The United States appears to have a few ‘issues’ with judicial systems that do not fall within their control.
WikiLeaks cables lay bare US hostility to international criminal court
Guardian: US embassy dispatches reveal American preoccupation with discerning court’s views on Iraq
The international criminal court has proved one of the most controversial international institutions since its creation in 2002, drawing fire from some for its exclusive focus on Africa, and accused by others of pursuing the policy objectives of America and Europe. But America has also been hostile to the court, refusing to join it for fear its own citizens could be put on trial for war crimes.
US criticises court that may decide on Julian Assange extradition, WikiLeaks cables show
Guardian: Leaked dispatches reveal diplomats’ disdain for Council of Europe’s stance against extraditions to US and secret renditions
US officials regard European human rights standards as an “irritant”, secret cables show, and have strongly objected to the safeguards which could protect WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from extradition. In a confidential cable from the US embassy in Strasbourg, US consul general Vincent Carver criticised the Council of Europe, the most authoritative human-rights body for European countries, for its stance against extraditions to America, as well as secret renditions and prisons used to hold terrorist suspects.
And these posts may be of interest to you…
Joe Biden v. Joe Biden on WikiLeaks
Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com
It’s really not an overstatement to say that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are the new Iraqi WMDs because the government and establishment media are jointly manufacturing and disseminating an endless stream of fear-mongering falsehoods designed to depict them as scary villains threatening the security of The American People and who must therefore be stopped at any cost……..
Assange begins mansion arrest, but his ‘source’ feels the heat
The Independent: Bradley Manning spent yesterday, his birthday, alone in a tiny, bare prison cell, without a pillow or sheets on his bed, in weak health and wracked with anxiety at the prospect of a prison sentence of 52 years.
The young American soldier has faded into the background as international ructions continue over the hundreds of thousands of pieces of classified material from the US government that he is supposed to have supplied to WikiLeaks.
Now the fate of the whistleblowing website’s founder, Julian Assange, who has very much held the centre-stage, lies in the hands of the 23-year-old former army intelligence analyst.
Yesterday US sources revealed that prosecutors are awaiting a decision from the American Attorney-General, Eric Holder, on what form of plea bargaining they should offer to Manning in return for him incriminating Mr Assange as a fellow conspirator in disseminating the classified information.
Officials at the US Justice Department, who are under acute pressure to prosecute, privately acknowledge that a conviction against Mr Assange would be extremely difficult if he was simply the passive recipient of the material disseminated by Private Manning. Any evidence that he had actively facilitated the leak, however, would make extradition and a successful case much more feasible.
A typical day for PFC Manning
PFC Manning is currently being held in maximum custody. Since arriving at the Quantico Confinement Facility in July of 2010, he has been held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch.His cell is approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length.
The cell has a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet……
Wikileaks and Freedom of Speech: Can self regulation work?
LSE Media Policy Project Blog: Mark Stephens is right when he says that the current controversy around Wikileaks marks a key moment in the evolution of media responsibility and freedom. Legal matters – starting with the extradition hearing of Julian Assange this week – will move rather quickly even though it is going to take some time to work through the broader implications. Stephens says that the case engages article 10 of the European Convention – the right to free speech – but it remains to be seen how and if such a freedom could be invoked in Assange’s defence. Ultimately, there will be a question of balancing Assange’s speech rights (along with our right to know) and the rights of others such as citizens and soldiers that may have been endangered.
It’s almost a definition of major powers that they consider themselves beyond the jurisdiction of international courts. USA, Russia, China and I’m sure in the UK’s imperial days it applied there to. In fact it’s implicit in the UN security council with a few countries having the write of veto which saves the embarrasment of having a motion passed against you.
Of course quite minor powers can do the same (North Korea, Zimbabwe, Israel to name a few), but only if this at least tolerated or global powers.
It will be interesting to see what will happen if the ECHR ever rules seriously against the national interests of a signatory. It might happen as there are signs of mission-creep.
Look, from the US pov, we have the constitution. The Roosevelts were the driving force behind the UN Declaration on Human Rights and in turn, the Charter and the Euro Convention: We do not need to be told by you. Geddit?
The answers are in the constitution, not wild euro judges with a grudge.
Do not hold your breath waiting for the US to sign up to hand over sovereignty to submit to an overseas judiciary.
BTW, we are a constitutional republic – not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule.
Now, does the USA follow it’s own constitution? lol Why is the Senate having to legislate equality for gay people in the military when equality and liberty are enshrined in the constitution?
Steve – while we are late observing the rulings on prisoner votes – and may well be open to further challenge – we did sign up. The irony is, of course, with high profile issues such as prisoner votes – the public mood is against and this has a deleterious effect on the principles of human rights generally.
Time will, of course, tell…..
I’ve just noticed an interrupted mid-edit sentence. I also made one of my phonetic misspellings, which happens rather too frequently.
“write” should be “right” of course.
“but only if this at least tolerated or global powers.” should read “but only if this at least tolerated by regional or global powers.”
Incidentally, I cannot see is any EU country extraditing Julian Assange to the USA. The ECHR surely has booked a spot in its timetable as any such attempt would surely end up there.
What I can see is a competition among European nations for them not to be the one that has that embarrasment. Of course it would be very convenient for the Americans if Julian Assange did pick up a serios criminal conviction in Sweden. I think the heart might then go out of the liberal left’s commitment to his cause.
You also raise a serious issue over plea bargains when they are used to implicate others. There is surely a huge possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
Kris – I make no comment… I am now reading into the US perspective in some detail. Even so, I may not succeed in shedding any light….. but at least I am trying to understand what the US position on this !
I suspect that I shall fail in this endeavour (sic)
🙂
Does the USA ‘Government’ (yes, irony) get human rights of the innocent so wrong, because any semblance of humanitarianism are fogged by personal power & gain?
I find Cablegate as a tolerable expose because I expect nations future activities to be ‘choked’ by Wikileaks very existence.
The USA has always been careful to ensure that its own dirty washing is washed, if at all, in its own laundries.
Personally, I was not at all surprised when the Bush administration refused to countenance any participation in the International Criminal Court. Their stance was in marked contrast to that of Blair who embraced willingly British participation in the ICC. A similar contrast exists in the extradition arrangements between UK and USA. The British government has been more than willing to sign away the rights of British people without a similar reciprocal arrangement being in place with the USA. This is the issue at the heart of the Gary Mckinnon case.
In my opinion (no more) Bradley Manning is being “broken” by his detention in solitary with (at best) minimal exercise. When he “coughs” they will claim that he has given them enough to “get” Assange. This is the unacceptable face of plea bargaining at work. It also illustrates why we ought not to countenance extradition without the courts in the UK being able to see a prima facie case.
Obiter J,
What realistically can the US authorities get from Manning? The only thing that springs to mind is that they have proof that he and Assange engaged in encrypted communication, but do not know how to decrypt it. Manning could be coerced into saying what was discussed.
James c – they don’t actually need to get all that much from Manning. Almost anything implicating Assange in the release of the information would do. Please remember that the USA do not need to show any prima facie case at all. They just need enough to issue an extradition request. This is the essential iniquity of the system as it stands at present.