UN panel 'rules in Julian Assange's favour'

[azurnoir]

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]

1. Well obviously.

[iandhr]

2. Let me see if i got this

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]

3. Your post is also. nt

[Bad Dog]

8. What you're forgetting, or have deliberately left out,

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]

9. And what you keep forgetting is that no country gives assurances about anything.

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]

10. Plenty of assurances were given over Northern Ireland.

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]

11. Obama doesn't give a shit about Assange.

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]

14. The only nonsense being spouted is from you.

"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]

15. We don't. We did. See the difference?

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]

17. Still a load of bollocks.

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]

13. If the US wants him, why wouldn't they just extradite him from the UK? (nt)

[Bad Dog]

18. Because Blair's years of sucking up have made that an impossibility.

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]

19. That makes no sense whatsoever

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]

21. You're right about our courts.

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]

16. He also made assurances to abide by his bail conditions when he was released from jail.

Given this I don't think his word is worth anything.

[Octafish]

4. Guy publishes info that exposes war crimes and corruption.

So he has to run for his life.

What century is this?

[elias49]

5. Kick

[randome]

6. Too bad the U.N. does not have jurisdiction.

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]

7. A moral victory.

And, yes, the farce continues.

[lovuian]

12. Britain will still pay millions

and Ecuador still protects him

Times change .....

[snot]

22. As the UN Rep puts it,

"Mr. Assange has been deprived of his liberty for a five-year—more 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 you’ve 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 that’s what the U.N. working group very clearly shows—a series of procedural mistakes on the Swedish side, no proportionality review on the U.K. side. And the alternatives here—there were alternatives. Under the European Arrest Warrant system, he could have been interviewed, interrogated in England, in London. That’s how we normally do these things in Europe. In these kind of cases, Swedish officers could have traveled to the U.K. He would—Mr. Assange would have been interviewed in an English police station. That’s how we usually do it, and it wasn’t 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}t’s absolutely clear that Assange and his team has offered to answer . . . questions by Swedish police in the U.K. That’s 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!