Open Letter to UK FM Mr Hammond who ignores and berates #UNWGAD #Assange ruling
Written by The Archangel Raine @NTG1Messenger
Dear Mr Hammond,
I am writing in regard to the recent opinion given by the UNWGAD that Mr Assange should be allowed to travel to Ecuador to enjoy his diplomatic asylum without fear of rendition to the United States.
I saw a picture the other day of the deputy foreign minister, Hugo Swire, in his living room with his dog Rocco. It was a tweet he sent out that said; “Oh dear, Rocco appears to be arbitrarily detained”, and he had his arm around the dogs neck appearing to restrain him. I don’t know what he would have done if Rocco had started panicking and struggling to escape but the tone of the picture suggests that he would have let him go as he appears to be a beloved family pet.
However, Mr Assange is not a beloved family pet to those that wish to restrain him, and if he struggled and begged for freedom it would make no difference and he would remain in custody. I think you were trying to make a point that Mr Assange is not currently in the physical custody of the Americans, and thus is free to leave the embassy to hand himself over to them. However, this definition of freedom is I think, erroneous. Likewise, the Working Group for Arbitrary Detention have after 16 months also returned a legal opinion that this situation cannot legally be defined as ‘freedom’.
It is apparent that Mr Swire is openly mocking international law by insulting the UN in this manner and this appears to reflect the current position of yourself and your Government. I believe the exact words you used were: “Assange is a fugitive from justice, voluntarily hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. I reject the report from UNWGAD.” This was an extraordinary statement coming as it did from a representative of a democratic Government and I found the following reply to be most apt; “lols smoking crack i see you are a joke’. In other words, your statement makes it appear to the world that you are a gangster crack head unworthy of engaging with in serious debate.
Allow me to explain….
Before the UNWGAD came back with their opinion your position appeared to be that your Government were merely honouring an extradition treaty between yourselves and Sweden. Of course, lawyers have made the point that you had a duty under international law to respect Mr Assange’s diplomatic asylum and allow him to travel safely to Ecuador. However, you were able to state with little loss of dignity that you can choose not to recognise diplomatic asylum if you wish. This appearance of legality has now perished as you boldly state before the British people and the world that you have decided to pit yourself, not merely against the legal team of a citizen journalist, but the United Nations themselves – the highest legal authority in the world.
You may believe that you do not appear guilty of breaking international law, as someone within your Government wrote on your website that you do actually respect international law – just not in this instance. Has that statement restored the public confidence in the legality of your Government do you think? Or rather, has it further confirmed our worst fears with a tacit confession that you have no regard for international law, picking and choosing when to follow rather then being bound to its dictates, which of course defines the very concept of law and order. I had a very strange feeling in my stomach as I read this extraordinary statement. In the normal course of events when someone publicly communicates details of a crime they have committed the admission is used against him in court to secure a conviction.
You again publicly revealed yourself to be an unabashed liar when you made an easily disprovable statement that slighted the UNWGAD by saying they were ‘lay’ people with no legal qualifications. Voicing this opinion so obviously was very damaging to the integrity of yourself and your government for a few different reasons. Firstly, it made you look like a not very intelligent person as the statement was so easily disproven by publishing the legal qualifications of the lawyers involved. This leads to the second point, which is that it appears that you did understand that it would be clear to people that you were lying but that you did not care to even give the appearance of honesty. If this were the case then it seems as if you are attempting to present yourself as someone with so much power that you can obviously flout the law and lie to people and suffer no consequences. The result of this is a further diminishing of the confidence by the people in regard to the democratic process, the law in general and their ability to affect the behaviour of the Government which supposedly acts in their name, and I believe this was the intention of these antics. Your behaviour has also degraded the integrity of international law, weakening the ability of the UN to restrain more obviously criminal regimes from horrific human rights abuse.
Now, you yourself are a signatory to the United Nations and you presumably enjoy using this as an instrument to rein in other countries such as Russia and Iran etc, so what does it mean now when people such as the Turkish prime minister arrests journalists and openly breaks international law using your behaviour as a precedent? Such things surely degrade the moral standing of Britain throughout the world, and consequently will lead to a concrete and discernible loss of influence. Is it really worth it to support the failing US regime to such an extraordinary degree that you sacrifice the best interests of Great Britain? Quite apart from the personal humiliation against yourself that this has entailed.
Please regain your dignity, humanity and international legal standing by respecting the law and allowing Julian Assange to safely travel to Ecuador where he can continue his publishing work in relative safety.
A Concerned Citizen.