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."
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?
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.