Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.