Official UN panel findings on embassy-squatter released. Assange: I'm 'vindicated' A UN panel has found that Julian Assange's occupancy of the Ecuadorian embassy in London amounts to an "arbitrary detention" on the parts of the UK and Sweden, and called for his immediate release, with "compensation". The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) today announced that it had found in favour (PDF) of …
I would not be surprised if some of the people who donated for his bail fund sue him if he shows he nose outside the door too.
Well given some of the people who misguidedly funded his bail have the money to waste (Jemima I am looking at you), but others probably do not, I suspect the dark alley and a blunt instrument, accompanied by you f****ker might be more of a worry for him....
Except that there are no police waiting outside the embassy now. They were withdrawn since it was costing us too much to have a police presence for each time El Ego Extraordinaire Assange emerged onto his balcony to survey the media minions below him and dictate to all and sundry how oppressed he is by those who put up bail money for him .. err .. 'the evil Uncle Sam'.
When he does eventually leave the embassy (after 2020, I presume) I daresay that Chelsea (its a place, not a transgender US military secrets leaker) police station will send someone round on a bicycle to wave him goodbye.
Honestly I don't see how the UN got into this circus....
The last time the WGAD got involved was when a Saudi national got arrested in a US raid in pakistan in 2003 and was kept in guantanamo bay in Cuba and wasn't even assigned a lawyer in 2008. That's a prime example of unlawful detention - he couldn't leave, and he couldn't even face trial ( and wasn't even charged with anything to begin with)
Reference here:
http://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WGAD-al-hawsawi-Op2014-50.pd
I hardly think that can be compared to a guy who has an arrest warrant, knows exactly why they were looking for him, and decided of his own free will to place himself in a situation of diplomatic asylum to avoid the trial...
.. then asking the UK to compensate him is just... wow.
"I would have raided that building with a drugs squad, because they're obviously smoking something seriously strong."
Yes. In fact that was exactly what was stated in the article, by Assange himself: "Today that detention has been found by the highest organisation in the UN that has the jurisdiction for considering the rights of detained person, as unlawful,"
Kids, don't be like the WGAD: get high on life, not drugs.
“The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) is a body within the U.N. Human Rights Council that receives communications and issues opinions regarding the detention of individuals throughout the world. The WGAD’s methods are quasi-judicial, its opinions are non-binding, and it has no direct enforcement power of its own. Yet these and other flexible features of the WGAD are critical to its effectiveness, allowing it to provide a politically viable alternative to treaty-based human rights enforcement mechanisms.”
Note the "non-binding" part... it's not a court nor a legal entity.. it's only an opinion... that's it..... sweet lord how did it even get this far......
This whole thing is just another, in a long line of, farcical PR stunts.
Why he thinks that the opinion of a UN working group, one that has no legal input, can make an arbitrary decision that affects the laws of a sovereign nation is beyond me. More likely he just wants to be back in the papers as everyone forgot about him.
It will all go quiet for another 3 years because he knows that if he does step outside he will be arrested for violating the terms of this bail agreement.
A member of the 'working group' was claiming it was binding - Prof of Law at some US Uni (Florida I think) this afternoon on R4. He had problems explaining why it was, although to be fair, the R4 interrogator did not give him a hard enough time. Where is Marcel Berlins when you need him?
It will all go quiet for another 3 years because he knows that if he does step outside he will be arrested for violating the terms of this bail agreement.
I'll bet whoever it was in the embassy thought this would be a jolly wheeze is wondering about his or her career futures at the moment.
"You can subscribe to the snatch squad? I always have to go down to the street corner myself and offer 'em money."
I say old chap that is frightfully common. I have a subscription and get a fresh one delivered to my door thrice weekly from 'The Agency' no less.
Would not happen. The best the snatchsquad hopefuls can expect would be a tearful Assange being handed over to a pair of bemused Swedish cops, all the while screaming that they are not Swedes but NSA Extraordinary Renditionistas masquerading as Swedish police.
Why bother with the Swedish Chef - can we hire these guys instead ?
Look, you had it right in your first sentence. He gets arrested by the 'Plod'.
What happens next. He's tossed in the clink until they have a flight booked for him and his escort back to Sweden.
He sits down with his new Swedish lawyer, and is interviewed and then formally charged with the sole count of rape remaining. They go to trial. Whatever happens, if he faces jail time, after all of that... he goes back to the UK to face the jumping bail charge. He will do time. (Why? Because he's a prat and cost the UK taxpayers $$$$$)
After all of that... the UK plod, escort him to the airport, and put him on a plane back to Australia. He may even be escorted back to Aussie land because he's been such a prat there and an international embarrassment.
After that. Who knows.
ABC once reported that the then Aussie government was thinking about taking away his passport.
Its then... if the US wants him, they would make a move.
Why? Because he's got a record. He's a convicted felon for hacking the US government's servers while a teen. It would make any extradition that much easier.
The only problem is that the US hasn't raised any issue or hint that they want him for anything.
Post Wikileaks, Snowden had done far more damage to the US and Western world. And Wikileaks has some legal protection due to a '71 SCOTUS decision.
Of course I will wager someone at the US State Department would say 'Boo!' just to toss Assange in to a tizzy and watch him leave for Ecuador never to be heard from again. ;-)
"What happens then is way beyond our security clearance but I'd be on the lookout for the off Lear Jet with an american Registration landing at any out of the way airports."
Mischievous and false; under the terms of the EAW Assange must go to Sweden. End of story.
They have succeeded in making Assange the story and not what he revealed through Wikileaks.
We seem to have forgotten that this was started when evidence of USA government wrongdoings was published; so standard procedure was activated: discredit the messenger, something that they have done many times before - Bradley Manning for one.
That's the issue for me. Bradley Manning had a legitimate reason (self inflicted or no) to fear for the consequences of his actions, bought something of arguable value to Wikileaks at considerable personal cost, and then was pretty much hung out to dry.
Assange founded a website that publishes things governments don't want published, then KNOWING he'd be under the spotlight allegedly put his willy where it wasn't wanted, fled the country to another country, screwed over a bunch of his mates for bail money that he knew he was going to jump, and then hid out in an embassy for years crooning over how hard things are.
I've got no sympathy.
This post has been deleted by its author
No one has ever accused him of "putting his willy where it wasn't wanted"
That is the very definition of rape. Your hero Assange is accused of rape. Get this into your thick fucking skulls! No more of this shit!
Sure, he may well be innocent. Though I'm struggling to maintain my normally strong belief of innocent until proven guilty after 5 years of this fucking circus. But the accusations are simple. They are clear. And for all Assange's lies, and his attempts to smear his accusers, the accusation is still rape.
Deal with it!
That is the very definition of rape.
1) Not so. Write out 100 times "one != the"
Your hero Assange is accused of rape.
2) Where did you get hero from?
3) See 1)
Get this into your thick fucking skulls! No more of this shit!
4) What's wrong with you?
The daily fail is strong in this one. :(
4) What's wrong with you?
I'm pissed off with liars. And a continual polluting of public discussions with bollocks. And people who refuse to learn, when this is pointed out to them.
Assange was accused of rape. That's what the Swedish EAW says. This was covered in Assange's appeal. It's also rape under UK law. All the crap about "sex by surprise" or "Sweden's system is different and just looking at a woman funny over there counts as rape" gets repeated on every single discussion of this. It's bollocks. He's accused of rape. Plain and simple. Look up the judgement of the Court of Appeal if you don't believe me.
He's accused of attempting to use physical force to have sex, after being refused sex without putting on a condom. He then allegedly relented, put on his condom and carried on. But then had sex again after she'd fallen asleep without condom. Both of those are sex without consent, or "putting his willy where it wasn't wanted" - and both count as rape under UK law and Swedish law.
Assange and his legal and PR teams have been caught lying about this repeatedly. And so his supporters do too. Then refuse to be educated. Hence my little rant.
But that's what we're all saying...
Non-consensual sex is rape, pure and simple. If you are not in a position to give informed consent. Whether you call it surprise sex, putting your willy where it isn't wanted, tactical cuddles, or whatever - it's all the same thing.
I don't understand why you're trying to take such a militant view that what we're all saying is what you're saying. This is the Reg, not the Guardian. You're in a safe place, we (nearly) all hate him.
Lets correct a few things...
1) Assange appealed the EAW three times, which is the maximum allowed under the law.
2) Under the EAW, there are 32 areas of law where there is no need to show duopoly. That is, you don't have to show that his actions broke the laws in both countries. Rape is one of those 32 laws. So while the appeals judges didn't have to consider the question of duopoly, they did. Even then they agreed that what he is accused of would be considered rape in the UK.
I agree that the Assange supporters continue to argue the issue and ignore the law.
In addition to the issue of the EAW, they also forget that Assange wasn't allowed to leave the country.
He was supposed to come in for questioning where he would have been charged, but his lawyer helped him escape. His lawyer admitted to his actions during the first EAW appeal in the UK.
Then they talk about Manning and Assange blowing the whistle on illegal US activities.
Yet nothing released was shown to be illegal.
You can point these verifiable details out to everyone, yet that won't change their minds. People will believe what they want to believe.
But... I don't...
You've just made the EXACT point I was trying to make. I despise the buffoon and want him gone from our shores as quickly as the Learjet can carry him, I don't care where. I think he's EVERYTHING that's wrong with WikiLeaks, and constantly undermines its purpose for it's own ends. He's Egotistical and self obsessed.
You've laid into me for seemingly the express purpose of restating everything I said, and it's left me scared and confused. I need a hug :(
"That is the very definition of rape. Your hero Assange is accused of rape. Get this into your thick fucking skulls! No more of this shit!"
<snip>
Hmmmm, he is accused and as far as I am concerned he is innocent until convicted by a jury of his peers.
Now as for our / my perspective I would put the following quote to you from the BBC "Both women reportedly say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual. " .
What did or did not happen is now becoming irrelevant until the courts decide what was what. I have three daughters and feel the same as most men about rape, I also despise that creep but lets not let a few facts get cast aside in your mad rush to call him a rapist.
He isn't at least not yet let, the courts decide and not some illiterate foul mouthed gobshite such as yourself.
"Your" indeed as if we were all the same, patronising git.
He is a bail jumper.
He may or may not be a rapist: I wasn't there and don't know.
The innocent until proven thing, is just a legal assumption/contrivance which is intended to reduce the risk of injustice, it has no real bearing on the truth.
I become a criminal when I commit a crime, and I remain a criminal for ever. I may not be caught, I may be found wrongly innocent, I may evade trial, I may convince myself that what I did wasn't really wrong, but I'll still be a criminal.
The USA had won long before this decision; they have made it eminently clear that whistle-blowers in the US government structure will be hounded by US intelligence agencies in defiance of international law, with the connivance of governments friendly to Uncle Sam.
Anyone tempted to blow the whistle on nefarious activities by the USA knows that, at best, they will be hounded into exile in a country with no extradition treaty, or end up holed up in a foreign embassy with no hope of leaving.
The chances of anyone exposing the USA for spying on its allies' citizens, or any other massively illegal activity, knowing that is the future they will face is pretty low.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
