Burgess COMMENTARY
Rule of Law has been badly damaged by the way those in power have used this idea to do whatsoever they deemed fit, and then explain away their actions by 'rule of law'. I was taught that law was an important part of a system of justice ... but this did not seem to fit with what happened to Native Americans after they had signed 'Treaties' with the rich and powerful of the day. Property rights were always about how the powerful could protect their property, and not very much about the rights to the property of those without power.

So now we have the WikiLeaks phenomenon ... secret documents get leaked by 'whistleblowers' ... and WikiLeaks gives them distribution. Some of this is 'against the law' and some of this is something 'we the people' ought to be seeing. The damage being done by making information accessible is, in my view, not very much compared to the huge value, orders of magnitude bigger, that transparency brings to people and a free society.

I am having difficulty explaining why the United States is so paranoid about WikiLeaks. The only explanation I can come up with is that these huge leaks show how very pedestrian at best ... or alternatively how very incompetent many people who are in the service of government are. This is embarrassing, of course, but hardly a danger to the State ... in fact, I think hiding incompetence is the greater danger.

I know there is incompetence in government. I left University more than 50 years ago and have spent a lifetime learning more and more about incompetence in high places. This is not a question of me not being in agreement with other people's analysis and conclusions, this is about deep incompetence or alternatively a dangerously dysfunctional system. Neither is good.

Why did the genocide in Rwanda happen? It was largely incompetence on the part of government officials in key capitals around the world. If not this, then it was something that might be described as genocidal corruption.

Why did the Taliban get a strong hold on Afghanistan in teh 1990s? I argue it was incompetence on the part of government officials in the United States and Europe who put self serving agendas before something much more important The mistakes have cost where would have averted much of the disaster ... not to mention the infamous events of 9/11.

Maybe someone will tell me that there is the 'Freedom of Information Act' so that 'we the people' can see the documents of government. Yes ... that is the law ... but what about the loopholes? The results of my attempts to find information about USAID activities in Africa, for example, have been laughable ... I pay for 300 pages in information, and the only page with any meaningful interesting information is almost totally redacted. This is fraud ... but this is lawful. The same document coming from a 'whistleblower' will tell me what ought to be easily accessible to the public but is not because ... surprise surprise ... it shows stuff that is rather embarrassing to the contractor and the contracting officers.

The Assange case is interesting ... and the powerful do not look good. The British (through Foreign Secretary Hague) threaten to break into an Embassy in London to apprehend Assange because of a set of allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. This would, it appears, be acceptable because, after all it is only the Embassy of Ecuador whose standards of law are not up to British standards ... I jest OOPS. Of course when some violent people attack American diplomatic properties in Libya and kill and Ambassador ... that is a huge contravention of doplomatic norms. Which is it? The powerful countries need to play by the rules. just as the less powerful are expected to play by the rules.

My experience of this world ... many decades ... has me being totally disgusted not only at the way rule of law is applied, but how morals and ethics are twisted in ways that always seem to bring benefit to the rich and powerful and problems for everyone else.
Peter Burgess

UK and Ecuador fail to agree on Assange fate ... Officials fail to end deadlock over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that has lasted 100 days.

IMAGE Ecuador has granted Assange political asylum [AP]

Britain and Ecuador have failed to reach agreement on the fate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a meeting of their foreign ministers, officials say.

'We see no immediate solution,' Ecuadoran Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters after meeting on Thursday with British Foreign Secretary William Hague on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Assange has been sheltered inside the Ecuadoran embassy in London since June 19.

Though Ecuador has granted Assange asylum, if he steps outside the building he will be arrested to be flown to Sweden, where he is wanted in court over rape and sexual misconduct allegations.

Assange fears that could lead to extradition to the US, where he could face charges stemming from WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of diplomatic cables that laid bare Washington's powerbroker manoeuvers across the globe.

Britain says it is legally obliged to extradite Assange to Sweden, and that it will not allow the 41-year-old Australian to leave the embassy and travel to the South American country.

Written guarantees

Ecuador, which has granted Assange political asylum, wants Britain to give Assange written guarantees that he would not be extradited from Sweden to any third country.

They say if extradited to the US, he would face 'inhumane' prison conditions and even the death penalty.

Hague told Patino that British extradition law includes extensive human rights safeguards.

'The Foreign Secretary described the extensive human rights safeguards in UK extradition law. He requested the Government of Ecuador to study these provisions closely in considering the way ahead,' a spokesman for Hague said.

Amnesty International has called upon Sweden to break the impasse between the two countries by issuing assurances to the UK and Assange that if he goes to Sweden he will not be forcibly transferred to the US.

Nicola Duckworth, the senior director for research at Amnesty International, said that Assange's return to Sweden would 'mean the women who have levelled accusations of sexual assault are not denied justice.

Likely to meet again

Patino and Hague are likely to meet again in the next two months to discuss the case.

'Both ministers agreed that they were committed to the search for a diplomatic solution to Assange's case. They were willing to meet again at this level in due course to continue these exchanges,' a British statement said

Patino stressed that the only possibility of the issue being resolved in a legal manner is if Assange is given safe passage out of the UK.

'This is so that Assange can fully enjoy the asylum that Ecuador has granted and that gives Mr Assange the right to liberty and the right to not be continued to be persecuted,' he said.

Associated Press news agency reported that Assange appeared pale and sounded hoarse in an appearance via videolink to a meeting on the sidelines of the General Assembly on Wednesday.

However, British officials said that Patino had insisted there was no immediate concern about Assange's health.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies