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."
...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.
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.
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
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.
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.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
It is not uncommon for the Swedish authorities to travel to other jurisdictions to further their *investigation*. ... even though the accused invited them!
In this case they REFUSED to do that
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 ...