UN Panel Rules Julian Assange's Arrest Was Illegal

  • Thread starter Thread starter RP 520
  • Start date Start date
  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35499942

So the UN is making headlines again with the "UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention" (they have a fucking panel for everything don't they?) is stating Julian Assange's detainment is illegal, that he was subjected to "different forms of deprivation of liberty" during his 10 day isolated detainment in London's Wandsworth Prison, that the Swedish Prosecution Office lacked diligence and that resulted in a lengthy loss of liberty. Finally they said he should be afforded the right to compensation.

Of course Assange is saying this is hailing this as a legally binding and moral victory based on international law and that the UK and Sweden should abide by the UN panel's findings, drop the charges and let him go free. The UK and Sweden on the other hand are stating how ridiculous the finding is and stating the biases the UN usually has towards West. Another argument the UK and Sweden are making is that even if the charges were indeed bogus, Assange still fled bail by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid the charges.

Thoughts?
 
Click to expand...
I think the original bringing of charges was clearly pretextual and an excuse to drag Assange to somewhere they could then spirit him to the U.S. If they really wanted to arrest Assange for an actual crime, they would have fucking well done it while he was in the country after they investigated it. Not months after he left, after having told the investigating authorities he was going to leave. It's not like he snuck out of the country.

As to the UK arresting him on the extradition request, though, they were probably obligated to do that by treaty, and not necessarily able under the terms of a formally valid extradition request to judge charges not under their jurisdiction. The request was valid, issued by the appropriate state, and Assange was actually the person sought. Extradition treaties generally assume the state you're extraditing to actually has functioning courts and will act lawfully.

So there, the majority focuses on supposedly differing treatment Assange got while in custody, possibly the weakest part of the majority decision.

Here are the actual members, since they're often relevant to the decisions made. I'll note Australia, which is hardly biased against the UK on issues like this, is in the majority.

Members of the Working Group
Mr. Seong-Phil Hong
Republic of Korea, since 2014
(Chair-Rapporteur)
Mr. José Guevara
(Mexico), since 2014
(First Vice-Chair)
Mr. Sètondji Adjovi
(Benin), since 2014
(Second Vice-Chair)
Ms. Leigh Toomey
(Australia), since 2015
Mr. Vladimir Tochilovsky
(Ukraine), since 2010
Click to expand...

The last, from Ukraine, is the dissenting vote. (His reasoning is that Assange fleeing bail and taking up residence in the Ecuadorean embassy is not "detention" but that Assange has voluntarily detained himself there. He has a point, which may be why the majority focused on the actual arrest.)

(Oh, and to be clear, the "Republic of Korea" is the formal name of South Korea, not North Korea, surprisingly for a UN human rights body.)
 
It's not a "ruling," it's a "finding" with a "recommendation for remedy." Sweden and the UK are free to follow that recommendation or not.

So this is just Assange's latest desperate attempt to evade responsibility for intentionally breaking condoms. Either that or being cooped up in the embassy for so long has made him delusional to the point where he actually believes what he's saying.
 
Holdek said:
It's not a "ruling," it's a "finding" with a "recommendation for remedy." Sweden and the UK are free to follow that recomendion or not.

So this is just Assange's latest desperate attempt to evade responsibility for intentionally breaking condoms. Either that or being cooped up in the embassy for so long has made him delusional to the point where he actually believes what he's saying.
Click to expand...
Do you actually believe the shit you write?

They're just going to extradite him back to the US and hang him for treason so I guess it doesn't matter. Another victory for Freedom.
 
Holdek said:
It's not a "ruling," it's a "finding" with a "recommendation for remedy." Sweden and the UK are free to follow that recomendion or not.
Click to expand...

Well, it's an "opinion" that includes, among other things, a "finding."

Their own statement:

The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.
Click to expand...

So they're legally binding to the extent people pay attention to them.

The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.
Click to expand...

However, the European Court of Human Rights is binding on Sweden, the authority initiating this bullshit (and the UK too but they might just pull out entirely rather than put up with a ruling they didn't like).

Arguably, this opens an avenue of appeal for Assange to challenge the initial Swedish charges. Note, this legal wording of the sort that occurs in international law documents all the time is strictly technically accurate, but might be misleading out of context. "Authoritative" means that it is an authority. It is what would in the U.S. be called a persuasive rather than a binding authority, however.

To the extent the ECHR and UN body on arbitrary detention are on the same page on the legal issues, it's certainly helpful for Assange. The ECHR doesn't have to follow it, though, even if Assange's lawyers figure out a way to get the case before them without him actually having to surrender to authorities first.
 
Null said:
Do you actually believe the shit you write?

They're just going to extradite him back to the US and hang him for treason so I guess it doesn't matter. Another victory for Freedom.
Click to expand...
EU member states cannot extradite someone if they face the death penalty, and Assange can't be charged with betraying a country he was never a citizen of anyway, lol.
 
Holdek said:
EU member states cannot extradite someone if they face the death penalty, and Assange can't be charged with betraying a country he was never a citizen of anyway, lol.
Click to expand...

Assange has no reasonable fear of an actual death penalty, because as you imply, the only charge that would carry such a penalty is treason, which the U.S. cannot charge him with as a non-citizen. Assange and his people have thrown around this death penalty thing a fair amount, but it's bullshit.

However, he could probably challenge the likely conditions of his detention subsequent to extradition, specifically the likelihood of mistreatment or extrajudicial retaliation, citing among other things the treatment of Bradley Manning, oh excuse me, Chelsea Manning. That autistic hacker guy successfully fought extradition based on that, although he had the specific issue of a diagnosed mental illness to combine with his other arguments.

That's pretty speculative, though. The situation where the U.S. tries to extradite him from Sweden hasn't even happened yet, and while I am pretty sure that's what would happen, there isn't any direct evidence it would actually happen, and that's how the UK courts are likely to continue to look at it. That is, it isn't any of their business. They have a valid extradition treaty and a request pursuant to it, and they're obligated to comply with it.

If Assange were in custody in Sweden, and the U.S. then sought extradition, Assange would be in a position to challenge that directly, assuming they didn't just spirit him away with a black hood over his head on a Gulfstream in the middle of the night, as the more conspiratorially minded might presume. (In reality, the case is so high profile this just wouldn't fly.)

However, he isn't. The only legal issue currently directly on the table is whether he can be extradited to Sweden, and the relevant authority has said yes, he can. That authority doesn't give a shit about the UN Working Group, and doesn't have to. Unless someone in a position to say otherwise, like the Home Secretary or whoever is in charge of this says so, they're just going to do what they've ruled already if they get the chance.

It's possible the UK might just get sick of the situation and turn a blind eye while the Ecuadoreans ship him out of the country, hoping he gets nabbed somewhere in the meantime.

However, these embassy standoff situations can go on for a long, long time (think 15 years).
 
Null said:
Do you actually believe the shit you write?

They're just going to extradite him back to the US and hang him for treason so I guess it doesn't matter. Another victory for Freedom.
Click to expand...
Not to say that treason is on the table, but even if it was, over a few hundred years, relatively few people have been executed for treason in the United States. Maybe a dozen or two? Tops? Something like that, anyway.
 
Marvin said:
Not to say that treason is on the table, but even if it was, over a few hundred years, relatively few people have been executed for treason in the United States. Maybe a dozen or two? Tops? Something like that, anyway.
Click to expand...
American prisons are worse than a death sentence.
 
the more i hear of this UN the less i take it seriously
[late / autistic ratings follow]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom