Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the one-rule-to-bind-them-wait-that's-new-zealand dept.

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."

10 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. So? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.'"
    1. Re:So? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:So? by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:So? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.