Australian Foreign Affairs Says UN Assange Ruling Not Binding (zdnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: ZDNet reports, "The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs does not believe a United Nations panel's ruling that Julian Assange is being "arbitrarily detained" is legally binding. Nor has it made any representations to the British or Swedish governments about the ruling. Department official Jon Philp told a Senate Estimates hearing in Canberra that no representations have been made to Sweden about Assange's case since December 2011. "He is receiving due process under those legal systems," he said. The 44-year-old Australian is likely to remain holed-up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after the UK and Swedish governments rejected the UN's ruling in early February."

Comments

So?

[drinkypoo]

Australia is well-known as a US bootlicker, and we thank you guys for just how shiny you get the toes. You adopt any legislation we push your way, and we really appreciate your toadying down there. You join a long but distinguished list of other countries who kowtow to the mighty dollar.

Re:So?

[gawdonblue]

No worries, Cobber.

Re:So?

[Attila Dimedici]

You missed the point. If Australia does not think that the UN ruling concerning one of its citizens is legally binding, and the UK and Sweden have already taken this stance, then the UN ruling is not legally binding.

Basically it comes down to this, the UN does not have the ability to force countries to do things they do not wish to do. It has no authority which its member states are not willing to go to war to enforce.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more than that - if the UN ruling is taken as binding, then in future anyone who wants to avoid prosecution for a crime simply needs to hide away for long enough, claim "arbitrary detention" and get a ruling that they can now go free.

Assange is a fugitive from the justice process. He jumped bail, and *that* is why the British legal system wants a word.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is the excuse of the British legal system. The reason they want a word is because they want to ship him speedily to the US.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange is a fugitive from the justice process. He jumped bail, and *that* is why the British legal system wants a word.

No he isn't. The Swedes have had years to interview him, even on their "own soil" in London. This isn't about the sex issue with that CIA woman, it's about the US getting "their man," regardless of the cost to other nations.

If Sweden with so concerned, they could even said someone from their embassy down the road in a taxi to conduct their questioning. So, despite this "case" being years old, they won't make any efforts to do it. Why?

Re:So?

[Z00L00K]

As far as I know Assange is also an Australian citizen.

Nobody did detain him, he chose to hole up in that embassy himself.

And in a while the statute of limitation on the alleged crime will expire and the legal system will lose interest in him. The fact that he raised the UN issue was just to call attention to himself. The only thing that he should worry about is then the UK police that may see him as an unwanted person that shall be expelled and therefore put him on first best transport out of the country to any country willing to accept him, and that doesn't exclude the US.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of choosing to take it as binding or not, in any case, that's just a statement of fact; it isn't binding. It's basically the opinion of an advisory panel, looking at one aspect of the case only. The ruling doesn't challenge or override Sweden's right to issue arrest warrants for people accused of crimes; that isn't in the panel's remit. The ruling does not challenge or override the UKs obligation to carry out a valid European arrest warrant if the named individual is found in the UK; that isn't in the panel's remit either. It's basically a la-la-land opinion that it would be nice if Assange hadn't had to spend all that time in the Ecuadorian embassy, with no realistic process of how that should be achieved.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was what they wanted, they would have done that long ago rather than camp the police outside the embassy at huge expense.

Re:So?

[AbRASiON]

Australian here, in reply to this guys post.
Absoloutely correct, this country is little America really in a whole heap of ways.

Our government are a giant bunch of pushover losers. I cringe every time I read about New Zealand, because 9 times out of 10 they do shit right, yet they are what, 1/5'th the size of us?

Seriously this country is going tits up, it's stupidity.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange is a fugitive from the justice process. He jumped bail, and *that* is why the British legal system wants a word.

No he isn't. The Swedes have had years to interview him, even on their "own soil" in London. This isn't about the sex issue with that CIA woman, it's about the US getting "their man," regardless of the cost to other nations.

If Sweden with so concerned, they could even said someone from their embassy down the road in a taxi to conduct their questioning. So, despite this "case" being years old, they won't make any efforts to do it. Why?

By "sex issue" you mean the allegation of rape, of course. The Swedish authorities cannot charge him while he is in London, and so there is little point in interviewing him which the prosecutors would need to do before filing charges. Even if they could charge him, if he won't ultimately "agree" to go to Sweden (I like Assange's idea that criminal suspects get to "agree" if they should be charged) it still wouldn't achieve anything so why should they bother changing their entire legal process to humour him? Even if the Swedish authorities totally drop their case, he still failed to comply with the UK bail conditions when he ran away, so he still has a UK criminal charge to face.

There is no actual evidence whatsoever to support the conspiracy theory version of events. It is based solely on the idea that because some people in the US government hate him, anything that has the potential to show him in a bad light must be a CIA plot. The total absence of evidence supporting the conspiracy theory, rather than reducing belief in the likelihood of the theory, merely makes the hypothetical conspiracy ever larger and more grandiose. Assange could use the "It wasn't me, it was the CIA trying to make me look bad" excuse for literally anything at all and some people would believe it. I guess the idea that everything in the world is being co-ordinated and planned, even if by a malevolent entity, is more psychologically reassuring than the idea that the world is chaotic and random, and that people aren't one-dimensional heroes or villains .

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swedish authorities cannot charge him while he is in London, and so there is little point in interviewing him

It is not uncommon for the Swedish authorities to travel to other jurisdictions to further their *investigation*.
In this case they REFUSED to do that ... even though the accused invited them!

Imagine they interviewed him and discovered more reason to charge him. He would have suffered a blow to his public credibility.

On the other hand, if they discovered nothing more -- or worse, found he clearly exonerated himself -- then the case would have to be dropped.

Clearly the Swedish authorities suspected which way things would go ...

Re:So?

[Richard_at_work]

Even if the statute of limitations on the original charges expire, he is still in breach of bail conditions and as such the immediate arrest warrant is for that - the first point of call should he step outside of the embassy will be to be put infront of a judge, who will remand him into custody for breach of bail conditions. This will happen for as long as the bail warrant is outstanding against him, and as such is now an issue unto itself.

Even if Sweden drop charges, at this point he could find himself doing prison time for the bail offences alone.

Re:So?

[Richard_at_work]

Why should Sweden have to interview someone not on their own terms? There is no requirement for an interview to take place at the pleasure of the person being interviewed.

Aside from that, you do know that Ecuador has been blocking Swedish attempts to interview Assange in their embassy for the past 3 years, right? One thing after another, with even a treaty being signed just in January about legal cooperation, and still the Ecuadorians are blocking Swedish access to Assange on embassy property.

Re:So?

[Rei]

Exactly. To ask Sweden and the UK to ignore actual binding rulings in order to enforce nonbinding rulings is basically saying, "Hey, Rule of Law? Go f*** yourself!"

Some people seem to want to live in a world where the concept of rule of law is thrown out for "People We Like". The cases we should be going after are those where people manage to avoid the rule of law.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swedish authorities cannot charge him while he is in London, and so there is little point in interviewing him which the prosecutors would need to do before filing charges.

Putting aside the prejudice evident in this assertion (that he will be charged regardless of questioning), the Swedish prosecutor is currently in the process of attempting to interview him while he is in London. The case moving forward was dependent on this questioning (and was the whole reason for the warrant being issued in the first place), so your statement is obviously false yet very carefully twisted. Why is that?

Even if they could charge him

There's nothing to stop them from charging him at any point, except that they're nowhere near having a case against him. Obviously I'd agree that if they did charge him then taking him into custody would be another matter. Remember, taking refuge in an embassy does not prevent criminal charges from being made against you. However, I'll remind you that he is wanted for questioning and skipping bail, not because he has been found guilty of one of the four original charges (the other three have already been dropped as being pretty blatantly false).

There is no actual evidence whatsoever to support the conspiracy theory version of events. It is based solely on the idea that because some people in the US government hate him, anything that has the potential to show him in a bad light must be a CIA plot.

The US repeatedly confirms that a criminal national security investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is ongoing; this is not a conspiracy, its wide out in the open. They have already sentenced Chelsea (Bradley) Manning to 25 years for parting with the information that Wikileaks disclosed, so its safe to say at the very least in some kind of happy skippy rainbows and unicorns world that he would be detained for questioning if he entered US juristiction.

We also know that the US detains without juristiction and tortures people it "disapproves of" at various extrajudicial sites around the world, which is perhaps easily overlooked if it wasn't so disgustingly vile. Again, not conspiracy theory, that's wide out in the open.

You don't need conspiracy theories to understand why Assange might be scared for his life from a regime like the US.

Re:So?

[Mr D from 63]

The UN has made itself irrelevant by wallowing in its own self interests for way too long. They have become a joke. They are willing to let tragedies unfold with no action and then expect us all to get up in arms about the fate of one guy who found himself in a tight spot as a result of his own decisions and actions.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no actual evidence whatsoever to support the conspiracy theory version of events

There's not a whole heap of evidence in favour of the rape charges either, and the uncomfortable fact remains that if the government wanted to discredit a person, then trumped up charges of sexual misconduct would, in today's society, be the way to do it.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you, and they really are out to get this guy.

Re:So?

[Entrope]

In the US, the statute of limitations is generally tolled (paused) while someone is a fugitive from justice -- see, for example, Title 18 of the US Code, Section 3290. I would imagine the same thing happens in the UK and Sweden.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swedish authorities cannot charge him while he is in London, and so there is little point in interviewing him which the prosecutors would need to do before filing charges.

Putting aside the prejudice evident in this assertion (that he will be charged regardless of questioning), the Swedish prosecutor is currently in the process of attempting to interview him while he is in London. The case moving forward was dependent on this questioning (and was the whole reason for the warrant being issued in the first place), so your statement is obviously false yet very carefully twisted. Why is that?

Obviously I am a CIA shill. I mean why else would someone not think Assange is obviously in the right here? Clearly Assange should be able to shape the way the investigation is conducted so that it can never lead to him being charged whatever the result. That would be 'unpredjudiced'.

There's nothing to stop them from charging him at any point, except that they're nowhere near having a case against him. Obviously I'd agree that if they did charge him then taking him into custody would be another matter. Remember, taking refuge in an embassy does not prevent criminal charges from being made against you. However, I'll remind you that he is wanted for questioning and skipping bail, not because he has been found guilty of one of the four original charges (the other three have already been dropped as being pretty blatantly false).

Taking refuge in an embassy does prevent laying charges in a system in which you have to be charged during a formal interview with a Swedish prosecutor. You can't be charged before being in custody. The system doesn't work the same ways as in the US. Even if they managed to lay charges, if they can't get him into a Swedish courtroom, what's the point? Assange's "the CIA are out to get me" justification applies just as strongly to that, so he still won't actually go to Sweden.

Also, the three charges that were dropped were the more minor charges that were time-barred, not "pretty blatantly false".

There is no actual evidence whatsoever to support the conspiracy theory version of events. It is based solely on the idea that because some people in the US government hate him, anything that has the potential to show him in a bad light must be a CIA plot.

The US repeatedly confirms that a criminal national security investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is ongoing; this is not a conspiracy, its wide out in the open. They have already sentenced Chelsea (Bradley) Manning to 25 years for parting with the information that Wikileaks disclosed, so its safe to say at the very least in some kind of happy skippy rainbows and unicorns world that he would be detained for questioning if he entered US juristiction.

We also know that the US detains without juristiction and tortures people it "disapproves of" at various extrajudicial sites around the world, which is perhaps easily overlooked if it wasn't so disgustingly vile. Again, not conspiracy theory, that's wide out in the open.

You don't need conspiracy theories to understand why Assange might be scared for his life from a regime like the US.

Manning was a US national who had a security clearance and repeatedly acted against the interests of the military in which she (voluntarily) agreed to serve. That is very different from a non-national, non-resident person publishing information. None of the NY Times journalists have been charged and they are US nationals who published the information. If Assange was going to be subject to extrajudicial rendition, it makes no sense at all to cook up these events and then try to kidnap him from a Swedish police station or prison rather than doing so during the months he spent on bail in an insecure country mansion in England or the years before.

The issue is not whether it is rational to believe that people in the US governmen

Re:So?

[Joce640k]

The Swedish authorities cannot charge him while he is in London

No, but they could decide he's not guilty and therefore free to go (he's only wanted for questioning at the moment).

and so there is little point in interviewing him

There's no point in seeing justice done...? Uhuh.

Re:So?

[shilly]

Um, because a fundamental tenet of the Swedish legal system is that questioning of the suspect occurs in Sweden. Not in a Swedish embassy. In Sweden itself.

This is not exactly unusual. In fact, I'd be astonished if you can name a single country that would be content to conduct questioning of a suspect in a serious crime overseas.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Manning was a US national who had a security clearance and repeatedly acted against the interests of the military in which she (voluntarily) agreed to serve.

Some would say that he acted in the best interest of the military, but not in the interest of a few war criminals that happens to be in powerful positions.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is hilarious because these very governments give the UN findings credence when it suits their purposes.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

and so there is little point in interviewing him

There's no point in seeing justice done...? Uhuh.

The current situation is that the only sort of process in which Assange has indicated he will comply with is an investigation process in which he could be found innocent but where if he isn't he can not be brought to trial, as that would be considered a CIA plot to kidnap him. This might fit your conception of justice, but not mine and I suspect not most people.

Re: So?

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

Not in Sweden.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. If Australia does not think that the UN ruling concerning one of its citizens is legally binding, and the UK and Sweden have already taken this stance, then the UN ruling is not legally binding.

Basically it comes down to this, the UN does not have the ability to force countries to do things they do not wish to do. It has no authority which its member states are not willing to go to war to enforce.

True. Yet it is astonishing how these countries recognise other UN rulings as legally binding on other countries except themselves of course.

Re:So?

[Lakitu]

No he isn't. The Swedes have had years to interview him, even on their "own soil" in London. This isn't about the sex issue with that CIA woman, it's about the US getting "their man," regardless of the cost to other nations.

If Sweden with so concerned, they could even said someone from their embassy down the road in a taxi to conduct their questioning. So, despite this "case" being years old, they won't make any efforts to do it. Why?

How can you say all of this while simultaneously accusing the US of wishing to have the UK capture him and send him to America? If they wanted to do that, then they, too, could have already done that.

It's 100% insane to believe that Sweden has had all the time in the world to interview him, but that the combined powers of the US and UK did not have ample opportunity to arrest him, especially if they were focused on "getting their man" regardless of the cost or consequences.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not a whole heap of evidence in favour of the rape charges either

Well, other than the complainants, and the fact that the Assange refuses to face questions.

A reminder: he said that he would answer the questions, and had his friends post two hundred thousand pounds bail against his promise that he would appear. Which they lost.

Re:So?

[fnj]

Basically it comes down to this, the UN does not have the ability to force countries to do things they do not wish to do

THANK GOD! It's much too damned big an entity to be trusted with that kind of force. Countries that are grossly swollen too big, like the US and China, maybe Russia, are already bad enough. You can't fix that by making an even more out of control monstrosity.

Let the UN be the bully pulpit.

Re:So?

[fnj]

No, but they could [remotely] decide he's not guilty ...

No. A finding of not guilty involves due legal process which is precisely what he is running away from. What they could do is to not proceed any further with investigation. That is the executive's (police, state attorney) prerogative.

Just because you or I are not arrested tomorrow doesn't mean the state has "decided" we are "not guilty". It means the state has not yet taken an interest in investigating and possibly prosecuting.

Re:So?

[fnj]

"Hey, Rule of Law? Go f*** yourself!"

Welcome to the Obama era.

Re:So?

[Z00L00K]

That's actually not the case in Swedish law, which means that fugitives can actually evade penalty by hiding until the statute of limitation expires.

Re:So?

[Gumbercules!!]

Basically, this. The UN can't force Australia to do anything it doesn't want to do. Ergo, it's not legally binding. The UN cannot pass laws in member states. It can pass resolutions, which member states can sign on to, but even those in no way appear to be legally binding. So basically, it does nothing. Except allow adversaries to score cheap, yet hollow, political points against each other.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says the US needs to press charges?

That sounds idiotic, why bother when they can simply make you disappear.

Re:So?

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh you DO realize that the US government has ALREADY admitted they had a deal in place to give Snowden a rendition ride if he stepped into Denmark, yes? That they have a looong history of giving rendition rides, to really nasty places so they can get around that pesky Constitution and torture to their little black hearts content? And that the head of the Ecuadorian embassy said flat footed "We'll be happy to hand him over, all you have to do is sign a piece of paper saying this isn't a false pretense to hand him to the Americans" and they refused?

If you truly believe the CIA would allow a guy that blatantly flipped them the bird like Assange to get away without a rendition ride? Well I have a really nice bridge you will be interested in. Hell if there is one thing you should have learned from the Wikileaks docs its that the CIA has been as out of control as the NKVD for damned near 40 years. And here is a question for you....if it had fuck all to do with rape and not a cheap excuse for a rendition ride, why not simply sign the paper? After all once the investigation was over he would have either been in their jail if found guilty or he would have left if not, neither of which would be any business of the USA, so why not sign?

The answer is frankly so obvious Ray Charles could see it, which is it didn't have fuck all to do with rape, it was a rendition ride deal and if they would have signed it would have made the Swedish government look like a bunch of lying USA cock gobblers. If there wouldn't have been any paper they could have gotten a little call from their master and then gave a press conference and said "the USA has requested his extradition and we will abide by our treaties" blah blah blah, suck suck suck that USA dick and swallow like a good little bitch. But that little piece of paper would have made them look like lying whores cooking up charges for their master, couldn't have that so hence why they didn't sign.

Re:So?

[DMJC]

To be fair, we do kow-tow to the USA far too much. Consider that Australia has 1/3rd of the world's uranium deposits. We could just get our own nuclear program, scrap most of our military and not bother using the US alliance for defence. We don't need Oil, there's enough domestic energy resources in Australia to be completely self sufficient. Our leadership is pathetic in relying on other nations for defence.

Re:So?

[sceptre1067]

minor, o.k. not minor point... you're confusing rendition w/ extradition. In the Snowden case the U.S. was prepared to have him extradited to the U.S. if they could get their hands on him. Rendition is sending a prisoner to another country that has more lax laws regarding interrogation.

So... please provide links/proof where this was going to happen to Assange, cause all I've seen to date is his paranoid claims that he would be extradited to the U.S. if he was sent to Sweden.

As mentioned before lot of paranoid conspiracy theories, very little proof.

Re:So?

[rickb928]

"Um, because a fundamental tenet of the Swedish legal system is that questioning of the suspect occurs in Sweden. Not in a Swedish embassy. In Sweden itself.
This is not exactly unusual. In fact, I'd be astonished if you can name a single country that would be content to conduct questioning of a suspect in a serious crime overseas."

This is an interesting concept. The US maintains a military base on the Island of Cuba (Guantanamo, you know) that is claimed as US territory. Questioning captives there is probably happening daily, and beyond the control of Cuba etc, as this is proclaimed to be US territory. Sweden claims its embassy as territory, and could very well claim a hotel room or interview room at some other embassy as sovereign territory for the purposes and duration of questioning Mr. Assange, but chose not to.

Plainly to try and lure him into into the open.

The U.S. wants him bad. Any means.

Re:So?

[Joe_Dragon]

and then shipped to the USA from the UK jail. They may even bill him for the private plane ride us marshals do have small private plane jets.

Re:So?

[Coren22]

According to Google, the USA has 318m people in an area of 3.86 million miles sq.
Europe has a population of 742m people in an area of 3.93 million miles sq.

Perhaps you should rethink your definition of swollen too big, the US is frankly a ghost town by comparison to Europe.

China is 3.705 million mi with a population of 1.357 billion people, so yes, it is overpopulated, but a factor of 4 to the US or 2 to Europe.

Re:So?

[Coren22]

Yeah, because invading Ecuador to retrieve him was totally going to happen instead.

Re:So?

[gstoddart]

You missed the point. If Australia does not think that the UN ruling concerning one of its citizens is legally binding, and the UK and Sweden have already taken this stance, then the UN ruling is not legally binding.

Is Australia even a party to this?

He's hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy, avoiding the British police, related to something which allegedly happened in Sweden, and for which there is fear he'd be sent to the US for something completely unrelated.

He's so far removed from Australian law here it isn't funny. If he was in Australia fighting extradition, maybe ... but I just don't see how Australia has any inputs here.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kidnapping someone from an embassy would be an act of war.

Re:So?

[shilly]

So you're now claiming that the reason Sweden should be required to question Assange in its embassy rather than back in Sweden where the crimes are alleged to have taken place, is that the precedent has been established by the US questioning captives at Gitmo? Kafka would be proud.

Re:So?

[penguinoid]

Assange could use the "It wasn't me, it was the CIA trying to make me look bad" excuse for literally anything at all and some people would believe it.

Correct. Whenever there's a he-said-she-said situation, people will believe the one they trust more. If the government were perfectly trustworthy, no one would doubt them.

Re:So?

[shilly]

How about kidnapping someone from Ellingham Hall? I mean, Vaughan Smith was in the army, but I'm preemuch sure he wouldn't be able to fight even a teeny-tiny war against the UK or US governments, so if they really wanted to abduct him, they could have done it with a lot less hassle at that point, no?

Re:So?

[shilly]

How I pine for the GWB days and their rigid adherence to the rule of law, especially re international affairs.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Ecuador vs the US = no more Ecuador.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is an Australian, which means their diplomatic apparatus can exert pressure regarding him.

For example, if they wanted to do so, they could tell Ecuador that they want access to see him, and Ecuador would comply, in a way that they wouldn't for Swedish or British officials.

Of course, he might refuse, but that's a different issue.

Re:So?

[Lakitu]

The guy was under house arrest in the English countryside for something like 2 years prior to him squatting in Ecuador's embassy. Don't you think that's enough time to hatch up a plan? Or, you know, actually arresting him, instead of politely asking him not to leave his cozy country mansion?

Re:So?

[dsmatthews9379]

So you want your ass licked rather than their boot licked?

Perhaps Australia just does what suits the Commonwealth and always has? Sorry to inflict some logic on you like that but the ISI (Internet Stupidity Index) was getting a bit high and needed adjusting. If Assangel et al don't like been mistreated they should not pick fights with big and nasty entities that have never answered to anyone, because that is the reality of the situation and it is delusional to be disappointed with the result given how self-evident the consequences of his actions were.

The UN is useless and there are currently over 40,000,000 humans in Africa at risk of death from starvation, because the UN is useless, so you will have to excuse the significant numbers of people who don't give a shit about a single fool who caused his own misery.

Re:So?

[hairyfeet]

So again answer the question put to you, I'll highlight it just to make sure it cannot be missed if this was/is not a setup to give Assange to the USA why not sign the paper?

This would have been over TWO YEARS AGO and all it would have required is a single signature. that's it, an ink pen and 10 seconds and it would all be over...yet they refused, why? The answer again is obvious which again I'll highlight because they had already made a deal with the USA to hand him over and the rape charge was merely an excuse to get their hands on him. And I'm sorry but you can play semantics with extradition versus rendition but whether he got sent to Gitmo or Kabul he'd still be getting tortured.

So I would really love to hear your answer to the question because frankly there is no logical explanation on why they wouldn't sign when we are talking about a rape charge, a purely local matter...unless the deal, just like with Snowden, was already done. If that were the case? The entire Swedish government would be made to look like the pet whore of the USA and they would be slaughtered in their next election. They know this, there is no way to spin it to make it look otherwise, hence why they didn't sign. I have actually watched guys try to answer this question and its quite humorous as no matter how many logic hoops they come up with it always ends up with them going "treaties, extradition, suck suck suck swallow that USA dick" because there really is no other logical or rational explanation on why a country would give a fuck about signing that sheet of paper to get a criminal wanted for a local crime. It would be like a kidnapper agreeing to end a hostage situation in Utah by an an Italian if the cops agree to sign a paper saying they won't send him to Iceland... of course they are gonna sign because they have no intention of doing that anyway so he might as well be asking for a piece of paper saying Bozo was the bestest clown of all time. It really has absolutely no bearing on their case.....unless the case is bullshit and its all a setup to hand him to the USA, suck suck swallow.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he's not just wanted for questioning. Arrest and interrogation is a precursor to being charged in Sweden. The High Court judgment makes this clear - see paragraph 142 for the statement from the Swedish prosecutor.

Claiming that he is only wanted for questioning is misinformed or deceptive.

Justice is what we want to see. Due process is important, and Julian has had access to far more of it than most can afford. He's exhausted his legal appeals though, it's time to submit to the next stage of the process.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing to stop them from charging him at any point, except that they're nowhere near having a case against him. Obviously I'd agree that if they did charge him then taking him into custody would be another matter. Remember, taking refuge in an embassy does not prevent criminal charges from being made against you. However, I'll remind you that he is wanted for questioning and skipping bail, not because he has been found guilty of one of the four original charges (the other three have already been dropped as being pretty blatantly false).

Other countries have different legal processes. This is what stops them from charging him. He is wanted for arrest. The High Court judgment makes this clear - see paragraph 142 for the statement from the Swedish prosecutor.

The US repeatedly confirms that a criminal national security investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is ongoing; this is not a conspiracy, its wide out in the open. They have already sentenced Chelsea (Bradley) Manning to 25 years for parting with the information that Wikileaks disclosed, so its safe to say at the very least in some kind of happy skippy rainbows and unicorns world that he would be detained for questioning if he entered US juristiction.

Sweden isn't part of the US jurisdiction though. Fantasies of rendition aside, there's no reason to think that he'd be extradited to the US from Sweden. If the US wanted him they'd have applied for extradition from the UK - they've already shown to be willing to do this (e.g. Richard O'Dwyer). For a legal extradition from Sweden they'd need the UK to approve anyway.

Re:So?

[cold fjord]

No, that is the excuse of the British legal system. The reason they want a word is because they want to ship him speedily to the US.

If they wanted to do that they would have done it from the UK years ago. Going to Sweden only makes things more complicated. To extradite Assange from the UK only takes agreement from the UK. To extradite Assange from Sweden takes agreement from both the UK and Sweden under EU treaties. The idea is nonsense, a ruse used by Assange to whip up his supporters.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

So again answer the question put to you, I'll highlight it just to make sure it cannot be missed if this was/is not a setup to give Assange to the USA why not sign the paper?

Because it would require tearing up their extradition treaty with the US. It's not up to "the cops" to decide whether someone is to be extradited, it's a question of whether the US files a valid request that meets the procedural and evidential requirements of the treaty. Without a special "Assange clause" in the treaty there is no way that Swedish judges can promise to reject any US extradition requests that they have not yet seen. Neither the Swedish Foreign Ministry nor the US State Department are going to renegotiate a treaty to satisfy the paranoid delusions of a man who has shown nothing but contempt for the Swedish judicial process.

All the homophobic insults don't make your case any stronger, by the way. We get it, you think suggesting people are gay is the ultimate way of expressing your contempt for them. Nope, no projection there.

Re:So?

[cold fjord]

Do you have any theories as to why they didn't do that in the years that Assange was in the UK working through this issue? You believe a fairy tale.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You suppose Palpatine should dissolve it?

Re:So?

[drinkypoo]

Why should Sweden have to interview someone not on their own terms?

They had the opportunity to do so before he left the country. He informed them that he would be leaving the country, they did not object. He left the country. Then they decided they wanted him back.

Also, because Sweden does not own Assange. They can shake their fist and make demands, but they deliberately passed up the opportunity to interview him in association with this incident on their own soil.

Aside from that, you do know that Ecuador has been blocking Swedish attempts to interview Assange in their embassy for the past 3 years, right?

I do know that Sweden refused to sign a basic agreement surrounding the questioning, and delayed their formal request until the last moment to make Ecuador look bad.

Re:So?

[drinkypoo]

Even if Sweden drop charges, at this point he could find himself doing prison time for the bail offences alone.

Sure, but since his bail offense was to seek asylum, that would be pretty sleazy... Not that this would be surprising.

Re:So?

[beastofburdon]

I see that you are against the criminals in our government and military ever being brought to justice. You are the problem, please extinguish that problem and make the world a better place.

As an Australian...

[YukariHirai]

...I'd like to say that our Department of Foreign Affairs is full of shit. Just about the entire government is on the subject of anything that matters, really.

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, they're right, it's actually not binding, because UN rulings don't overrule national sovereignty on these sorts of issues.

What it does mean though is that Australia has now joined Britain and Sweden as nations that do not respect international norms and rulings, and this means that the UN is no longer open as an avenue for these 3 nations to air their complaints against other nations and push for rulings against other nations to be enforced.

There's no point Australia in a hypothetical situation going to the UN for example to say "We should bomb Assad because Assad has broken the UN convention on chemical weapons!" because now Assad and his allies can say "Great, but those things aren't binding, remember? You said that.". Australia can no longer complain about Japan being in breach of the UN ruling against it's whaling programme, because Japan can say "Yeah, but those things aren't binding, remember? You said that.". Tobacco companies can tell Australia to fuck off with it's plain packaging even if the WTO rules in Australia's favour because they can just say "Those things aren't binding..." you get the idea.

I'm not sure the door that Sweden, the UK, and Australia has opened has a price that those 3 countries will be willing to pay in the long run. Whatever your view on Assange, I think in 20 years time they'll realise that acting as they have over Assange wasn't worth the political capital it's costing them whether he's guilty or not. That's not to say that I think Assange should be let of, because at the end of the day, there is a legal case that needs to be answered and settled one way or another. There are things they can do to achieve justice that for some reason they're choosing not to though. Refusal of a legal agreement against onward deportation to the US is a trivial solution for example, and something that the UK has managed to do in the case of terrorist deportations, so why not Assange? They're being dicks for whatever reason and it's costing them dear, it's removing any moral high ground they had by way of political prisoners on the world stage. Gone are the days where we can criticise a country like China now for arbitrarily detaining a political dissident on trumped up charges because whether we are with Assange or not, it's trivial to paint us as if we are. This is because of the simple fact that we're not doing everything we can to ensure actual justice - such as removing all the barriers Assange is using as an excuse to evade trial - remove those and he'll have no excuses left, but instead we and the Swedish prosecution are continuing to give him all the excuses he needs.

I know there are a lot of arguments such as "Why should Assange be treated as a special case?", my answer would be why not - it'll be far more harmful for him if we give him what he wants in terms of no onward extradition agreements to the US and he ends up being found guilty of rape because it'd show he was a fraud all along. Also, we've done it for terrorists, so precedent exists. Right now they're not even prosecuting him, they've just been desperately trying to get him to Sweden for mere questioning which makes little sense and the arguments that Swedish law requires that have been proven false by Sweden's own high court declaring them to be so. Sweden and the UK are making Assange's case for him, and that's why it's costing them so much political capital - I'm amazed Australia so desperately wants in on that cost.

Re:As an Australian...

[BitZtream]

You're not an Assange fanboy or anything ... are you?

Yea, I thought that might be clouding your judgement

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN has never been anything but a shill for the permanent members of the security council. It was deliberately constructed in the aftermath of WWII as an organization with zero legal power. The only time the security council has ever acted was when the Soviet Union was dumb enough to boycott the UN, which is why the Korean War was fought (primarily a U.S. led coalition) under UN authority. As soon as the Soviets went back (and could invoke their veto) no more UN military actions.
Every other action of the UN is window dressing for things the members of the security council (primarily the U.S., Russia and China) want to do. As long as those three agree (which seldom happens) a security council resolution can be used as window dressing. As far as the General Assembly or the almost endless myriad of committees all their resolutions, votes, reports, etc. are meaningless. Posing by nations too weak militarily or economically to matter on the world stage anyway.
Make no mistake, if the U.S. want Assange they would already have him. If they wanted him disappeared he would already be gone. If they wanted him dead he would have already died of "natural causes" even inside the embassy.
The leaker has been prosecuted. No American journalist has been prosecuted who has published information from the leak. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the U.S. has any interest in him.

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't be that he is completely right. right?

Perhaps you are a Fanboy of an unaccountable power elite?

I find it terribly hard to believe that anyone doesn't support Assange in this. Except those employed in various PR units in the militaries of various countries trying to spin this into irrelevancy.

Re: As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a big interest in questioning him to determine whether or to what degree he is working with other foreign agents and who they are. They have an interest in determining how he is getting his info and potentially forcing him to work for them. There are a lot of reasons they want him. It isn't just a matter of killing him off. There are more important things to gain from bringing to the US to face just-US

Re:As an Australian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. I couldn't care one way or another about Assange, but I still think our Department of Foreign Affairs is full of shit :).

Re:As an Australian...

[YukariHirai]

Not particularly. I think our current government are a pack of incompetent, morally bankrupt morons for a variety of non-Assange reasons.

we do have time space & circumstance

[Anonymous Coward]

the rest is yet to be scripted variations of how we're supposed to see ourselves in relation to others? always slanting towards violent repression these days?

Assange should arrest himself

[Viol8]

The only person "detaining" him in that embassy is himself. He can walk out anytime he wants. Whether you agree the swedish case has merit or not, this UN ruling is just imbecillic nonsence from a committee that long ago lost any credibility. What next - bank robbers are being "arbitrarily detained" in a bank if the police show up before they've escaped?

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

> UN ruling is just imbecillic nonsence

If I'd to choose who's the imbecile, I'd pick you.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you relate him to robbers tells how off your mindset is about him.

He has been detained in how they are treating him and the levels they have gone through to get him for QUESTIONING, not actually charging him and they could have questioned him in the embassy for years yet refused to do so even though they have given others the same level of considerations and he was more than willing to come out so long as they gave him assurances that he would not be extradited to the US which they refused to do.

They are obeying the letter of the law while completely spitting in the face of it's intent.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Their continuted refusal to provide assurance of him not being extradited to the US to face espionage charges tells quite clearly what their intent in the matter is. At this point I doubt even the swedes care whether or not the case has merit.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue I believe is that he will be extradited not the fact he will face a trial or questioning.

If it was just about questioning and a trial, we would not be having this conversation.

All they have to do is give a gurarantee that he will not be extradited for WikiLeaks.

I think he and everybody and even the "victims" (who do not want to be part of it really I believe) want to get this over with.

I for one am sick and tired of hearing about this case. All they have to do is go there and question him, they refuse. Why is that?

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

> All they have to do is give a gurarantee that he will not be extradited for WikiLeaks.

I'm afraid you're confused about how the legal system works. Judges don't give guarantees about stuff that hasn't happened yet. The only guarantee is that *if* Sweden wants to re-extradite him, then it has to go past the British courts again. They're not going to say up front what their answer will be...

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't refuse anymore, they'd like to question him in London now. The current delaying is on the Assange/Ecuadorian side http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35373355

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Viol8]

Yeah, isn't that odd. Assanges bluff got called and now he's backpedalling with help from his corrupt equadorian chums.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot?

The SJWs want him to face the rape allegations, they don't give a shit if the US steps in, kidnaps him and kills him.
Likely neither do you, which makes you a huge ASSHOLE.

An Armed Force from another country with great influence wants you dead or alive, but the local government wants you to come down to discuss some unrelated crime you may or may not have committed and they offer no guarantee about your safety from the country with the large Armed Force that wants you.
By all means, step outside and into your first class flight to Gitmo you dipshit.

Fuck You.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC is the British version of Voice of America, ie the propaganda machine.

But hey, believe whatever shit is fed to you, eat up and smile!

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[ericloewe]

You're a moron if you confuse the definition of "being detained by" with the definition of "seeking refuge in a tiny embassy and refusing to leave".

His being an asshole, as well as the validity of the charges aside, he is not detained, by the very definition of "to be detained". Therefore the ruling is the stupidest thing an international organization has said recently (which is saying a lot).

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Richard_at_work]

Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US? Assange isn't bargaining from a position of power, why should Sweden agree to anything?

An arrest warrant is not a negotiation, the subject does not get to detail terms and conditions.

The "extradition to the US" thing is another of Assanges distractions, as it would have been easier to extradite him from the UK than it would from the US. And yet he lived here in complete safety for years before consigning himself to the Ecuadoran embassy. People should read up on the Extradition Act 2003, which allows the US to require Assange to be extradited with minimal reason.

Re: Assange should arrest himself

[ljw1004]

I'm curious - you say that the committe "long ago" lost credibility. When was that long ago? And over what?

(I've not heard mainstream criticism of the committee until this case right now...)

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Their continuted refusal to provide assurance of him not being extradited to the US to face espionage charges tells quite clearly what their intent in the matter is. At this point I doubt even the swedes care whether or not the case has merit.

Nothing Assange has done meets the legal definition of espionage. In any case, Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US that specifically bars extradition for espionage or political crimes. Assange actually wants a binding guarantee that he won't be extradited for anything, even if the US make a sufficiently-evidenced and legally correct request under the treaty that would suffice for extraditing any other person. This would require tearing up that treaty and creating a new one, with a special "no Assange extradition" clause. That's never going to happen, because not only would it mean that Assange would be placed outside the rule of law but it would have to be agreed by the US. In any case, if the US were going to extradite him they had plenty of time when he was in Sweden previously or in the UK (which has a more lax extradition arrangement with the US) and there would simply be no need to cook up some sort of weird plot involving his behaviour to his partners. It's a ridiculous demand based on zero evidence that anything negative relating to Assange must be a plot by the CIA.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people sent to Gitmo are people thought to be terrorists. Assange isn't a terrorist. Assange will never go to Gitmo. The idea of Assange going to Gitmo is a fantasy for his supporters to cling to.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[serviscope_minor]

Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US?

Because Assange has never been to the US and has never committed a crime there.

An arrest warrant is not a negotiation, the subject does not get to detail terms and conditions.

Well, it seems given that Assange is not under arrest, reality disagrees with you.

The "extradition to the US" thing is another of Assanges distractions, as it would have been easier to extradite him from the UK than it would from the US

Except you know, Sweden just handed people over to the CIA to be tortured with no evidence, no trial and no judicial oversight of any sort. The UK has never done that.

which allows the US to require Assange to be extradited with minimal reason.

But they do need a reason, unlike Sweden who has a record of not requiring reasons.

Also, torture.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Richard_at_work]

Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US?

Because Assange has never been to the US and has never committed a crime there.

He has also never been to Guatemala and never committed a crime there. Are we going to have to enumerate every country that Assange has never been to and never committed a crime in?

An arrest warrant is not a negotiation, the subject does not get to detail terms and conditions.

Well, it seems given that Assange is not under arrest, reality disagrees with you.

An arrest warrant means there is a warrant for his arrest. It has nothing to do with whether the subject is actually, currently under arrest.

Assange is free to continue to avoid being arrested, but that doesn't mean he can set terms and conditions for his surrender to the authorities. The arrest warrant can remain in force for as long as needed.

The "extradition to the US" thing is another of Assanges distractions, as it would have been easier to extradite him from the UK than it would from the US

Except you know, Sweden just handed people over to the CIA to be tortured with no evidence, no trial and no judicial oversight of any sort. The UK has never done that.

And your point is? How does any agreement not to extradite prevent that?

Also, as there have been extraordinary rendition flights from the UK to the US, all you can say is that the UK have never been caught...

which allows the US to require Assange to be extradited with minimal reason.

But they do need a reason, unlike Sweden who has a record of not requiring reasons.

Also, torture.

Under the Extradition Act 2003, all that is needed is "reasonable suspicion" for someone to be extradited from the UK to the US. You also ignore the fact that there were legal recriminations for the Swedish government in the specific cases on which you are basing your comments about Sweden, with significant damages being awarded to multiple individuals.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, its not like any high ranking us politicians have called him a terrorist or anything, oh wait.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[vakuona]

Assange is asking for something that Sweden cannot give. Sweden is obliged, by treaty, to consider every extradition request that it receives. IANAL, but I am sure the Swedish government cannot limit the ability of courts to rule on extradition requests in any case.

Assange might as well ask for Sweden to ensure that it won't rain while he is there. His request is just as reasonable.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[serviscope_minor]

He has also never been to Guatemala and never committed a crime there. Are we going to have to enumerate every country that Assange has never been to and never committed a crime in?

Is any one in the Guatemalan government (a) calling for the trial of someone who has never been there and (b) has the power to make somewhere like Sweden do something illegal?

No, now stop being foolish and claiming that the global reach of the US is remotely comparable to Guatemala.

An arrest warrant means there is a warrant for his arrest. It has nothing to do with whether the subject is actually, currently under arrest.

Irrelevant. The subject is negotiating terms and conditions whether or not you like it.

Also, as there have been extraordinary rendition flights from the UK to the US all you can say is that the UK have never been caught...

That's all you can ever say since you can't prove a negative. Nonetheless, Sweden is on record as colluding much more strongly than allowing a flight to stop there. They physically handed people to the CIA to be tortured, something there is no record of the UK doing.

Under the Extradition Act 2003, all that is needed is "reasonable suspicion" for someone to be extradited from the UK to the US.

That's nore than Sweden needed!

You also ignore the fact that there were legal recriminations for the Swedish government in the specific cases on which you are basing your comments about Sweden, with significant damages being awarded to multiple individuals.

You can't deny it happened though, and the "legal recriminations" were tiny.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[gmack]

No, the issue is that there is no one in Sweden who can legally make that assurance. If the US were to make a case for extradition while he is there, that would have to go through the Swedish courts and no one would have the right to override that.

The reality though is that Sweden is far less likely to extradite him to the US than the UK so the entire argument about extradition to the US is nonsensical. If the Americans had wanted him they would have applied directly to the UK government..

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[AmiMoJo]

Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US?

Because they have previously hosted US aircraft involved in the abduction and torture of European citizens.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Richard_at_work]

Is any one in the Guatemalan government (a) calling for the trial of someone who has never been there and (b) has the power to make somewhere like Sweden do something illegal?

No, now stop being foolish and claiming that the global reach of the US is remotely comparable to Guatemala.

And that's irrelevant - you have no idea who wants a piece of Assange.

Once again, if the "global reach" of the US was in play here, why was he safe in the UK? Not one of his supporters has ever been able to answer that question properly - if anything, he should have been less safe fleeing to the UK, but no, he chose to come here. Why? If his goal was to stay out of the hands of the US, France would have been a better option before the UK, as France has stood up to the US and UK several times in recent years. So why the UK?

Irrelevant. The subject is negotiating terms and conditions whether or not you like it.

Assange can make all the demands he wants, that doesn't make it a negotiation.

That's all you can ever say since you can't prove a negative. Nonetheless, Sweden is on record as colluding much more strongly than allowing a flight to stop there. They physically handed people to the CIA to be tortured, something there is no record of the UK doing.

And there are also copious records that the judicial system of Sweden did not agree with that treatment, with significant damages being awarded and residency permits being issued.

I'm still trying to ascertain how you think what happened in Sweden was anything other than an illegal act that has been acknowledged and corrected...

You can't deny it happened though, and the "legal recriminations" were tiny.

Well, the Swedish government wasn't disbanded and people weren't imprisoned, but there were legal recriminations, which pours water on your assertions that it will happen again in the case of Assange.

And in any case, why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US?

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[serviscope_minor]

And that's irrelevant - you have no idea who wants a piece of Assange.

At this point I'm getting the impression that you're being intentionally contrarian, just for shits and giggle.

The US is the only country with botht the record and ability to nab someone from other first world countries and ship them off for torture. Your irrelevancies about Guetamala are just that, because neither they nor anyone but the US could pull that off.

And we both know you know that.

Once again, if the "global reach" of the US was in play here, why was he safe in the UK?

He is safer. What does it matter why? And believe me this both surprises and pleases me, the UK apparently is slightly less of a bootlicker than Sweden.

And there are also copious records that the judicial system of Sweden did not agree with that treatment, with significant damages being awarded and residency permits being issued.

Some guys got tortured and were given a few hnudred grand for having their lives utterly ruined. No one went to prison for massive violating the law.

I'm still trying to ascertain how you think what happened in Sweden was anything other than an illegal act that has been acknowledged and corrected...

Corrected? Remind me who went to prison?

which pours water on your assertions that it will happen again in the case of Assange.

How? No one suffered any personal consequences. Why not do it again?

And in any case, why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US?

Are you thick or just intentionally ignoring what I write?

He's never been there, he's never committed a crime there.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US?

Because they have previously hosted US aircraft involved in the abduction and torture of European citizens.

You are confusing the concepts of legal extradition and illegal rendition. If the plan was to abduct Assange illegally it would make no sense moving him into a secured Swedish prison first and surrounding him with guards and alarm systems, rather than kidnapping him previously while he was walking around freely, or while he was on bail in a house in the English countryside with no guards. Not only is there no evidence for it, it makes no goddamn sense at all.

Re: Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily I've never been on the US's political shit list, so I actually have no idea where the US Government sticks people that mess with their national security.

Here's to hoping you get a one way ticket to find out!

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you claiming they're witches? Can their mere words alter reality? Nope.

Find a link to al Qaida or Daesh and then you've got something. Till then it is just a fantasy.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[shilly]

You have got to be shitting me. The BBC is the same as the VoA? Sure, apart from funding mechanism, founding charter and governance, history and practice of actual reporting, public reputation, target audience, journalistic integrity, etc etc. I'd like to see one of you platitudinous cretins get just a couple of minutes of questioning by Paxo on camera. The skewering of your complacent fact-free confirmation bias narratives would be a pleasure to behold.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[shilly]

The US is the only country with botht the record and ability to nab someone from other first world countries and ship them off for torture.

Do you really, truly believe this is the case? You genuinely think that Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, Australia, etc etc never nab people from other first world countries and ship them off for torture?

This insistence on seeing the US as uniquely powerful and uniquely evil is just ... odd. It is more powerful than other countries, but it is not *uniquely* powerful, and other countries are every bit as capable of being assholes.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[serviscope_minor]

You genuinely think that Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, Australia, etc etc never nab people from other first world countries and ship them off for torture?

With the cooperation of the host? No, I don't think any of those countries have the resources to do it. Israel occasionally assassinates people, but to do much more requires cooperation.

Do you have any evidence that any of the other countries are engaging in extraordinary rendition?

This insistence on seeing the US as uniquely powerful and uniquely evil is just ... odd.

Yeah, it would be... if that's what I said. But I didn't, so you really ought to read what I write, rather than inventing stuff and ascribing it to me.

The US is if anything better than average. They are however uniquely powerful which means they can act on evil to the extent that other countries can't. I'm sure plenty of other countries with the same power would be far far worse, but since the US is the only country with that power, it's a completely academic point.

It is more powerful than other countries, but it is not *uniquely* powerful,

It's more powerful than any other country. That makes it unique, ergo is uniquely powerful.

other countries are every bit as capable of being assholes.

Where did I claim otherwise?

A clue: I didn't.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[shilly]

"With the cooperation of the host?"
What, you think it's *easier* for a country to nab people *without* the cooperation of the host? I was actually talking about the latter, ie rendition. If you're talking about the former, well, that's any country that has an extradition treaty and conducts torture in its cells. Jordan, for example. The UK had to extract promises from Jordan that it wouldn't torture Abu Qatada before he was sent there because of its torture record. But that was a high profile case, and most are not. People are routinely shipped off by the courts to foreign countries where they undergo torture.

As for extraordinary rendition, what you think that Pakistan isn't capable of raiding across a barely existent border with Afghanistan and nabbing a wanted person and torturing them? With or without the blessing of the Afghan government? I'm sure such missions don't have anything like a 100% success record, but the notion that they don't happen... it's naive at best. Similarly the Saudis in Yemen, the Egyptians in Libya, etc etc. I'm sure that those other countries' use of their relatively limited power (cf US) isn't at all academic to the people affected.

Re this: "This insistence on seeing the US as uniquely powerful and uniquely evil is just ... odd."
You waddled and quacked and flapped your wings. I inferred you were a duck. Maybe, as you aver, my heuristic was inaccurate in your case. But it was hardly the biggest leap of logic.

Re:Assange should arrest himself

[serviscope_minor]

What, you think it's *easier* for a country to nab people *without* the cooperation of the host?

Typo.

As for extraordinary rendition, what you think that Pakistan isn't capable of raiding across a barely existent border with Afghanistan and nabbing a wanted person and torturing them?

On what planet is Afganistan a first world country?

The Australian Government.

[CRC'99]

There are many words to describe our current government - however moral, just, fair or competent would not be in the list.

To say the current mob (which have an approval rating in some kind of glide approximating a two door kelvinator) has any plans at all for leading a country is almost as big a joke as the party itself.

No vision, no plan, and no real hopes.

Re:The Australian Government.

[Anonymous Coward]

But think of the alternative. It could've been Labor, which is so much worse.

Re:The Australian Government.

[Anonymous Coward]

... which is so much worse.

They're both pandering to big business which disgusts the Australian voter and explains why their approval ratings see-saw, resulting in the less popular spokesman being knifed in the back by his own party.

It could've been Labor ...

Although the Labor (socialist) party supports the war on terror, the Liberal (conservative) party has used it to corrupt the legal system and our culture. I know most Australians prefer the Liberal party but it's easier to say nice things about the Labor party than about the Liberal party, always has been.

Re:The Australian Government.

[LordLucless]

To say the current mob (which have an approval rating in some kind of glide approximating a two door kelvinator) has any plans at all for leading a country is almost as big a joke as the party itself.

As opposed to the opposition party, who was booted out of office in the biggest swing in electoral history? The situation was the same under the previous party, too - they'd wear out their tongues on american shoeleather just as fast.

There's a reason last election had the most minority parties ever represented in the senate. Australians are sick of the crap *both* major parties are pulling. We haven't had a Prime Minister complete a full term since 2007.

Re: The Australian Government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you call a conservative party 'Liberal'? Damn topsy turvy Aussies.

Re:The Australian Government.

[Tom]

I had to check the headling to realize you are talking about the australian government.

Honestly, could just as well be my country. Seems to be endemic. We might be at the edge of the third major political system of the 20th century imploding (you know, after facism and communism, the bell is definitely tolling for representative democracy).

Any countries with a competent government left? I'm thinking about moving anyway, might as well pick by that criterium.

Re: The Australian Government.

[DMJC]

it's a branding trick they pulled when all the conservative parties got together. They slapped the name Liberals on it. It's also known as "The Coalition".

Re:The Australian Government.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we aren't on the edge of a political implosion. In fact, what you are seeing is business as usual.

Corruption is endemic to governance. It doesn't matter what the culture is, the presence or absence of religious influence, the intentions of the founders, etc. None of that matters. The moment people attain power over others, their world-view changes. It is a neurological change; everyone is subject to it. The governed masses are suddenly second-class citizens...almost beasts of burden...and only fellow governors are actual people.

Governors treat other governors with authentic justice. They treat their subjects with the bare minimum of justice necessary to keep things rolling along. There are no exceptions to this rule, and never will be (so long as humans are doing the governing...AI governors may be different).

You can't "fix" this with more voter engagement, or the right constitution. It isn't broken; it is just how humans operate at their essence. Public accountability is the only means by which the governed masses can protect themselves from harm caused by government corruption...but it isn't a solution, it's just an endless treating of the symptom.

Many people refuse to accept these facts. They are willfully ignorant, to their own detriment.

Re:The Australian Government.

[ChunderDownunder]

The problem with any two party system is they vote out one bunch of corrupt self-serving, thieving bastards and replace them with the others. What would happen if enough people voted "neither of the above"?

Perhaps the future lies with the Spaniards. An election just before Christmas is still playing out. The two traditional parties, PP and PSOE, received only 50.7% of the vote meaning almost half the voters said "we've had enough of your bullshit".

Re:The Australian Government.

[Tom]

The problem with any two party system

It's not a two party system problem. My country has 5 or 6 relevant parties.

It's a systemic problem. Politics is a high-stakes game for low achievers. If you are really good, you don't go into politics. You can earn more for less work and more fun in the private sector.

"Follow the money" is always a good rule. If you think the chancellor (yearly salary: Less than half a million Euros) can meet with the head of a big bank (yearly salary: 20+ millions) and they will talk like peers, you are an idiot.

They would, yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Being in the US' pocket does that to a country.

all life matters movement billions strong

[Anonymous Coward]

seems nearly all of us want a fair shake? that terrifies our greed fear ego based wmd on credit rulerships? cease fire,,, in the moms we trust...

Why isn't the UK applying UK law to Assange

[jonwil]

The UK has a law that says that it will only recognize European Arrest Warrants (which is what Sweden are using to extradite Assange) if charges have been filed or if certain things have been done by a judge. Why wont the UK apply those laws in the Assange case (where AFAIK no charges have been filed and the judge hasn't done the certain things) and refuse extradition? (and say to Sweden they need to file charges or get the judge to do the certain things if they want Assange)

Re:Why isn't the UK applying UK law to Assange

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would UK do that?

UK strips citizenship from its citizens to permit their killing by US drones,
And to permit rendition to the prison camp in New York:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/05/mahdi-hashi-metropolitan-correctional-center-manhattan-guantanamo-pretrial-solitary-confinement/

So this idea that they would help Assange, is laughable.

Given the surveillance, the only thing we're sure about, is that Cameron is NSA approved, if he wasn't his dirty secrets would have been leaked by NSA and their puppy GCHQ. So Cameron won't upset the people who helped ensure he got to power.

Re:Why isn't the UK applying UK law to Assange

[Richard_at_work]

No, the UK does not say that - this has been settled three times in British courts with regard to this specific case, and each time the EAW has been found to be legal and correct, with many pages spent explaining the determinations in detail.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sy...

Points 120 onward.

This is highly ridiculous.

[drolli]

What should the UK do? drop charges against anybody who runs into am Embassy of a country which does cooperate legally? I see a big field of business here.

Re:This is highly ridiculous.

[Big Hairy Ian]

I just love the fact that the UN thinks he's being detained. He went into the embassy of his own free will and accord and sought asylum which broke the terms of his bail. He is therefor liable for arrest as soon as he exits the embassy but he's not currently being detained by the UK. As for his assertion about being extradited from Sweden to the US. Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

Re:This is highly ridiculous.

[Richard_at_work]

Yup, the ruling is essentially a deconstruction of the rule of law - a lawful agency and government is no longer allowed to pursue someone who has had a lawful arrest warrant issued against them if said person decides to place themselves into a situation where their only possible actions are "surrender to the authorities" or "remain in self detention".

What was this UN panel smoking at the time they came to the conclusion they did? Was Osama bin Laden "unlawfully detained" in his Pakistani compound because the world was looking for him?

Re:This is highly ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

An extradition treaty just (almost) guarantees that someone will be extradited. No extradition treaty in place does not mean that no extraditions will take place, it just places them at the discretion of the appropriate authorities.

Re:This is highly ridiculous.

[CrimsonAvenger]

As for his assertion about being extradited from Sweden to the US. Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

Extraditing from the UK (which is the US's BFF) to Sweden (which doesn't particularly care for the US) in order to get Assange extradited to the US really makes no sense at all.

If we'd really wanted Assange all that badly, we'd have just asked the UK to extradite him straight to the US and been done with it....

Re:This is highly ridiculous.

[Big Hairy Ian]

Absolutely so it's all just smoke & mirrors on Assange's part and absolutly nothing to do with fear of being extradited to the US

If you reect UN rulings.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you should be iced out of the UN no if and or buts.
How you can tell the world is doomed.
And personally I look forward to nuclear annihilation.

Re:If you reect UN rulings.

[Coren22]

Would there be anyone left in the UN if that were to happen? The UN makes all kinds of crazy rulings they know they can't enforce, this is nothing new.

Liberal party of Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

More like anything the Liberal party of Australia does is not 'binding'.

No matter how much you polish a turd its still a turd.
Forget any precedent by the UN the Liberals will have a big whinge.

Current Prime minister for instance: Ex Merchant banker guilty of multiple fraud (like having one of the board from citibank run your country)

Tochilovsky's eight points are moot points

[Anonymous Coward]

Tochilovsky is a dissenting member of the UN working group that had decided Assange to have been arbitrarily detained, however it seems to me that every one of Tochilovsky's eight point dissenting opinion end up as moot points because of how he really fail at argue as to why the working group is wrong in making its conclusions.

Tochilovsky's dissenting opinion is really more of a sentimental one than being a rational one, but this is hard to spot. The glaring flaws in of his eight points explaining his dissent, has to do with how Tochilovsky tires to make a point about how the working group had erred, but this point about that amount to no more than this vague statement:

[b]"However, these territories and premises of self-confinement cannot be considered as places of detention for the purposes of the mandate of the Working Group."[/b]

Such a sentence is so to speak parroting the claims of others that has ridiculed the UN working group's conclusions because they feel it is silly, yet also appear at first glance to being a statement that apparently seem to want to invalidate the work and the conclusions of the working group.

It ends up being really vague because the part "for the purposes of", being a meaningless phrase in itself (as far as argumentation goes). The sentence ends up being a sentiment about how something "should not be", instead of something more concrete like "cannot be" or "must not be".

The big problem with Tochilovsky's dissenting opinion, is not so much Tochilovsky's opinions, as how his opinions are probably interpreted by politicians and the media. They will likely have had interpreted Tochilovsky claiming that the working group did something wrong, but Tochilovsky does not really argue that.

His dissenting opinions is nothing more than an opinion of dissent as such, and as he has seemingly phrased (translated?) his eight points in English, he has ended up undermining the conclusions of his own UN working group in an absurd way, not really being in a position to conclude at all that the working group has erred. His opinion in basically a denouncement of the working group as being wrong, but this is like wishful thinking and thus his eight points are moot points because of that.

I have elaborated on my points in the comment field for this blogger below:
http://www.headoflegal.com/2016/02/05/the-un-working-groups-assange-opinion/#comments

NZ here

[evanh]

Sleazy Keyzy http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/75393732/Guy-Williams-John-Key-is-a-genius-and-I-hate-it is doing his utmost to remedy our oversights and play catchup with the TPPA.

Why is Australia commenting on this?

[jhanschoo]

I don't see how Australia's government and Australians themselves have an interest in Assange's detention.

Re:Why is Australia commenting on this?

[AHuxley]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The part about been born in "Australia". Most nations try or are expected to look after their passport holders.

Re:Why is Australia commenting on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't see how Australia's government and Australians themselves have an interest in Assange's detention.

we don't want "Cry Softly She Said" back. they can keep him.

Wasting your time

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty pointless trying to be rational in this thread the trolls are out in force today, posting lies and fabrications and when challenged abusing the moderation system to hide the factual and rational posters.

It is a perfect example of why /. has gone to shit.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Extra extra! State decides adverse ruling does not apply to it.

In other news, spy agency declares actions of itself legal, and dog bites man.

United No-nos

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

Whenever governments start belittling UN resolutions and formal statements they start to lose their weight in the international community little by little. It also that governments that do such will themselves start having a hard time arguing points using UN as an authority.

Re:United No-nos

[Richard_at_work]

This wasnt a UN resolution nor a formal statement, it was an opinion issued by the Working Group On Arbitrary Detention, an independent body formed by a UN mandate to investigate reports - it has no legal position, no legal standing and its opinions are not backed by a judicial stance or position.

Its a ludicrous opinion that they came to, because in their full explanation on the matter, they consider not only Assanges current situation in the Ecuadoran embassy to be "unlawful detention", but also every moment he spent under judicial remand in the UK - including his original arrest prior to bail, his detention at his friends house during the court cases and appeals, *and* his self-imposed detention in the Ecuadoran embassy.

So yes, the Working Group On Arbitrary Detention considers the legal processes of the UK to be "unlawful detention", a situation that *millions* of cases over hundreds of years in the UK and hundreds of cases over dozens of years in the European Court of Human Rights has never, ever come to.

The Working Group On Arbitrary Detention, a panel of 5 people, seems to think it has a better opinion than tens of thousands of judges and judicial representatives across several countries.

So in short, fuck them.

Embassy life

[AHuxley]

The good news is the whistleblowing material reached the public and press in full. Whistleblowing material and full public release.
https://cryptome.org/2013-info...

Long term what could happen?
The prospect of Sweden doing a "temporary surrender" to the US and its secret grand jury before returning to Sweden again.
"Julian Assange: where does he go from here?" (September 12, 2015)
http://www.theaustralian.com.a...
"They admit that the grand jury is continuing. "
"Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange "
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
"There are specific risks in Sweden – for example, its fast-track "temporary surrender" extradition agreement it has with the US. "
Revealed: US plans to charge Assange
http://www.smh.com.au/technolo...
"... the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US."

The other history is that of József Mindszenty
"...political asylum by the United States embassy in Budapest, where Mindszenty lived for the next fifteen years"
"Mindszenty lived there for the next 15 years, unable to leave the grounds"

Re:Embassy life

[Max_W]

...political asylum by the United States embassy in Budapest, where Mindszenty lived for the next fifteen years...

The United States Embassy in Budapest is a large six stories building, with spacious courtyards. Mindszenty could walk outdoors, could walk around the immense building: http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/...

Julian is stuck in a small apartment. He cannot walk outdoors at all. Even in a maximum security prisons inmates can walk outdoors for an hour a day. Even in Alcatraz prison there was a large outdoors ground for prisoners. It is not fair to compare Julian Assange with Mindszenty.

London municipal government could make a small adjacent garden for the Ecuador embassy with a strong grill fence. This way Julian could at least walk outdoors. Julian's inhuman asylum conditions are insult to our common human dignity.

Re:Embassy life

[Anonymous Coward]

London municipal government could make a small adjacent garden for the Ecuador embassy with a strong grill fence. This way Julian could at least walk outdoors. Julian's inhuman asylum conditions are insult to our common human dignity.

No they couldn't because that would implicate them in his constraint.

Cobber?

[DoctorBonzo]

Aussie word?

Would like to know the meaning & etomology, especially if it's perjorative, please.

Re:Cobber?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google

Re:Cobber?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aussie word?

Would like to know the meaning & etomology, especially if it's perjorative, please.

Bloody hell. Can't you do even a little research yourself?

cobber from the free dictionary.

cobber from wiktionary.

Both have the etymology of the word.

Re:Cobber?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pejorative, Bonzo.

Re:Cobber?

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace in any sentence with pal, mate or dude.

Holed-up in the Ecuadorian Embassy

[wisnoskij]

I guess he only said that he would give himself up if they ruled against him, not if they ruled for him. But it seems like he was implying that this would end come the ruling, one way of the other, not that the stalemate would go on past the ruling if they found in his favour.

Not transport from embassy

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a poor analogy. The US has direct air transport from Guantanamo to the US. Embassies don't necessarily have any such means of transport home, their personnel and goods must often cross through the territory of their host country. I have not heard of Assange being given an Ecuadoran diplomatic position so Ecuador has problems moving him.

It IS binding.

[Anonymous Coward]

As signatories to various UN charters, this IS legally binding.

All this BS about it not being legally binding is a smokescreen.

This is about the power elite doing what the power elite does. Ignoring the law when it suits them, and abusing it when it suits them.

Re: It IS binding.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair....having read most of these comments, it would appear that there is the sane, general population who support Assange.... In the other corner are those who are either feed off Murdoc'esque press fkr breakfast, lunch and dinner or PR gong beaters representative of the machinary of US/UK/SWN/AUS interests, sent here to suppport the narrative of these governments with nothing more than missinformation & smoke.

Its not about being a "fan boy" or even believing in what Assange has done, its simply a matter of checking the facts of the case, which you certainly wont get from mainstream media.

For those who are unsure: check the recent UN WGAD report re Assange, as this is an objective analysis of submissions from ALL sides...

Sweden does not have a case

[aberglas]

That is why they do not want to interview Assange. They do interviews overseas all the time (40 odd since Assange went down.)

But if they interview Assange they will then have to put up or shut up, and they cannot do either.

Assange was arrested under very dubious European Arrest warrants which have belatedly been repealed. He could not be arrested in the same way today.

If these "rape" charges had any substance he would have been charged in the first instance. They are, at the very most, on the very edge of what is illegal.

None of that is not to say that Assange is an arsehole. But if that were illegal the jails would be full.

Out of date

[aberglas]

It was the previous Labor government that would lick your boots.

The current conservative government would lick a more personal yet less savory part.

Assange targeted while Aust./UK crimes concealed

[rjrbts]

Hardly surprising that the ‘Australian Foreign Affairs Says UN Assange Ruling Not Binding’ when Australian laws enforced by authorities appointed by Australian governments aren’t even considered to be legally binding. An example being the false records of Australian newspapers published fraudulently sold by Australian state & national public libraries as authentic ‘archives’ of newspapers published. – The sale of false records as authentic archives is not a crime according to Australia’s Consumer protection law enforcement authorities. The fake archives assist to conceal Australian government[s’] [of both political parties], law enforcement and news media crimes, maladministration & corruption. News articles published have been erased or altered for the false records. UK PM Cameron & his government considers the assistance Ecuador has provided to Assange as worthy of a UK Foreign Office official diplomatic complaint but is silent on the evidence of fake ‘archives’ of newspapers being imported from Australia [sold by British Libraries UK London] & not worthy of any complaint. The UK’s & Australian governments share the common circumstances of being dependent on Murdoch news media to be elected. The Australian crimes, corruption & maladministration concealed by fake newspaper archives (of national significance & costing billions of dollars) concern events in the state of South Australia where Rupert Murdoch began his media empire with the first newspaper he ever owned & where he maintains a newspaper publishing state monopoly. More information & documents [the evidence] at https://rjrbtsrupertsfirstnews... UK PM Cameron, who has decided to renege on his commitment to proceed with the Leveson [Part 2] Inquiry into UK media crimes, is capable of asking his friend Rupert Murdoch about his involvement in his news media's concealing serious crimes by the use of fake 'archives' of his newspapers published, but appears reluctant to do so, preferring to betray citizens of the UK. The BBC, being merely a representative of the UK government & not independent, has no objections to the deception of UK taxpayers.

... common human dignity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

what the FUCK are you talking about?

if there's anything to be observed in recent days, is that the majority of our fellow sapiens are mouth-breathing cowards, willfully ignorant, short-sighted, reactionary, self-centered and petty - we're easily scared, easily fooled, instantly distracted and our votes easily purchased ...

the older I gets, the less I likes the human