COMMENT ON “VIVA FREI EXPLAINS JULIAN ASSANGE SUPERSEDED INDICTMENT” YOUTUBE

BACKGROUND: Viva Frei operates a YouTube Channel called “Viva Frei Vlawg”. His Channel is simply Viva Frei. He has some good videos that break down facts and legal arguments on different cases. On May 27, 2019, Viva Frei published a VLAWG titled “Real Lawyer Explains Julian Assange Superseded Indictment – Viva Frei Vlawg“.  As stated in the description for this video :

“The Julian Assange saga continues… Swedish prosecutors recently announced that they would be re-opening the rape allegations against Julian Assange. A U.S Grand Jury just returned an 18-count indictment against Assange, which include 17 offenses under the Espionage Act.”

At about 10-minutes into the video, Viva Frei admits the limits of his knowledge when it comes to criminal and international legal questions. On May 28, 2019, David commented on the video and provided insights to the question “how can a non-US Citizen who never stepped foot in the United States be charged with Espionage by the United States.

 

COMMENT:

How can an individual (any individual, person, and/or ‘NON” U.S. citizen) be charged under United States law, if they’ve never set foot on US soil?

The reason is that U.S. jurisdiction and many other States/nations; now claim “universal jurisdiction”. This is being applied by international law, treaties, the UN Charter, concurrent jurisdiction, the Law of Nations (Book 3); and Sources of International Law being “the common law” among the “major legal systems” of the world.

1. The USA is the top dog in the Security Council. Article 24 in the Charter of the Organization of the United Nations; supersedes all other articles; because the Charter is all about “maintenance” of International Peace. Therefore, the Security Council (U.S.A.) becomes “in charge” of defining the meaning of the word: Maintain.

2. In the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, Third (1987) and Fourth (2018)….(The Customary International Law of Jurisdiction in the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law by William S. Dodge…who is one of the Reporters for Fourth Restatement)…makes the following observation on the Evolution of International Law…..”The Restatement (Fourth) does not have a corresponding section restating: the customary international law on jurisdiction to adjudicate;… because, as the Introductory Note to Chapter 2 (Introductory Note, Part III, in Jurisdiction Tentative Draft No. 2) observes, “[w]ith the significant exception of various forms of immunity, modern customary international law generally does not impose limits on jurisdiction to adjudicate.” (The Restatement (Fourth) does have a chapter on state immunity, although its focus is U.S. domestic law under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act rather than customary international law.)

This is very similar to other documents and agreements that already STIPULATE universal jurisdiction; such as …Spain’s Expanded Universal Jurisdiction to Prosecute Human Rights Abuses in Latin America, China, and Beyond — Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2007. 

Contribution of Spain on the topic “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” 

This is just one Nation-State’s position on the current evolution of International Law and Precedents for controlling Nationals/citizens via the LAW OF NATIONS and International Law, Treaties, and the UN Charter.

3. In the Sixth International Conference of American States held in Habana, Cuba in 1928….it was agreed by all Nations of the OAS that “International Law is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”. Therefore, National Peremptory Norms establish that “espionage” has always been a crime…and, now seen to be a Global Assault on the Integrity of the State (Nation).

4. Assange admittedly worked with a US Citizen and therefore, by contract–agreement and Collusion (conspiracy)…he has tied himself to committing Internally Subversive Crimes against the USA. (We may not like this…but, it does not change the law; as you know.)

5. These next 2 items come directly from the Restatement Third of Foreign Relations Law …. § 102 Sources of International Law

1. A rule of international law is one that has been accepted as such by the international community of states (a) in the form of customary law; (b) by international agreement; or (c) by derivation from general principles common to the major legal systems of the world.
2. Customary international law results from a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.
3. International agreements create law for the states parties thereto and may lead to the creation of customary international law when such agreements are intended for adherence by states generally and are in fact widely accepted.
4. General principles common to the major legal systems, even if not incorporated or reflected in customary law or international agreement, may be invoked as supplementary rules of international law where appropriate.

6. COMMENTS & ILLUSTRATIONS: Comment:

1. (a.) Sources and evidence of international law distinguished. This section indicates the ways in which rules or principles become international law. The means for proving that a rule or principle has, in fact, become international law in one of the ways indicated in this section is dealt with in §103.
2. (h). The United Nations Charter. The Charter of the United Nations has been adhered to by virtually all states. Even the few remaining non-member states have acquiesced in the principles it established. The Charter provisions prohibiting the use of force have become rules of international law binding on all states. Compare Article 2(6). See § 905, Comment g. Article 103 of the Charter provides: In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.
3. (k). Peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens). Some rules of international law are recognized by the international community of states as peremptory, permitting no derogation. These rules prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them. Such a peremptory norm is subject to modification only by a subsequent norm of international law having the same character. It is generally accepted that the principles of the United Nations Charter prohibiting the use of force (Comment h) have the character of jus cogens. See § 331(2) and Comment e to that section.
4. (l). General principles as a secondary source of law. Much of international law, whether customary or constituted by agreement, reflects principles analogous to those found in the major legal systems of the world, and historically may derive from them or from a more remote common origin. See Introductory Note to Chapter 1 of this Part and Reporters’ Note 1 to this section. General principles common to systems of national law may be resorted to as an independent source of law. That source of law may be important when there has not been practice by states sufficient to give the particular principle status as customary law and the principle has not been legislated by general international agreement. General principles are a secondary source of international law, resorted to for developing international law interstitially in special circumstances.

7. Assange is a National of Australia. If he wants protections for any “perceived” violation of Rights…Legal or Human Rights; then it is up Australia to “come to his defense” and state that matter at the ICJ at the Hague. Australia is not going to come to his defense; because they would be just as bothered as the USA is…about someone digging into their “State Secrets” or “other activities”. (we may not like it…but…this is how the Family of Nations has operated for thousands of years. Spies have never been welcome…when a State wants to “hide” its secrets. IN THE CONSTITUTION of the “People of the United States FOR the United States of America; at Article 1, Section 5…it states that Congress “shall keep a journal of its minutes and from time to time publish the same; excepting those part deemed necessary to KEEP SECRET”. So…They gave Themselves the “RIGHT” to lie and keep secrets from Their own Nationals…and therefore, the rest of the Planet. If they were willing to “LIE and KEEP SECRETS” from the very beginning…I’m sure that They don’t want Their “laundry aired out before the entire planet”.

8. This is nowhere nearly “as questionable” as what the USA did at Guantanimo….without ANY ACTUAL CHARGES. They just invaded the territory and “murdered people” over a lie called WMDs…and then “hauled off” a bunch of men without so much as an investigation of “wrongdoing”. How is the Assange matter any different? (oh…except of course….it made HEADLINES.)

BOTTOM LINE: As a teacher of International Law; ” in relation to what is “being built” and what is “evolving” …as BORDERS start to come down….if” people are not thinking “globally”; then they are going to get left behind.

Sorry, this is “wordy”….but, if I “broadcasted” this on a video…it would be no more than 2 mins. Maybe I will; just to elaborate on the point that “ignorance of the law” is no excuse….as you well know. In today’s world, that includes SUPREME LAW…which is International Law.