UN panel 'rules in Julian Assange's favour'
Source: BBC
A UN panel has ruled Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been "arbitrarily detained", the BBC understands.
Mr Assange took refuge in London's Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex assault claims, which he denies.
He earlier tweeted he would accept arrest if the panel ruled against him, but called for the arrest warrant to be dropped if the decision went his way.
The Met Police said he will still be held if he does leave the embassy.
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910
Fearless
(18,421 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)He is wanted in another country for rape. This country has requested his extradition. He flees to a foreign embassy to avoid arrest. He know complains that he can't leave the embassy without getting arrested.
Oh and I forgot Saudi Arabia is on the human rights panel. The UN complete joke.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)is that Assange has repeatedly said he'd happily stand trial in Sweden if he is given assurances he won't be extradited to America. No assurances are forthcoming.
randome
(34,845 posts)It would set a very poor precedent. You do not negotiate with someone you intend to arrest. Ever. Take it from the FBI and their stance with the Bundy Bunch in Oregon: "Sorry, no deal."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Tony Blair has said the peace process in Northern Ireland would probably have collapsed without the On The Runs scheme for fugitive IRA members.
His Labour administration sent about 200 letters to republicans assuring them they were not being pursued by the UK authorities following requests from Sinn Fein.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11342495/Tony-Blair-On-The-Run-letters-to-IRA-members-vital-for-Northern-Ireland-peace.html
Assange may or may not be guilty of rape, but he's definitely not guilty of what the Americans want to lock him up for.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's only Assange's delusion of importance and heroism that makes him say so. And comparing an international peace treaty to a wanted suspect is not at all the same. Once we start 'giving in' to suspects, they will always 'wait us out' for more.
If Assange is the hero he claims to be, he needs to face the music in Sweden. After all, he's been through the appeals process, Interpol has a warrant for his arrest, he skipped bail, and his own country, Australia, doesn't want to have anything to do with him.
With all of this, you think Obama wants to 'get' Assange. And that comes straight out of thin air because in order to support that idea, all the countries I mentioned, as well as all the appeals process judges involved, are all conspiring to do the bidding of Obama.
Sheer nonsense.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)"No country gives assurances..." what a load of bollocks. And now you're trying to change the subject with another load of bollocks.
Next you'll be saying that America doesn't do extraordinary rendition and torture.
randome
(34,845 posts)And I addressed the subject of offering assurances to a wanted suspect perfectly.
Ecuador has had its own sordid past. If you don't believe that nations change character over time, then Assange should be nowhere near Ecuador.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Like the promises to close down Guantanamo Bay. And don't give me the usual nonsense about Congress. British resident Shaker Aamer could have been released on day 1 of Obama's presidency. He wasn't, because they tried to shut him up. 13 years detention without trial. And even then he was only released because it was a huge international embarrassment. And they're still trying to shut him up.
A leopard doesn't change it's spots, once a torturer always a torturer.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Sweden can do it nice and quietly. Any extradition from the UK would be a cause celebre, and no judge would warrant it.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)The UK has an agreement with the US that makes it ridiculously easy to extradite to the US (but not the other way round). And Assange has always been just as well known in Sweden as in Britain.
Plus, and I can't believe I'm having to tell you this since you're British, judges don't decide cases on how famous the people are. It's not as if a British judge thinks about re-election.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:16 AM - Edit history (1)
No judge would extradite Assange just for publishing leaked documents.
And I'm sorry if I've not been making myself clear. The judiciary is independent but the decision to start extradition proceedings is political. After Blair's toadying, no British Government would want to be seen Kow towing to America. And as it would be kicked out it's a non starter.
Sweden's another matter, relatively clean hands over Iraq and fear of Putin's expansion. They're dusting off old Cold War defences on the island of Gotland right now.
I honestly think Assange wouldn't have spent all this time holed up in an Ecuadorian embassy just to avoid a trial in Sweden. And Sweden can clear this all up by guaranteeing he won't be extradited to America regardless of the outcome of the trial.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Given this I don't think his word is worth anything.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)So he has to run for his life.
What century is this?
randome
(34,845 posts)The farce continues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
elias49
(4,259 posts)And, yes, the farce continues.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)and Ecuador still protects him
Times change .....
Response to azurnoir (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
snot
(10,529 posts)"Mr. Assange has been deprived of his liberty for a five-yearmore than a five-year period. He was initially arrested and detained in isolation. The isolation was completely groundless. He was afterwards in house arrest under, again, very strict restrictions. He was then threatened with actually being extradited to Sweden. And youve spoken about the consequences of that. And that would negate his basic human rights. He had no other choice than to go and seek refuge, and he did that in the Ecuadorean Embassy. That was not his choice. That was not his volition. It was the only way he could uphold his own rights in this situation."
"{D}ue process has not been upheld, and thats what the U.N. working group very clearly showsa series of procedural mistakes on the Swedish side, no proportionality review on the U.K. side. And the alternatives herethere were alternatives. Under the European Arrest Warrant system, he could have been interviewed, interrogated in England, in London. Thats how we normally do these things in Europe. In these kind of cases, Swedish officers could have traveled to the U.K. He wouldMr. Assange would have been interviewed in an English police station. Thats how we usually do it, and it wasnt done here. It was a highly irregular procedure. This was nothing like due process. And it is obvious to the U.N. group and, after this ruling, obvious that this did not serve the purposes of the case, the way it was explained. This was to achieve other aims and illegitimate aims. And it was clearly not a part of a due process."
* * * * *
"{I}ts absolutely clear that Assange and his team has offered to answer . . . questions by Swedish police in the U.K. Thats beyond dispute. And that offer has not been taken up."
More at http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/5/a_significant_victory_julian_assange_hails?utm_source=Democracy+Now!&utm_campaign=0b112f491e-Daily_Digest&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-0b112f491e-191745989 .
Hell, yeah!