UN group's protection of Assange is unjustified

[struggle4progress]

Noah Feldman

... So there's the complete logic of a working group's report: Assange might be charged with a crime in the U.S. Ecuador thinks charging him with violating national security law would amount to "political persecution" or worse. Therefore Sweden must give up on its claims to try him for rape, and the U.K. must ignore the Swedes' arrest warrant and let him leave the country.

Sweden responded to inquiries from the working group by explaining, very reasonably, that there was no extradition order before it. And if it had one, it would make sure it could extradite Assange to the U.S. in a way that was consistent with its international obligations before it did so.

What's more, Sweden pointed out that international law doesn't recognize a right of diplomatic asylum in an embassy, like the one Assange claims. It added that no one thinks it's a good grounds for asylum for someone charged with a nonpolitical crime like rape.

All this is legally correct. So is the British government's explanation to the working group that it doesn't recognize diplomatic asylum, and that Assange's residency in the Ecuadorian Embassy to escape arrest itself violates U.K. law ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-assange-comment-a0f31060-cc42-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19-20160205-story.html

[ladjf]

1. I disagree. nt

[struggle4progress]

3. Do feel free to provide whatever cogent commentary you can

My understanding of "arbitrary detention" is detention by a government or quasi-governmental group, with the detainee unable to determine the allegations which form the basis of the detention, or not allowed timely opportunity to challenge those charges and to defend against them in court

Assange is currently detained by neither the Swedish nor the UK authorities but has voluntarily hidden himself in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid a possible prosecution in Sweden

[cprise]

4. Or a very novel application of law where

one of the supposed victims is ex-CIA and the other doesn't want to press charges. Just surround the person for years on end and claim you have the right to invade the embassy any time you see fit.

The Swedes (the prosecutor appointed by the "Ronald Reagan of Europe" employer of Karl Rove) won't give up their option to turn Assange over to the US.

Yup. Nothing political going on here, by countries that cooperated in illegal renditions of people to CIA torture sites.

Meanwhile, US war criminals always get a pass.

[struggle4progress]

5. Your ramble, I fear, sheds no light whatsoever on what constitutes "arbitrary detention" and why

we might want to have effective international action against it: "arbitrary detention" is the deprivation of liberty outside the usual operations of a somewhat objective legal environment; and it is of concern because governments do imprison people without recognizable criminal charges, or without providing access to a fair day in court

[cprise]

6. "usual operations" and objectivity are precisely what's lacking

from the prosecution, who represents 'interests' which kidnap and torture people.

Now we know why Ecuador was so reluctant to give access to Assange... these police-state buffoons insist they can arrest him on the spot. They took a very strident, arrogant position in being nice and "fair".

[struggle4progress]

7. Let us go slowly. Is it your view that a state currently has Assange in its custody?

[Thinkingabout]

2. If Assange has committed rape he needs to answer for this. The victim does not get

To stay in the Ecuador embassy and the problem goes away. He needs to answer for his other crimes also.