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: 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.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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 ...

    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: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.

  3. Re:Why isn't the UK applying UK law to Assange by Richard_at_work · · 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.

  4. Embassy life by AHuxley · · 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"