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."

2 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why isn't the UK applying UK law to Assange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

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

    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 ...