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.'"
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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"
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.
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.
Would like to know the meaning & etomology, especially if it's perjorative, please.
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..
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"