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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on Monday February 15, 2016 @10:54PM 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."

96 of 158 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So? by drinkypoo · 2016-02-15 22:57 · 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 gawdonblue · 2016-02-15 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  No worries, Cobber.
2. Re:So? by Attila+Dimedici · 2016-02-15 23:09 · 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
3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:18 · 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.
4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:39 · 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.
5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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?
6. Re:So? by Z00L00K · 2016-02-15 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:43 · 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.
8. Re:So? by AbRASiON · 2016-02-16 00:02 · 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.
9. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 00:23 · 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 ...
10. Re:So? by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 00:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
11. Re:So? by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  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.
12. Re:So? by Rei · 2016-02-16 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
13. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:So? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-02-16 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
15. Re:So? by Entrope · 2016-02-16 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:So? by Joce640k · 2016-02-16 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  No sig today...
17. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
18. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Which is hilarious because these very governments give the UN findings credence when it suits their purposes.
19. Re: So? by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · 2016-02-16 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not in Sweden.
20. Re:So? by Lakitu · 2016-02-16 02:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
21. Re:So? by fnj · 2016-02-16 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  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.
22. Re:So? by fnj · 2016-02-16 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
23. Re:So? by fnj · 2016-02-16 02:38 · Score: 2
  
  "Hey, Rule of Law? Go f*** yourself!"
  Welcome to the Obama era.
24. Re:So? by Z00L00K · 2016-02-16 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
25. Re:So? by Gumbercules!! · 2016-02-16 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
26. Re:So? by hairyfeet · 2016-02-16 03:08 · 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.
27. Re:So? by DMJC · 2016-02-16 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
28. Re:So? by sceptre1067 · 2016-02-16 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
29. Re:So? by rickb928 · 2016-02-16 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
30. Re:So? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-02-16 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
31. Re:So? by Coren22 · 2016-02-16 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
32. Re:So? by Coren22 · 2016-02-16 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because invading Ecuador to retrieve him was totally going to happen instead.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
33. Re:So? by gstoddart · 2016-02-16 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
34. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Kidnapping someone from an embassy would be an act of war.
35. Re:So? by shilly · 2016-02-16 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
36. Re:So? by penguinoid · 2016-02-16 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
37. Re:So? by shilly · 2016-02-16 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  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?
38. Re:So? by shilly · 2016-02-16 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  How I pine for the GWB days and their rigid adherence to the rule of law, especially re international affairs.
39. Re:So? by Lakitu · 2016-02-16 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  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?
40. Re:So? by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-02-16 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
41. Re:So? by hairyfeet · 2016-02-16 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
42. Re:So? by cold+fjord · 2016-02-16 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
43. Re:So? by cold+fjord · 2016-02-16 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
44. Re:So? by drinkypoo · 2016-02-16 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
45. Re:So? by drinkypoo · 2016-02-16 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
46. Re:So? by beastofburdon · 2016-02-18 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  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... by YukariHirai · 2016-02-15 22:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

...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.
1. Re:As an Australian... by YukariHirai · 2016-02-17 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not particularly. I think our current government are a pack of incompetent, morally bankrupt morons for a variety of non-Assange reasons.
Assange should arrest himself by Viol8 · 2016-02-15 23:05 · Score: 1, Troll

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?
1. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:23 · 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.
2. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:43 · 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.
3. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  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?
4. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  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
5. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Viol8 · 2016-02-16 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, isn't that odd. Assanges bluff got called and now he's backpedalling with help from his corrupt equadorian chums.
6. Re:Assange should arrest himself by ericloewe · 2016-02-16 00:39 · Score: 2
  
  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).
7. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 01:01 · 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.
8. Re: Assange should arrest himself by ljw1004 · 2016-02-16 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  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...)
9. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
10. Re:Assange should arrest himself by serviscope_minor · 2016-02-16 01:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  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.
12. Re:Assange should arrest himself by vakuona · 2016-02-16 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
13. Re:Assange should arrest himself by serviscope_minor · 2016-02-16 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
14. Re:Assange should arrest himself by gmack · 2016-02-16 03:07 · Score: 2
  
  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..
15. Re:Assange should arrest himself by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-16 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Assange should arrest himself by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  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?
17. Re:Assange should arrest himself by shilly · 2016-02-16 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  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.
18. Re:Assange should arrest himself by shilly · 2016-02-16 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  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.
19. Re:Assange should arrest himself by serviscope_minor · 2016-02-16 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
20. Re:Assange should arrest himself by shilly · 2016-02-16 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
21. Re:Assange should arrest himself by serviscope_minor · 2016-02-16 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
The Australian Government. by CRC'99 · 2016-02-15 23:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:The Australian Government. by LordLucless · 2016-02-16 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
2. Re:The Australian Government. by Tom · 2016-02-16 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
3. Re: The Australian Government. by DMJC · 2016-02-16 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  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".
4. Re:The Australian Government. by ChunderDownunder · 2016-02-16 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  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".
5. Re:The Australian Government. by Tom · 2016-02-17 19:41 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Why isn't the UK applying UK law to Assange by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 00:05 · 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.
Re:This is highly ridiculous. by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-02-16 00:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Why isn't the UK applying UK law to Assange by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 00:19 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
Re:This is highly ridiculous. by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 00:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

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?
NZ here by evanh · 2016-02-16 00:33 · Score: 1

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? by jhanschoo · 2016-02-16 00:53 · Score: 1

I don't see how Australia's government and Australians themselves have an interest in Assange's detention.
1. Re:Why is Australia commenting on this? by AHuxley · 2016-02-16 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  The part about been born in "Australia". Most nations try or are expected to look after their passport holders.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
United No-nos by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-02-16 01:14 · Score: 1

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.

--
-SR
1. Re:United No-nos by Richard_at_work · 2016-02-16 01:45 · Score: 2
  
  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 by AHuxley · 2016-02-16 01:36 · Score: 4, Informative

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"

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Re:Embassy life by Max_W · 2016-02-16 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  ...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.
Cobber? by DoctorBonzo · 2016-02-16 02:48 · Score: 2

Aussie word?
Would like to know the meaning & etomology, especially if it's perjorative, please.
Holed-up in the Ecuadorian Embassy by wisnoskij · 2016-02-16 04:19 · Score: 1

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.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:If you reect UN rulings. by Coren22 · 2016-02-16 04:44 · Score: 1

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.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:This is highly ridiculous. by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-02-16 05:46 · Score: 2

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....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:This is highly ridiculous. by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-02-16 07:58 · Score: 1

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

--
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.
Sweden does not have a case by aberglas · 2016-02-16 16:50 · Score: 1

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 by aberglas · 2016-02-16 16:53 · Score: 1

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 by rjrbts · 2016-02-16 18:39 · Score: 1

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.