Whatever Julian Assange’s legal function (Letters, 13 April), the UK government must be aware of America’s approach to global law. In May 2002, the United States withdrew its attractiveness of the Rome Statute. The international criminal court had been created, threatening to launch – by way of military pressure if important – any indicted US citizens who might become legitimately held at The Hague. In August 2002, the United States threatened to withdraw resources from countries that refused to realize the immunity of US army employees from ICC prosecution. Even America-based, totally Human Rights Watch defined this as “blackmail.”
Sign up to the Media Briefing: information for the news-makers
Sign up to the Media Briefing: information for the news-makersThe US keeps to withhold the reputation of the ICC, which it brazenly demeans, revoking the visa of its chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, this month, merely for affirming the ICC’s goal to research US service members and CIA employees for their feasible roles in conflict crimes and other abuses.
In a speech in Washington remaining September, the United States countrywide safety adviser, John Bolton, defined the courtroom as “invalid” and “antithetical to our nation’s beliefs.” He said the US could “… offer no help to the ICC … We will permit the ICC to die on its own … for all intents and functions; the ICC is useless to us.”
Such attitudes hardly ever help the idea of Julian Assange dealing with justice within the US.
Dr. Kevin Bannon
London
• I changed into relieved to read Nesrine Malik’s contribution to the discussion of Julian Assange’s extradition and the difference between his whistleblowing on the evidence of US war crimes and the arrest warrant issued through Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape (The left continues to be blinkered approximately Assange, 15 April).
Like many on the left, I was via Labour prioritizing the whistleblowing over the allegations of attack. If Assange is innocent of sexual attack, he really needs now not fear the Swedish courts.
Dr. Gill Gregory
Norwich
• It would have been excellent if your report (Give precedence to Assange rape claim, Javid advised, 13 April) had quoted the key a part of Diane Abbott’s interview after reporting that “Abbott become criticized… over an interview at the Today program wherein a few backbench Labour MPs said she downplayed the allegations of sexual attack.” Abbott refers to “the rape expenses, serious as they’re,” earlier than stating, “if the Swedish authorities want to come forward with those charges, I believe that Assange needs to face the criminal justice system.”
