respectivamente, en el puerto de Guayaquil (suroeste) convocados por Ecuador, que denuncia que el gobierno británico le amenazó con ingresar a su embajada para detener a Assange, quien se encuentra en ese sitio desde el 19 de junio pasado.

    La OEA tendrá a su vez una reunión de cancilleres este viernes 24 en su sede en Washington para examinar el caso.

    "Lo que corresponde hacer ahora, y así lo habíamos definido cuando se produjo esta gravísima amenaza, es ir a la OEA", manifestó Patiño.

    Ecuador insiste en que aún existe el riesgo de que la policía británica tome acciones para arrestar al creador de Wikileaks en el interior de la legación, pese a que el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Gran Bretaña, William Hague, lo había desestimado.

    "No hay amenaza alguna aquí de tomar por asalto una embajada. Estamos hablando de una ley del Parlamento de este país, que hace hincapié en que deben utilizarse (las embajadas) en plena conformidad con el derecho internacional", puntualizó Hague el jueves.

    Assange, de 41 años, es requerido en extradición por Suecia para que responda por cargos de agresión sexual que él niega haber cometido.

    El australiano teme que desde Suecia se lo pueda extraditar posteriormente a Estados Unidos, donde se lo investiga por espionaje debido a la difusión en Wikileaks de miles de documentos secretos de las fuerzas militares y la diplomacia estadunidense, por lo que sostiene que podría ser condenado a cadena perpetua o a la pena de muerte."


    ---
    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl


    Mantiene GB rechazo a dar salvoconducto pa' que Assange deje el país via ◄Por Ministerio constitucional: NO.
    9:10 PM - 20 Aug 12via Details
    ---
    ---
    Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl
    LaJornada: Absurdas, las acusaciones de Assange sobre “caza de brujas”, refuta EU via ◄Es estrategia militar                
                        

    8:52 PM - 20 Aug 12via · Details
    ---
    "EU no comple con requisitos para extradición de Kim Dotcom, fundador de Megaupload: tribunal"




    EL PRINCIPIO DE IUS COGENS... The Principle of Ius Cogens...


    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/08/el-principio-de-ius-cogens-principle-of.html
    ---



    PA' QUITO, ASSANGE NO HA MATERIALIZADO TRAVESURAS QUE TORNEN NUGATORIO SU ASILO POLÍTICO EN DICHA LATITUD... LE IRÁ BIEN...


    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/08/pa-quito-assange-no-ha-materializado.html

    WIKILEAKS-ASSANGE, SUBE AL TENDEDERO LOS TRAPOS DEL CENTRO DE "DETENCIÓN" (sic) DE GUANTANAMO...

    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/04/wikileaks-assange-sube-al-tendedero-los.html


    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/08/canciller-de-ecuador-rt-la-libertad-de.html

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=FIDEIIUS+ius+cogens&oq=FIDEIIUS+ius+cogens&gs_l=hp.3...1956.4657.1.4860.19.18.0.1.1.0.181.2410.0j18.18.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.mlUGRpXkv0g&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=bb1985a4b0dff75f&biw=1024&bih=640


    http://www6.5earch.com/?s=1917+espionage+act&gclid=CKy-jriX67ECFQVgTAodhjYAwA



    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=FIDEIIUS%20&tok=vHYdSv2FIeVKkKC_s4yjJQ&pq=fideiius%20of%20bradley%20manning%20had%20acted%20earlier%2C%20he%20could%20have.&cp=24&gs_id=1q&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS%20Bradley%20Manning&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=FIDEIIUS+Bradley+Manning&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=87b3d75909e1627d&biw=1024&bih=640


    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=FIDEII&tok=6G-LNjWxBXQZ31VyU4qZDg&cp=19&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS+John+Donne&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=FIDEIIUS+John+Donne&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=87b3d75909e1627d&biw=1024&bih=612


    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=FIDEIIUS%20&tok=vHYdSv2FIeVKkKC_s4yjJQ&pq=fideiius%20bradley%20manning&cp=29&gs_id=44&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS%20hormigas%20periodistas&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=FIDEIIUS+hormigas+periodistas&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=87b3d75909e1627d&biw=1024&bih=640
    --------------------------

    El resistirse a lo irresistible no siempre fortalece a quienes se creen irresistibles, sí, a aquell@s que ‘no mandan obedeciendo a sus mandantes’… FIDEIIUS (Fideiius).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3JI-axaRF4
    http://cpj.org/killed/

    Centro de Alerta para la Defensa de los Pueblos Investigación, análisis, documentación y denuncias sobre la injerencia y subversión contra los pueblos de América Latina


    http://www.centrodealerta.org/



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cec34OOdnRA



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/series/resistencia-palestina/



    "Noam Chomsky*: Estados Unidos es el mayor terrorista del mundo..." Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology*



    http://www.semana.com/noticias-mundo/parte-colombia-robada-roosevelt/142043.aspx



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2010/07/noam-chomsky-estados-unidos-es-el-mayor.html



    http://www.chomsky.info/



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/categoria/autores/eva-golinger/



    http://www.patriagrande.com.ve/temas/internacionales/los-gringos-se-robaron-el-dinero-de-las-ventas-de-petroleo-en-irak/



    EEUU despilfarró miles de millones de dólares del area social de Irak



    http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n164470.html



    http://www.josecouso.info/



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2010/07/httpwikileaksorg-could-become-as.html



    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/



    “We don’t do body counts”.- General Tommy Franks



    http://www.icasualties.org/



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/reflexiones-fidel/2010/08/03/emplazamiento-al-presidente-de-estados-unidos/



    "Hey, bad guys: If it is certain that you in God trust, you should not be afraid, just let the music play…!”.FIDEIIUS (Fideiius).



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2010/08/911-naves-que-impactaron-las-torres.html



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6NVnKFyY24



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyoEYCmEO_o



    ACCESO AL AGUA POTABLE, DECLARADO DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL: TRIUNFO DE LA HUMANIDAD A INSTANCIA DE EVO MORALES, C. PRESIDENTE CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA REPúBLICA DE BOLIVIA…



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2010/07/acceso-al-agua-potable-declarado.html



    Perseguido por EEUU: Camarógrafo estadounidense que filmó imágenes del 11/9 enfrenta extradición



    http://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/n164273.html



    The Washington Post: Estados Unidos es el vergonzoso suministrador de armas al narcotráfico



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2010/09/13/the-washington-post-estados-unidos-es-el-vergonzoso-suministrador-de-armas-al-narcotrafico/



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJGyiPrCF2Q



    http://wikileaks.org/



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/opinion/2010/10/02/eeuu-retrasa-la-salida-del-ejercito-ciberespacial-pero-no-se-entusiasmen-demasiado/



    *) "Tres generaciones se han echado a perder por mi culpa: Rius"



    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/01/18/index.php?section=cultura&article=a02n1cul



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxHeqzXpkjM



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2010/11/19/galardonado-lula-con-el-premio-indira-gandhi-de-la-paz-2010/



    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/



    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=GUARDERIA+ABC&aq=f



    http://wikileaks.ch/



    http://wikileaks.info/



    *) "Noam Chomsky: Los cables de WikiLeaks revelan un“profundo odio a la democracia por parte de nuestra dirigencia política” “Debemos comprender -y los Papeles del Pentágono son otro ejemplo claro- que una de las principales razones del secreto gubernamental es proteger al gobierno contra su propia población”



    http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/entrevistas/noam-chomsky-cables-wikileaks-revelan-un-profundo-odio-a-democracia-por-parte-nuestra-dirigencia-politica/



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2010-race-maps/senate/



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2010-race-maps/house/



    http://www.contralinea.com.mx/



    http://www.oficiodepapel.com.mx/



    http://www.proceso.com.mx/



    http://www.myspace.com/foroalicia



    *) Stépahne Hessel: “No estoy aquí para testimoniar sobre lo que pasó en Chile. Estoy aquí para hablar en nombre de la evolución del derecho internacional, que siempre es demasiado lenta. Para mí este juicio representa un paso adelante porque vivimos en un mundo en el que los crímenes impunes pesan sobre la conciencia internacional” (Referida por Anne Marie Mergier en “Sentencia implacable”



    http://www.proceso.com.mx/rv/modHome/detalleExclusiva/86881



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2011/01/sentencia-implacable.html



    http://www.elpais.com/documentossecretos/mapa-cables-wikileaks/



    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/01/10/fotos/portada.jpg



    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=FIDEIIUS+Sistema+Financiero&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85



    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Las+Razones+de+Cuba%22&aq=f



    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22Las+Razones+de+Cuba%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e8de98ca5b405b41



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2011/01/excelentisimo-sr-rius-muchas-gracias.html



    http://www.wikileaks.ch/origin/68_0.html



    Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks"



    http://wikileaks.jornada.com.mx/



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/02/25/una-foto-que-causa-sensacion-en-facebook/



    "En una extensa entrevista con 60 minutes, Julian Assange, fundador de Wikileaks, dice: “Somos activistas por la libertad de expresión. No se trata de salvar a las ballenas, se trata de darle a la gente la información que necesita para apoyar o no la caza de ballenas. ¿Por qué? Son los ingredientes crudos que se necesitan para hacer una sociedad justa. Sin ellos, simplemente estás navegando en la oscuridad”.- Julian Assange. (Tomado de 'La Jornada')



    http://www.clubcultura.com/clubliteratura/clubescritores/villoro/autor/autor.html



    http://fundad.org/



    Be Traist...!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd3XU9qyTGA



    Just let the hammock swing...!



    P.D.: "Agua de Coco Pa' Toch@s" *



    "Once again, the cat is shaking the roof...!" *



    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/04/sci-marcos-de-la-reflexion-critica.html



    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=FIDEIIUS+escepticismo&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9c17e529bf934417



    http://encuentroddn.blogspot.com/



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/06/18/casi-mil-muertos-en-libia-por-ataques-de-la-otan/



    http://www.articulo19.org/articulo/



    http://www.mediafire.com/?s2chp1v2jqsf52z



    http://www.thehackernews.com/2011/07/nato-server-hacked-by-1337day-inj3ct0r.html



    http://1337day.com/



    http://tech2.in.com/news/general/nato-affiliate-may-have-been-hacked/227382



    http://www.opendemocracy.net/anonymous/will-spirit-of-spring-come-to-cyberspace?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=Nightly_2011-06-26+05%3a30



    http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2443



    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_17.html



    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producto_interno_bruto



    http://actualidad.rt.com/



    http://assangewatch.blogspot.com/



    http://wlcentral.org/



    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+%22Playing+For+Change%3A+Peace+Through+Music%22&aq=f



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com



    http://www.clarinveracruzano.com/wp-content/themes/periodico/scripts/timthumb.php?w=190&h=115&zc=1&src=http://www.clarinveracruzano.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/pitufos.jpg



    https://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,4500.0.html



    http://www.websanjuanamartinez.com/



    http://actualidad.rt.com/programas/detras_de_la_noticia



    http://congresosdelalengua.es/zacatecas/inauguracion/garcia_marquez.htm



    http://ccrjustice.org/



    http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/icij/



    http://www.lasillavacia.com/



    http://www.swedenversusassange.com/



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNhICOlWFV0



    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/23/remarks-president-united-nations-general-assembly



    Universal Rights and Universal Values... But that is romantically substantive for those who try to ignore the Universal Jurisdiction and its procedures to evade justice... FIDEIIUS (Fideiius).



    http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/84492-NN/alcalde-de-londres-advierte-a--bush-con-arrestarlo-si-arriba-a-reino-unido/



    http://www.humanrights.gov/2010/11/24/president-obama%e2%80%99s-2010-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly/



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2011/02/preparada-la-denuncia-con-la-que-se.html



    http://eligio-del-awiizotl.blogspot.com/2010/11/benedicto-xvi-acepta-uso-de-condon-e_25.html



    Miles de simpatizantes del movimiento Ocupa marcharon del centro de Oakland a la zona portuaria. Autoridades del lugar emitieron un comunicado en el que informaron que las operaciones estaban detenidas, lo que provocó el júbilo de los manifestantes. En una decisión sorpresiva, la alcaldesa Jean Quan dio el día a los trabajadores municipales para que se sumaran a la protesta Foto Ap



    David Brooks, Corresponsal



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr0Vt7E7U7w&ob=av2n



    http://www.latinobarometro.com/



    http://www.periodismo.org.mx/



    http://www.occupytogether.org/



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkFJE8ZdeG8



    http://monerohernandez.blogspot.com/



    www.radioamlo.org



    www.radioamlo.info



    www.radioamlo.net



    www.radioamlo.mx



    www.radioamlo.blogspot.com



    www.radioamlo.tv



    www.radioamlotv.blogspot.com



    www.livestream.com/radioamlotv



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lixDK_tMEhE



    http://www.blogdeizquierda.com/



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbd7JvN2blw&feature=player_embedded



    http://indignados.jornada.com.mx/



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycxL8woHSE&feature=related



    http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/paises/fidel-entra-libro-record-guinnes/



    http://homozapping.com.mx/2011/12/ely-guerra-da-voz-a-marisela-escobedo/



    http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/12/17/un-dia-como-hoy-hace-181-anos-fallecio-el-libertador/



    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/12/celac-documentos-oficiales.html



    http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/476008686.jpg?Expires=1325007382&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=UhVOGLnXjSlnQGlmnRg4sowi4dkzn7XKkqa7VCa70F3v5GOExrOCn-FrH2sLV8sg1dkxtNw~PltGUfyg333uxryxY7zQ5U-gekMFe4b7XreGGg~qEBddGOv027b8GLXALuF5tJ5aiA9ByU-2V~9eNZEiq6XnmNcfLXmEi5G7p8c_



    ¡Oh mujer… que tu ausencia sea mi más cercana vecina…! FIDEIIUS.



    http://www.ccardenass.org/



    http://www.aclu.org/



    http://www.fastnfuriousinvestigation.com/



    http://imaginepeace.com/



    http://www.aporrea.org/erchivo/



    http://www.animalpolitico.com/



    http://www.frayba.org.mx/index.php



    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/01/blog-post_27.html



    http://www.centromariomolina.org/



    http://climaterealityproject.org/http://ofraneh.org/ofraneh/index.html



    http://www.defensoresenlinea.com/cms/http://www.worldjusticeproject.org/http://alfredojalife.comhttp://www.enriquebolanos.org/http://www.followerwonk.com/http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/1.pdf


    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0vOYwHj30A


    http://irmaerendira.blogspot.com


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnmH_pLNMZ4&feature=related


    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/04/diez-anos-que-cambiaron-america-latina.html



    http://www.fundacionelenaponiatowska.org/paginanueva/

    http://www.survivalinternational.org/

    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=FIDEII&tok=rUb_8T6i0ITZkoC8PNBnoQ&pq=fideiius%20%20chanfle&cp=33&gs_id=df&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS%20%20din%C3%A1mica%20caleidosc%C3%B3pica&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=FIDEIIUS++din%C3%A1mica+caleidosc%C3%B3pica&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=41e29ab53187148e&biw=1024&bih=640

    http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/05/blog-post_28.html

    http://yosoy132.mx/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL9l--aQ-3Q&feature=youtu.be
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbEA1H9T9wo&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp8JPPJ6lQ8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihmoQHy3DZw


    http://alexandrasurkova.daportfolio.com/

    A FREE K’


    Posted by at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)