I'm here 😀
was checking Zwift settings ...... <ducks and covers>
Ninfans' second link "Philip Hammond is right: this working group opinion is ridiculous"
Carl Gardner is more than welcome to disagree with the UN's [i]very own group who specialise in arbitrary detention[/i]. Philip Hammond also considers it a "ridiculous finding", but the simple fact is the UN ruling is [u]legally binding[/u]. It's not up to him to pick and chose which rulings the UK government complies with.
In fairness, as he knows it's legally binding (I won't over-egg that pudding, BTW) he's not stupid enough to say (AFAIK) something like 'we won't abide by it'.
Anyway, Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. They lost and they're not happy ... *shrug*
[edit]
spelling ... sorry guys, gotta flounce, night night
Possibly but until we have a binding declaration from sweden or the US that they wont try to extradite
don't think that is legal so cant happen
Regardless, the UN finding is legally binding
is not legally binding, according to BBC
Given the interest in him by the American administration,
source 'NEWS JUNKIE POST' because its on the internet doesn't make it true
Just observations really. He was in Sweden when the charges were put to his lawyers. He left the same day. Coincidence? Don't know. He had applied to work there so I guess the US angle didn't worry him at that point.
The 'ruling' by the WGAD does not make sense. Assenge is accused of a serious sexual crime in Sweden. Regardless of whether we agree with it, their legal system has issued a European Arrest warrent which has been validated by the UK High Court, Appeal Court, Supreme Court, European Court of Justice and the Supreme Court (again). At this point Assenge jumped bail (a crime in the UK) to the embassy.
Assenge has constantly claimed that he will be extradited from Sweden by the USA, but has produce no evidence. If the USA did try to prosecute him, then they would have to do the same to the USA papers which published the documents released by Wikileaks.
He lives in his own world of fantasy where he has his own set of rules. Wikileaks does have value, although it would be good if there were whistle blowers from other countries like Russia and China rather than just the USA. But just because he founded it does not give him any other rights.
In the long term he will leave the embassy and he will be sent to Sweden. He will be investigated and then thrown out of the country. He won't be welcome in the UK
I think maybe the Telegraph and the Washington post sums his position.
He cannot be extradited from Sweden or UK for political offence?
He fears a rendition hit and being whisked away to Guantanamo
He and his supports want a guarantee of no extradition(illegal so dead end)
There is no extradition warrant to the US for him, he hasn't been charged with anything (conspiracy theorist assume they are just waiting until he steps into Sweden)
Sweden’s extradition agreement with the United States was signed in October 1961 and updated in March 1983. It prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offence" or "an offence connected with a political offence".But his supporters fear that he could be "snatched" by the CIA and spirited away to the US, regardless of the extradition treaty.
There are no charges against him in the US, although he fears he could be put on trial for espionage.
Yet The Washington Post reported in 2013 that the Justice Department had concluded there was no way it could prosecute him.
"The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists," former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller told the paper. "And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange."
It would be illegal for america to say no we wont try to extradite you if you go to sweden.don't think that is legal so cant happen
Have you a source for this claim?
because its on the internet doesn't make it true
We know we read your posts 😉
No one has claimed this so straw man is strawy.
do you think the reason for this isThere is no extradition warrant to the US for him, he hasn't been charged with anything
1) The US have absolutely no interest in him whatsoever
2) They are waiting till they can.
so they are all free to say dont worry its literally impossible for us to extradite you so dont worry but they cannot because its "illegal"It prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offence" or "an offence connected with a political offence".
your posts dont support your view and contradict themselves.
In what sense can it be illegal to say we wont try to extradite you?
As for no way to prosecute him its not like the US has a history and tradition of keeping folk locked up without bring charges against them, nor of rendition nor of keeping folk in legal limbo now is it so why is he worrying
As for the specious argument i suggest you take that up with the UN who presumably were given and rejected such an argument.
It seems the argument was never even considered by the UN. To be precise, the case was referred to the 'UN Working Working Group on Arbitrary Detention', whose remit was apparently limited to considering whether Assange has been the subject of arbitrary detention. The vice chair of the panel has said that their ruling "doesn't mean anything against the criminal prosecution he was facing". Trying to separate the question of the legality of Assange's detention/flight from justice from the serious criminal charges which he faces is entering the realms of Alice in Wonderland.
He was arrested, detained, and released on bail while he fought a protracted legal battle in the courts to avoid extradition. When he lost that battle, he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy. If you completely ignore the charges and the due process followed by the governments and courts involved, well then of course it's arbitrary detention. By the same criteria I imagine most of the 80,000 persons currently residing at Her Majesty's Pleasure would probably have a good chance of getting the panel to rule that their detention is also arbitrary.
So you agree the concern is real then?
I am very sceptical. Even if some in the US government thought very early on that this might be a way to get their hands on him (and why would it make sense to try to extradite from Sweden instead of directly from the UK?), I think that it's unrealistic now to believe that he would be tried in Sweden and that the USA would then be able to successfully request his extradition from Sweden: it would confirm all the conspiracy theorists allegations and would result in even more tortuous court battles. As I understand it, both the UK courts and the Swedish courts would have to agree to his extradition from Sweden, and doubtless it would also go to the ECHR. So frankly no, I just cannot see it happening.
We know we read your posts
well I think the BBC and Telegraph Washington post are slightly more reliable than 'NEWS JUNKIE POST' just my opinion.
do you think the reason for this is1) The US have absolutely no interest in him whatsoever
2) They are waiting till they can.
Please read full sentence inc (conspiracy theorist assume they are just waiting until he steps into Sweden)
so they are all free to say dont worry its literally impossible for us to extradite you so dont worry but they cannot because its "illegal"
well as I said I was quoting from Telegraph. They seemed to sum up his position. We and they are laymen so interpretation of the act is in those terms, i.e face value.
My only view is:
He has a case to answer in Sweden
He has not been charged with any offence in US
I do not subscribe to conspiracy theory
He was on the grassy knoll 😀
It would be illegal for america to say no we wont try to extradite you if you go to sweden.
I think that is the case and Sweden and UK cold not legally give such or similar guarantees. There is no precedent.
But there is no outstanding charges for him in the US. But you I assume and the rest fear that if he does go to Sweden the US will make charges. That's just speculation. I feel if they were going to do it they would have done it by now. But I would say that because I dont believe in conspiracy theories.
TBH i dont know to what/who this refers and yes journalists that agree with you know more than journalists who disagree with you and the UN expert panel.'NEWS JUNKIE POST
Just answer the question will you?Please read full sentence
its easy to just shout conspiracy theory and then dismiss it but you are in fantasy land if you think they dont maintain an interest in him and delivering Justice in away only america can - i mean guantanamo style rather than assassination.
I will assume the rest is no I dont have any evidence to prove the claim its illegal to say we wont do something but a very right wing journalist wrote it down so you think its true.
EDIT@ AAARGH we know what you think i am interested in what you can prove not you repeating the claim with out anything to back it up.
That's just speculation. I feel if they were going to do it they would have done it by now.
It is just as the sentence you wrote is speculation
People who go on about conspiracy theories are idiots so please stop going on about it as its just a lazy ad him [ yes i know mine was as well] but i was taking your lead in doing the thing i just moaned about 😉
Great seeing pawsy ignore facts.
1) The US have absolutely no interest in him whatsoever
2) They are waiting till they can.but you are in fantasy land if you think they dont maintain an interest in him and delivering Justice in away only america can - i mean guantanamo style rather than assassination.1. Yes, they do have an intrest in him should they have evidence and a case they will prosecute him. But they haven't. But they could if evidence became available.
2. No, I do not think they will illegally extradite him via some secret cia renditionsee slowster post for detail
No needs no reply from me
my quotes have gone to hell ha ha
Facts?
He has been charged with rape, last I checked that's some pretty serious shit. Fact.
When he learned of this he ran to the UK. Fact.
When all his possible avenues of appeal ran out he ran to the closest point of harbour. Fact.
Now, given he's a supposedly intelligent person, if he thought he was at risk of rendition why didn't he flee in The first instance to a place the US couldn't get at him? Like, oh, Ecuador? Equally, if the US wanted to extradite him, why would they **** about setting him up on a phoney rape charge along with the Swedish authorities, tell his lawyers and then allow him to escape and create a four year long media circus over the whole damn thing?
I hope he does get his day in court, one way or another he's going to look like a colossal **** when he either gets acquitted and walks free into the sunset and into has-been obscurity or gets jail time, freed and deported to has-been obscurity.
The man has a massive ego, that people can't see his arrogance is remarkable especially in this climate.
I would be more worries about your argument 😉
I mean no offence and hope the wink gets this across
Its one of those the only way to solve the impasse is by action from the US or sweden.
Until then I think most folk can see both sides and just plump for one over the other
I dont think its illegal for the US to say no we wont do anything you are free to move without fear of action from us. Its not likely to happen though.
Just for argument sake say he stay's in the embassy until 2020 when the statue of limitations runs out on the charges. Or the Swedes drop all charges. He is then free to walk away from the embassy.
But the UK has an extradition agreement with the US so we would extradite him if there was a charge?
I'm just not sure what his end game is? How does this end?
Attention. Lots of it. Centre of.
IMO
Junkyard - yeah I see your point and yes, it's an impasse really.
come out shooting 😀
The man has a massive ego, that people can't see his arrogance is remarkable especially in this climate
He does and he is a bit of a smug cock but that does not mean what he says /fears is without foundation.
I can't wait for him to end up in Sweden, then the USA then be thrown in jail for the rest of his life, just so I can post in the 'conspiracy theories than turned out to be true' thread.
Crikey this has been dragging on for a while.
Bet he gets all the nice free food at the embassy ... 😯
FFS! Just assassinate him cold war style then blame the iguana for skateboarding into a fully loaded 9mm. 😆
Or the Swedes drop all charges. He is then free to walk away from the embassy.
Last article I read suggests they'd need to raise the charges before they can drop them. Is an arrest warrant the same as being charged?
So which has higher precedent - this UN ruling, or international extradition treaties?
"Only a single, persistent heckler interrupted the mood. “Can someone close that person up?” asked Assange. Shouts of “Yes!” came in response. "
All you need to know about him in that request.
Regardless, the UN finding is legally binding and the UK / Swedish governments have effectively said "tough shit".
You have fallen into the trap of believing what Assange says, rather than the truth. The UN report is NOT legally binding. This was clearly reported on the news yesterday.
If the decision WAS legally binding, then why wouldn't Assange do what a human rights lawyer suggested yesterday - come out of the door and show us just how binding the decision is ?
Maybe if the US had not treated Bradley Manning the way they did then their apologists now baying for Assange's blood would actually have a leg to stand on.
Its Chelsea manning, sexist
Illegally extradited? Nash - could never happen.
[quote=crankboy ]"Only a single, persistent heckler interrupted the mood. “Can someone close that person up?” asked Assange. Shouts of “Yes!” came in response. "
All you need to know about him in that request.
Yes at his press conference after being persistently heckled he asked for the person to be stopped
This definitely singles him out from anyone else as everyone else lets their press conferences be ruined by opponents constantly heckling them 😕
What a terribly terribly weak point.
I realise you dislike him but you are usually far more rational than this.
You have fallen into the trap of believing what Assange says
The UN said this. You have fallen into the trap of blaming Assange for everything.
I'm only watching this thread now for news he's walked out the door..
Keep us informed please, ta 😉
Sorry in advance for all the quotes / links 🙂
(the ruling) is not legally binding, according to BBC
You have fallen into the trap of believing what Assange says, rather than the truth. The UN report is NOT legally binding. This was clearly reported on the news yesterday.
Not so 'clear' I'm afraid as the BBC later [url= http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35504237 ]generously[/url] concedes later on: -
a UN official said the decision was based on international law.
So you're both suggesting something based on international law, of which the UK is a signatory, [i]isn't[/i] legally binding? How does that work then?
Don't take my word for it, see what the OHCHR has to [url= https://tinyurl.com/jgb25ez ]say[/url] (see 'NOTE TO EDITORS:' part)
The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding
This refers to the ICCPR, which the UK goverment signed up to in [url= http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/our-work/human-rights/international-framework/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights ]1976[/url]. The UK government
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/working-group-on-arbitrary-detention-consultation ]also[/url] confirms this.
If the decision WAS legally binding, then why wouldn't Assange do what a human rights lawyer suggested yesterday - come out of the door and show us just how binding the decision is?
Until the UK government confirm that it is legally binding (I feel like I'm going around in circles here) and that the arrest warrant is quashed, he is quite sensible in sitting tight until they do.
BTW, I've yet to hear anything from the UK government along the lines of "we refuse to abide by the ruling" / "we will appeal" / etc, all they are saying are "we reject the findings". Fine, reject the findings until the cows come home but they had their chance and lost.
I really think a dead horse is being flogged here; unless someone comes up with something solid (I see only ninfan has provided links to support his position) that's the matter closed as far as I'm concerned.
So which has higher precedent - this UN ruling, or international extradition treaties?
Given that the OCHCR (link above) says: -
The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights
My belief is that the ruling must have precedence over the warrant, although the ruling having words to the effect of 'assange must be released' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'the warrant is quashed', the warrant would surely be contested on this basis if it isn't quashed.
Do you really believe them when they say they're not interested in him?
No, because the [url= https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/ccr-condemns-reported-sealed-indictment-against-wikileaks-founder-0 ]United States Department of Justice[/url] has issued a sealed indictment against Julian Assange. Oh, and Sky news [url= http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32019.htm ]being told[/url] that "extradition [to the US] is more and more likely".
Assenge has constantly claimed that he will be extradited from Sweden by the USA, but has produce no evidence.
No, he asked for guarantees that he [b]won't[/b] be extradited, which were never given. Have a look [url= https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html ]here[/url] for more info.
Anyway, [url= http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-presidential-plane/index.html ]we've seen[/url] how the far the [url= https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/29/a-call-to-end-war-on-whistleblowers/ ]American administration[/url] will go in the war on whistleblowers; which incidentally is the prism under which I view this entire case (and my particular area of interest), a war on a whistleblower.
As an aside, you may think I'm obsessed with Assange, but I'm actually very disappointed in how much mileage he has been given, when there are [url= https://www.rt.com/news/330377-nusra-isis-terror-report/ ]far[/url] [url= http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/05/us-military-bush-era-detainee-abuse-photos-released-pentagon-iraq-afghanistan-guantanamo-bay ]more[/url] [url= https://news.vice.com/article/al-qaeda-is-making-serious-gains-amid-chaos-of-yemens-civil-war ]pressing[/url] [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/05/ban-ki-moon-yemen-war-uk-arms-sales-saudi-arabia ]human rights[/url] [url= http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/02/libya-why-we-should-worry-about-itagain.html ]issues[/url] which we should all be worried about.
[edit]
Glad to see Chelsea Manning mentioned above, I'd love the chance to bore you all rigid with my opinions of her, but that's for another topic 🙂
Yes at his press conference after being persistently heckled he asked for the person to be stopped
This definitely singles him out from anyone else as everyone else lets their press conferences be ruined by opponents constantly heckling them
What a terribly terribly weak point.
I realise you dislike him but you are usually far more rational than this.
Yet something that the lefties reacted in horror to when it happens at a Trump speech...
The obvious difference being that when Trump makes a speech the hecklers tend to make more sense.
Yet something that the lefties reacted in horror to when it happens at a Trump speech..
Lefties reacting in horror!!!! Are you a tabloid journo?
Iirc the offending person at the trump rally was standing in silence
I also seem to remember the righties frothing with righteous outrage when an old anti war vet got removed from a labour rally
Did they or did you just decide to use any point whatsoever to just attack the "lefties"- do you ever get bored of this and think it might make sense to comment on the actual point being made?Yet something that the lefties reacted in horror to when it happens at a Trump speech..
FWIW i thought everyone but RW nut jobs disliked Trump..OH hold on a minute i see why you are so upset 😛
My belief is that the ruling must have precedence over the warrant, although the ruling having words to the effect of 'assange must be released' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'the warrant is quashed', the warrant would surely be contested on this basis if it isn't quashed.
If the 'binding' decision of a non judicial UN panel is classed as 'authoritative' by the ECHR as they claim, then the natural outcome would be for Assange to apply to the ECHR which [u]does[/u] have a judicial role to challenge the decision of the (UK) Supreme Court.
One could suggest that this channel would have been the correct natural route of appeal against a decision of the UKSC anyway, and you can only wonder why on earth Assange has chosen to avoid judicial challenge and opted for this 'quasi-official non statutory bollocks' channel?
Fair point and I really don't know the answer. I can only presume the only way (or more successful, perhaps) is, for some reason, for him to challenge the UKSC finding in the ECHR having [i]first[/i] gained the support - for want of a better word - of the UN panel, rather than the other way around.
Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
Article 10:
"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established:
"To investigate cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international legal instruments accepted by the States concerned"
So detention without trial would clearly be something they would consider. When the detention (or being a fugitive from justice in an embassy) is the result of a legal process which complies with Article 10, then it's difficult to see how can it be arbitrary, given that the unusual features of the 'detention' such as the duration are the result of Assange's own actions in exhausting all legal options in the UK courts and then fleeing justice to hide in an embassy.
The Working Group has stated that their ruling does not undermine or overrule the criminal charges Assange faces (the vice chair said their ruling "doesn't mean anything against the criminal prosecution he was facing").
So the UK police supposedly must comply with this 'binding' ruling to stop arbitrarily detaining Assange, which can only happen if the threat of arrest once he leaves the embassy is removed, but the Working Group have not ruled on the criminal charges he is facing, which require the police and UK government to arrest him and deport him in order to comply with their legal responsibilities under UK and international law.
It looks like the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are doing their best to uphold the maxim that "the law is an ass".
Schnor I think your link actually says the working groups findings are not legally binding in a conclusive or enforceable way , they are not a court . The findings are authoritative as in would be persuasive to a court making a decision rather than compelling a decision . The group express an opinion not pass a judgement.
Sweden's refusal to promise not to extradite Assange is perfectly correct Sweden has a separation of justice and politics so the Swedish government can't pre bind a a judge dealing with a hypothetical extradition case. No could any one sensibly promise never to extradite someone at a time when no extradition application has been made the charges have not been specified the evidence is unknown and the grounds of the on which the hypothetical extradition is sought have not been specified.
Junky you are right my earlier post was lazy you are wrong I don't dislike Assange I actually admire wikileaks , I do not agree with him running away from these accusations and avoiding any tribunal that can actually make a binding decision based on evidence. He instead seeks to win his case without exposing himself to challenge or sanction if he is judged culpable.
Rape allegations are serious and should be properly investigated and tried . Sweden has a modern and thourgh liberal justice system and a robust and protective system for assessing extradition requests . I doubt The Americans would ever render a prominent media friendly rich white man by putting a bag over his head and spiriting him off to a black site for torture. So if the Rule of Law means anything Assage should submit to it and fight his case in court .
It's an amazing situation when hiding to evade the established legal process can be defined as some form of state detention.
The only one who is not fulfilling his responsibilities under international law is Mr Assange, whose extradition to face serious charges has been ruled correct at a high level in the UK courts.
Assange could have faced (and most likely defeated, given the lack of evidence) the rape charges in Sweden in a fraction of the time he has chosen to spend cooped up.
There is no mechanism for the arbitrary cancellation of a valid UK arrest warrant, so the stand-off will continue.
The Ecuadorians must be getting pretty sick of this now. Perhaps they'll temporarily relocate their embassy to Birmingham to get shot of him.
I do not agree with him running away from these accusations and avoiding any tribunal that can actually make a binding decision based on evidence. He instead seeks to win his case without exposing himself to challenge or sanction if he is judged culpable.
I agree this point is a valid opinion and he may be doing this
However i also think its valid for him to fear extradition if he does go there.
The only way to end this and know for sure whether he is an court dodging scumbag is for the US to openly say they wont try to "get him" when/if he goes there.
I do worry when folk just say the process happened he should go though. Its nit like states never abuse their powers and its obvious why he would be a high profile targeted individual. There is clearly more to this than a "bery serious rape allegation". A reasonable case can be made for them being stage managed, trumped up and an abuse of the process.
FWIW the admire is interesting Wikkileaks is admirable but he seems like an arse.
If you read the report there is a fairly clear summery of Swedish extradition law in the Swedish submissions that Assange does not dispute if it is accurate it seems he would have a fair argument to run in Sweden to fight extradition if the US sought it. It is noteworthy that he did not leave Sweden to avoid a US extradition application but at the time he was to be arrested for Rape.
What ever you think about the Swedish rape charges and indeed law it is illogical to link them to the US if the US wanted him why not just apply to extradite him when he was found in Sweden or render him if you go for the supper baddie view. If the rape charges are fabricated to blacken his name why such vague consent boundaries issue rather than an easier and clearer non consent date rape type accusation.
The group express an opinion not pass a judgement.
Fine. If you want to split hairs the OCHCR's conclusions aren't [i]themselves[/i] enforceable, but their findings are based on international and local laws, with all the parties having agreed to adhere to the panels findings. How's that?
It's analogous to an employment tribunal telling an unfairly sacked worker that "We find Company X terminated your employment illegally, and that under laws Y and Z you should be reinstated immediately". Yes, the employment tribunal themselves have no legal powers under laws Y and Z to compel Company X to reinstate the worker, but they tell Company Y "these laws here say you have to".
That's the whole point of the UN working group and the basic underlying concept of tribunals. I'm really struggling to see why some people aren't getting this 😕
