Friends of Wikileaks issue this urgent statement of support for Julian Assange's request for asylum with the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Send this letter to: eecugranbretania@mmrree.gob.ec
The context of Julian Assange’s house arrest and, now, extradition to
Sweden cannot be disassociated from the backlash that been created by
his important and radical work with WikiLeaks. There are a numerous inconsistencies in this case that deserve our attention (
www.justice4assange.com).
Inconsistencies in due process relating to the issue of the EAW and Red
Notice, the release by the Swedish Police of selective witness
statements to tabloid press, the re-opening of the case by a second
prosecutor in Sweden after a first prosecutor threw the case off, etc
etc; all actions that permeate political interference and intent and
which we believe are a reaction against WikiLeaks' work in promoting
transparency and human rights through radical, independent, heroic
journalism.
Swedish media are trying to assert that the reason Mr. Assange must be
extradited now is because Swedish law dictates that someone must be on
Swedish soil in order for formal charges to be laid. But it is also true
under Swedish law that a prosecutor cannot take the decision to charge
until the preliminary investigation and all questioning therein has been
completed. In having already taken the decision to charge Mr. Assange,
Marianne Ny is breaking Swedish law. It is intolerable that in a case
such as this an investigating prosecutor would decide to charge before
even hearing one side's version of events and is a contradiction of
intent on behalf of the investigating prosecutor.
Some Mainstream Media have been expressing prejudicial intent. For
example even today Tom McCarthy at the Guardian live Blog states "Julian
Assange, who was to be extradited from UK to Sweden to face sexual
crime charges, seeks asylum under UN charter"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/19/julian-assange-asylum-ecuadorian-embassy?newsfeed=true.
But the fact is that Julian Assange has not been charged, and we have
to ask the question why this inaccuracy in reporting persists if there
is no intent to prejudice. There are hundreds of articles that mention
the same. Even the UK Supreme Court had to correct its own statement:
paragraph 83 of the judgment refers to offences of which Mr Assange
“stands charged”. This is not accurate as charges have not been brought
against Mr Assange. The judgment will be corrected to read “offences in
respect of which his extradition is sought”."
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/julian-assange-v-swedish-prosecution-authority.html. How can this allow for a fair trial where his basic human rights are safeguarded?
If he is extradited to Sweden, we know that he awaits incommunicado
detention for an indefinite amount of time. For a man who has not been
charged with any crime in any country, FoWL consider this arbitrary and
unlawful detention and thus a violation of European Convention on Human
Rights. Moreover, once he is extradited to Sweden, the danger of his
further extradition to the USA looms. It has emerged through the
release of internal emails by the US private intelligence service
Stratfor that the USA have issued a sealed indictment against Mr.
Assange over a year ago. There is also a secret Grand Jury against
WikiLeaks going on at the moment, attempting to charge Mr. Assange
under the Espionage Act, and his death has been called for by key US
officials.
The situation deserves to be read in its entirety- a media organisation
providing the means for the publication of whistle-blower media and an
award-winning journalist with an ethos deeply anchored in human rights
activism are being attacked for serving one of the most important
functions in a democratic society - that of mapping the terrain so that
we, as active and engaged citizens, can navigate democracy.
We have seen in the WikiLeaks revelations how international politics and
diplomacy work. One story for the public, but the reality is very
different. We understand this case as politicized and we see that
Governments in Australia, Sweden, US as well in the UK, are hiding
behind "judicial proceedings" trying in public to "wash their hands off"
any responsibility but are acting in a political manner. Behind closed
doors they plan, negotiate and agree on a political and diplomatic level
the fate of a man whose work they view as damaging to their perceived
interests. Bradley Manning's treatment is evident for all to see, his
freedom taken his human right trampled upon. We bring forward into the
open the claim that this is a political issue however it is disguised.
Freedom for Information requests come back with very little information
in most of the countries involved. We want this to stop. We want
transparency in government dealings regarding this case.
To the Ecuadorian Embassy we say, we welcome your consideration of Mr.
Assange's asylum request and urge you to accept. We appreciate the
bravery your country will show in standing up to defend his human
rights. The UK Government has failed to take a clear position on the
plight of Julian Assange, despite there being clear concerns about the
manner in which the European Arrest Warrant has been issued and executed
and despite there being room for the UK Government to overturn the UK
Supreme Court decision. We believe it is most imperative that the safety
of Julian Assange and the vital work he engages in are protected.
Yours faithfully,
the Global FoWL (Friends of WikiLeaks)
(Disclaimer: FoWL are an independent collective of WikiLeaks supporters.
Please note that we are not affiliated with WikiLeaks and consequently
WikiLeaks cannot be held accountable for any of FoWL's statements or
actions.)
(This is a copy of the original letter posted here:
http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,12239.msg35644.html#msg35644 )