• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN panel 'rules in Julian Assange's favour'

Andalublue

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,359
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
UN panel rules in Julian Assange's favour

A UN panel has ruled Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been "arbitrarily detained", the BBC understands.Mr Assange took refuge in London's Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex assault claims, which he denies.
He earlier tweeted he would accept arrest if the panel ruled against him, but called for the arrest warrant to be dropped if the decision went his way.
The Met Police said he will still be held if he does leave the embassy.
Click to expand...
I doubt this resolves anything, but the fact of the British government 'arbitrarily detaining' foreign nationals seriously undermines its claims of taking any moral high ground. I think he's still a long way away from freedom and, let's face it, freedom wouldn't last very long even if he were allowed to leave the Embassy; he'd be snatched and rendered to the US within days, even if he made it to Ecuador.
 
Incoming UN hate talk, bla bla bla.

Sweden should send their prosecutor to the embassy to interview him, like they have done in almost every other case.
 
PeteEU said:
Incoming UN hate talk, bla bla bla.

Sweden should send their prosecutor to the embassy to interview him, like they have done in almost every other case.
Click to expand...

Does Denmark send its prosecutors to interview rapists in foreign countries? That is interesting.
 
joG said:
Does Denmark send its prosecutors to interview rapists in foreign countries? That is interesting.
Click to expand...

First of all he is not a rapist. He has not been charged nor convicted.
Secondly, the Swedish do send prosecutors abroad to interview people.. that is a fact.
Thirdly, what does this have to do with Denmark?
 
Andalublue said:
UN panel rules in Julian Assange's favour


I doubt this resolves anything, but the fact of the British government 'arbitrarily detaining' foreign nationals seriously undermines its claims of taking any moral high ground. I think he's still a long way away from freedom and, let's face it, freedom wouldn't last very long even if he were allowed to leave the Embassy; he'd be snatched and rendered to the US within days, even if he made it to Ecuador.
Click to expand...


You are correct, the English believe they are above international law and will not respect the United Nations panel.
 
Andalublue said:
UN panel rules in Julian Assange's favour


I doubt this resolves anything, but the fact of the British government 'arbitrarily detaining' foreign nationals seriously undermines its claims of taking any moral high ground. I think he's still a long way away from freedom and, let's face it, freedom wouldn't last very long even if he were allowed to leave the Embassy; he'd be snatched and rendered to the US within days, even if he made it to Ecuador.
Click to expand...

It would actually surprise me, if the US wanted his extradition. It would be quite out of character. Had he broken US law? Is he a danger any longer? All he did was do the journalist thing and that is okay. The person who gave him the info was criminal. But Assange? He is alleged only to have broken Swedish law. He might have trouble getting a US visa, but otherwise?
 
Heinrich said:
You are correct, the English believe they are above international law and will not respect the United Nations panel.
Click to expand...
We’re talking about a man who jumped bail to avoid a European arrest warrant so that’s a very selective charge of having no respect for international law.

In general it strikes me as a strange principle that if the police have a suspect trapped but can’t secure them (or don’t want to risk a confrontation), it should be illegal for them to try to wait the siege out.
 
HonestJoe said:
We’re talking about a man who jumped bail to avoid a European arrest warrant so that’s a very selective charge of having no respect for international law.

In general it strikes me as a strange principle that if the police have a suspect trapped but can’t secure them (or don’t want to risk a confrontation), it should be illegal for them to try to wait the siege out.
Click to expand...

He did not jump bail.
 
PeteEU said:
First of all he is not a rapist. He has not been charged nor convicted.
Secondly, the Swedish do send prosecutors abroad to interview people.. that is a fact.
Thirdly, what does this have to do with Denmark?
Click to expand...

True. He has not been convicted and should not be called that. Much like Strauss-Kahn. And yes, the Swedes have been known to send prosecutors outside the country. they had thought of doing so in this case and decided not to. I see no reason they should, really. Why they shouldn't have a video conference I do not know. And Denmark was just interesting, because I thought you might know and it would shed a light on the normality of sending prosecutors overseas for interviews, where rape is at issue. I could imagine that they were angry at having Assange imply that they were bowing to the US.
 
PeteEU said:
He did not jump bail.
Click to expand...
He was on bail in the UK pending the outcome of the extradition ruling. When he fled to the embassy and claimed asylum, he breached the bail conditions. The people who have provided the security for his bail were required to pay up. He was seeking to escape the legal process the bail was intended to guarantee his presence for. In what way is that not jumping bail?

Regardless, he has demonstrated a lack of respect for the laws of Sweden, the UK or the US, hence the irony of the UK government being accused of the same in his defence. Even if you believe he is working form a higher moral principle, it is a double standard.
 
Andalublue said:
but the fact of the British government 'arbitrarily detaining' foreign nationals seriously undermines its claims of taking any moral high ground.
Click to expand...
Arbitrarily?
That is not fact but opinion.

As your article so kindly reported.

"We have been consistently clear that Mr Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy," he added.

"The UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden."​


His choosing to not leave is not arbitrary detention, it is him avoiding lawful arrest. That is fact.



PeteEU said:
Incoming UN hate talk, bla bla bla.
Click to expand...
Correction.
Well deserved incoming UN hate talk.


His avoiding lawful arrest is not arbitrary detention.
 
Heinrich said:
You are correct, the English believe they are above international law and will not respect the United Nations panel.
Click to expand...

1. What international law do you think they are violating?
2. What jurusdiction do you think this UN panel has?
 
PeteEU said:
Incoming UN hate talk, bla bla bla.

Sweden should send their prosecutor to the embassy to interview him, like they have done in almost every other case.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point that Sweden should go to England to interview him, but I would be interested to know in which cases, if ever, they have done that before.
 
HonestJoe said:
We’re talking about a man who jumped bail to avoid a European arrest warrant so that’s a very selective charge of having no respect for international law.

In general it strikes me as a strange principle that if the police have a suspect trapped but can’t secure them (or don’t want to risk a confrontation), it should be illegal for them to try to wait the siege out.
Click to expand...

I cannot avoid the play on words Joe, but your claim about his jumping bail is not HONEST, not accurate. :lol:
 
Excon said:
1. What international law do you think they are violating?
Click to expand...
The report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), which none of us has yet read, is reported to have found in Julian Assange's favor. I am supposing that the English have violated an international legal obligation on detention. Without reading the report, I would have to speculate in which way England is a scofflaw this time.
Excon said:
2. What jurusdiction do you think this UN panel has?
Click to expand...
The panel is authorized to investigate complaints from individuals as well as carry out reports on whether countries are adhering to international law obligations on detention. Their findings are not binding on sovereign governments but the English will be expected to pay heed and either allow Julian Assange freedom of movement or explain to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) why they have failed to carry-out the panel's finding.
 
Heinrich said:
The report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), which none of us has yet read, is reported to have found in Julian Assange's favor. I am supposing that the English have violated an international legal obligation on detention. Without reading the report, I would have to speculate in which way England is a scofflaw this time.

The panel is authorized to investigate complaints from individuals as well as carry out reports on whether countries are adhering to international law obligations on detention.
Their findings are not binding on sovereign governments but the English will be expected to pay heed
Click to expand...
 and either allow Julian Assange freedom of movement or explain to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) why they have failed to carry-out the panel's finding.
Click to expand...



The UN might expect that but my guess is that the UK will throw the UN report in the trash.

Let's wait and see what happens tomorrow. My guess is that Assange will stay where he is for a while.
 
Andalublue said:
UN panel rules in Julian Assange's favour


I doubt this resolves anything, but the fact of the British government 'arbitrarily detaining' foreign nationals seriously undermines its claims of taking any moral high ground. I think he's still a long way away from freedom and, let's face it, freedom wouldn't last very long even if he were allowed to leave the Embassy; he'd be snatched and rendered to the US within days, even if he made it to Ecuador.
Click to expand...

And the UK should tell the UN to go screw itself.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I agree with your point that Sweden should go to England to interview him, but I would be interested to know in which cases, if ever, they have done that before.
Click to expand...

According to the reports I have seen in Sweden and from Sweden, it is normal procedure. I do know that they go to Denmark to interview people all the time.. so why not London?
 
Excon said:
1. What international law do you think they are violating?
2. What jurusdiction do you think this UN panel has?
Click to expand...

shrubnose said:
The UN might expect that but my guess is that the UK will throw the UN report in the trash.

Let's wait and see what happens tomorrow. My guess is that Assange will stay where he is for a while.
Click to expand...
It will not surprise me if you are right although even the English will not like having to explain themselves to the United Nations. They portray themselves as law-abiding.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I cannot avoid the play on words Joe, but your claim about his jumping bail is not HONEST, not accurate. :lol:
Click to expand...
You’ve not explained why it’s wrong to say he jumped bail. He had been released on bail. His going to the embassy was an attempt to leave the country (which technically succeeded). Trying to leave the country is going to be a breach of pretty much any set of bail conditions (he’d been required to surrender his passport after all). On which point do you disagree?
 
Heinrich said:
You are correct, the English believe they are above international law and will not respect the United Nations panel.
Click to expand...

I do not know that the UK believes to be above international law. My impression is more the opposite.

But that is actually irrelevant here. The Panel's finding is only a finding and is not legally binding as I have found, when I looked it up. It was reported as legally binding on public radio here this morning. So there would be no new legal reason to let him out. And after all, he jumped bail and fled. The accusation is rape? He has been offered asylum and said he would take it, so he would probably flee the country.
 
PeteEU said:
First of all he is not a rapist. He has not been charged nor convicted.
Secondly, the Swedish do send prosecutors abroad to interview people.. that is a fact.
Thirdly, what does this have to do with Denmark?
Click to expand...

Assange has repeatedly said he would do interviews with a prosecutor. Sweden has repeatedly backed down and has refused to do so. I think this is a sign that Sweden does not have much of a case against him.
 
PeteEU said:
According to the reports I have seen in Sweden and from Sweden, it is normal procedure. I do know that they go to Denmark to interview people all the time.. so why not London?
Click to expand...

I'm happy to accept that protocol requires that they DO travel for such purposes.

I am only curious as to whether they actually have done so in the past.

It is telling that those great "civilized" countries, UK and Sweden, are now rejecting the findings of the UN committee. Such a fraud the west has become.
 
HonestJoe said:
You’ve not explained why it’s wrong to say he jumped bail. He had been released on bail. His going to the embassy was an attempt to leave the country (which technically succeeded). Trying to leave the country is going to be a breach of pretty much any set of bail conditions (he’d been required to surrender his passport after all). On which point do you disagree?
Click to expand...

You may be right he jumped bail. If you could offer some sort of information and specifics as to how and when he did that, I might be persuaded.

I have been following this story since it started, and cannot recall when or where he was ever bailed out of anything. Maybe you know more than I, but you will have to provide some sort of corroboration for your claim.

I do know that the first prosecutor in Sweden, I think the Chief Prosecutor, dropped all the charges against Assange, years ago. Then a political sycophant prosecutor, Ms. Ny, brought the charges back and then not followed through in any way at all.

So, if you can show me which court granted Assange bail, I might be persuaded. Give it a shot. :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
You may be right he jumped bail. If you could offer some sort of information and specifics as to how and when he did that, I might be persuaded.
Click to expand...
Wikileaks' Julian Assange supporters ordered to pay - BBC News

Thoreau72 said:
I have been following this story since it started, and cannot recall when or where he was ever bailed out of anything. Maybe you know more than I, but you will have to provide some sort of corroboration for your claim.
Click to expand...
He was initially arrested by UK police in relation to the international arrest warrant from Sweden and was bailed pending his appeals to the UK courts in response to that – that would all be standard practice for allegation of non-violent offences. It was when he lost his last appeal against his extradition that he claimed asylum with Ecuador. His attempt to leave the country and subsequent moving in to the embassy will probably be where his bail conditions were breached and would fit the concept of “jumping bail” to my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom