Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Australia United Kingdom Your Rights Online

Australian Foreign Affairs Says UN Assange Ruling Not Binding (zdnet.com) 158

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Foreign Affairs Says UN Assange Ruling Not Binding

Comments Filter:
  • So? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @06:57AM (#51517995) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • No worries, Cobber.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @07:09AM (#51518055)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's more than that - if the UN ruling is taken as binding, then in future anyone who wants to avoid prosecution for a crime simply needs to hide away for long enough, claim "arbitrary detention" and get a ruling that they can now go free.

        Assange is a fugitive from the justice process. He jumped bail, and *that* is why the British legal system wants a word.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

          • 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.

            If they wanted to do that they would have done it from the UK years ago. Going to Sweden only makes things more complicated. To extradite Assange from the UK only takes agreement from the UK. To extradite Assange from Sweden takes agreement from both the UK and Sweden under EU treaties. The idea is nonsense, a ruse used by Assange to whip up his supporters.

        • Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @07:40AM (#51518149)

          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?

          • Why should Sweden have to interview someone not on their own terms? There is no requirement for an interview to take place at the pleasure of the person being interviewed.

            Aside from that, you do know that Ecuador has been blocking Swedish attempts to interview Assange in their embassy for the past 3 years, right? One thing after another, with even a treaty being signed just in January about legal cooperation, and still the Ecuadorians are blocking Swedish access to Assange on embassy property.

            • Why should Sweden have to interview someone not on their own terms?

              They had the opportunity to do so before he left the country. He informed them that he would be leaving the country, they did not object. He left the country. Then they decided they wanted him back.

              Also, because Sweden does not own Assange. They can shake their fist and make demands, but they deliberately passed up the opportunity to interview him in association with this incident on their own soil.

              Aside from that, you do know that Ecuador has been blocking Swedish attempts to interview Assange in their embassy for the past 3 years, right?

              I do know that Sweden refused to sign a basic agreement [theguardian.com] surrounding the questioning, and delayed their formal

          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            Um, because a fundamental tenet of the Swedish legal system is that questioning of the suspect occurs in Sweden. Not in a Swedish embassy. In Sweden itself.

            This is not exactly unusual. In fact, I'd be astonished if you can name a single country that would be content to conduct questioning of a suspect in a serious crime overseas.

            • "Um, because a fundamental tenet of the Swedish legal system is that questioning of the suspect occurs in Sweden. Not in a Swedish embassy. In Sweden itself.
              This is not exactly unusual. In fact, I'd be astonished if you can name a single country that would be content to conduct questioning of a suspect in a serious crime overseas."

              This is an interesting concept. The US maintains a military base on the Island of Cuba (Guantanamo, you know) that is claimed as US territory. Questioning captives there is prob

              • by shilly ( 142940 )

                So you're now claiming that the reason Sweden should be required to question Assange in its embassy rather than back in Sweden where the crimes are alleged to have taken place, is that the precedent has been established by the US questioning captives at Gitmo? Kafka would be proud.

          • by Lakitu ( 136170 )

            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?

            How can you say all of this while simultaneously accusing the US of wishing to have the UK capture him and send him to America? If they wanted to do that, then they, too, could have already done that.

            It's 100% insane to believe that Sweden has had all the time in the world to interview him, but that the combined powers of the US and UK did not have ample opportunity to arrest him, especially if they were focused on "getting their man" regardless of the cost or consequences.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              Kidnapping someone from an embassy would be an act of war.

              • by shilly ( 142940 )

                How about kidnapping someone from Ellingham Hall? I mean, Vaughan Smith was in the army, but I'm preemuch sure he wouldn't be able to fight even a teeny-tiny war against the UK or US governments, so if they really wanted to abduct him, they could have done it with a lot less hassle at that point, no?

              • by Lakitu ( 136170 )

                The guy was under house arrest in the English countryside for something like 2 years prior to him squatting in Ecuador's embassy. Don't you think that's enough time to hatch up a plan? Or, you know, actually arresting him, instead of politely asking him not to leave his cozy country mansion?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It's not a matter of choosing to take it as binding or not, in any case, that's just a statement of fact; it isn't binding. It's basically the opinion of an advisory panel, looking at one aspect of the case only. The ruling doesn't challenge or override Sweden's right to issue arrest warrants for people accused of crimes; that isn't in the panel's remit. The ruling does not challenge or override the UKs obligation to carry out a valid European arrest warrant if the named individual is found in the UK; that

          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            Exactly. To ask Sweden and the UK to ignore actual binding rulings in order to enforce nonbinding rulings is basically saying, "Hey, Rule of Law? Go f*** yourself!"

            Some people seem to want to live in a world where the concept of rule of law is thrown out for "People We Like". The cases we should be going after are those where people manage to avoid the rule of law.

            • by fnj ( 64210 )

              "Hey, Rule of Law? Go f*** yourself!"

              Welcome to the Obama era.

              • by shilly ( 142940 )

                How I pine for the GWB days and their rigid adherence to the rule of law, especially re international affairs.

          • The UN has made itself irrelevant by wallowing in its own self interests for way too long. They have become a joke. They are willing to let tragedies unfold with no action and then expect us all to get up in arms about the fate of one guy who found himself in a tight spot as a result of his own decisions and actions.
        • by fnj ( 64210 )

          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

          THANK GOD! It's much too damned big an entity to be trusted with that kind of force. Countries that are grossly swollen too big, like the US and China, maybe Russia, are already bad enough. You can't fix that by making an even more out of control monstrosity.

          Let the UN be the bully pulpit.

          • According to Google, the USA has 318m people in an area of 3.86 million miles sq.
            Europe has a population of 742m people in an area of 3.93 million miles sq.

            Perhaps you should rethink your definition of swollen too big, the US is frankly a ghost town by comparison to Europe.

            China is 3.705 million mi with a population of 1.357 billion people, so yes, it is overpopulated, but a factor of 4 to the US or 2 to Europe.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Which is hilarious because these very governments give the UN findings credence when it suits their purposes.

      • Basically, this. The UN can't force Australia to do anything it doesn't want to do. Ergo, it's not legally binding. The UN cannot pass laws in member states. It can pass resolutions, which member states can sign on to, but even those in no way appear to be legally binding. So basically, it does nothing. Except allow adversaries to score cheap, yet hollow, political points against each other.
      • 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.

        Is Australia even a party to this?

        He's hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy, avoiding the British police, related to something which allegedly happened in Sweden, and for which there is fear he'd be sent to the US for something completely unrelated.

        He's so far removed from Australian law here it isn'

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      As far as I know Assange is also an Australian citizen.

      Nobody did detain him, he chose to hole up in that embassy himself.

      And in a while the statute of limitation on the alleged crime will expire and the legal system will lose interest in him. The fact that he raised the UN issue was just to call attention to himself. The only thing that he should worry about is then the UK police that may see him as an unwanted person that shall be expelled and therefore put him on first best transport out of the country t

      • Even if the statute of limitations on the original charges expire, he is still in breach of bail conditions and as such the immediate arrest warrant is for that - the first point of call should he step outside of the embassy will be to be put infront of a judge, who will remand him into custody for breach of bail conditions. This will happen for as long as the bail warrant is outstanding against him, and as such is now an issue unto itself.

        Even if Sweden drop charges, at this point he could find himself do

        • and then shipped to the USA from the UK jail. They may even bill him for the private plane ride us marshals do have small private plane jets.

          • Do you have any theories as to why they didn't do that in the years that Assange was in the UK working through this issue? You believe a fairy tale.

        • Even if Sweden drop charges, at this point he could find himself doing prison time for the bail offences alone.

          Sure, but since his bail offense was to seek asylum, that would be pretty sleazy... Not that this would be surprising.

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        In the US, the statute of limitations is generally tolled (paused) while someone is a fugitive from justice -- see, for example, Title 18 of the US Code, Section 3290. I would imagine the same thing happens in the UK and Sweden.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @08:02AM (#51518237) Journal

      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.

    • So you want your ass licked rather than their boot licked?

      Perhaps Australia just does what suits the Commonwealth and always has? Sorry to inflict some logic on you like that but the ISI (Internet Stupidity Index) was getting a bit high and needed adjusting. If Assangel et al don't like been mistreated they should not pick fights with big and nasty entities that have never answered to anyone, because that is the reality of the situation and it is delusional to be disappointed with the result given how s
    • It was the previous Labor government that would lick your boots.

      The current conservative government would lick a more personal yet less savory part.

  • As an Australian... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by YukariHirai ( 2674609 ) on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @06:58AM (#51518003)
    ...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.
    • You're not an Assange fanboy or anything ... are you?

      Yea, I thought that might be clouding your judgement

      • Not particularly. I think our current government are a pack of incompetent, morally bankrupt morons for a variety of non-Assange reasons.
  • The only person "detaining" him in that embassy is himself. He can walk out anytime he wants. Whether you agree the swedish case has merit or not, this UN ruling is just imbecillic nonsence from a committee that long ago lost any credibility. What next - bank robbers are being "arbitrarily detained" in a bank if the police show up before they've escaped?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • 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).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        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 Ecuad

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          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.

          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.

          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, Swe

          • 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

            • 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?

              Is any one in the Guatemalan government (a) calling for the trial of someone who has never been there and (b) has the power to make somewhere like Sweden do something illegal?

              No, now stop being foolish and claiming that the global reach of the US is remotely comparable to Guatemala.

              An arrest warrant means there is a warrant for h

              • Is any one in the Guatemalan government (a) calling for the trial of someone who has never been there and (b) has the power to make somewhere like Sweden do something illegal?

                No, now stop being foolish and claiming that the global reach of the US is remotely comparable to Guatemala.

                And that's irrelevant - you have no idea who wants a piece of Assange.

                Once again, if the "global reach" of the US was in play here, why was he safe in the UK? Not one of his supporters has ever been able to answer that question properly - if anything, he should have been less safe fleeing to the UK, but no, he chose to come here. Why? If his goal was to stay out of the hands of the US, France would have been a better option before the UK, as France has stood up to the US and UK several times in recent ye

                • And that's irrelevant - you have no idea who wants a piece of Assange.

                  At this point I'm getting the impression that you're being intentionally contrarian, just for shits and giggle.

                  The US is the only country with botht the record and ability to nab someone from other first world countries and ship them off for torture. Your irrelevancies about Guetamala are just that, because neither they nor anyone but the US could pull that off.

                  And we both know you know that.

                  Once again, if the "global reach" of the US wa

                  • by shilly ( 142940 )

                    The US is the only country with botht the record and ability to nab someone from other first world countries and ship them off for torture.

                    Do you really, truly believe this is the case? You genuinely think that Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, Australia, etc etc never nab people from other first world countries and ship them off for torture?

                    This insistence on seeing the US as uniquely powerful and uniquely evil is just ... odd. It is more powerful than other countries, but it is not *uniquely* powerful, and other countries are every bit as capable of being assholes.

                    • You genuinely think that Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, Australia, etc etc never nab people from other first world countries and ship them off for torture?

                      With the cooperation of the host? No, I don't think any of those countries have the resources to do it. Israel occasionally assassinates people, but to do much more requires cooperation.

                      Do you have any evidence that any of the other countries are engaging in extraordinary rendition?

                      This insistence on seeing the US as uniquely powerful and

                    • by shilly ( 142940 )

                      "With the cooperation of the host?"
                      What, you think it's *easier* for a country to nab people *without* the cooperation of the host? I was actually talking about the latter, ie rendition. If you're talking about the former, well, that's any country that has an extradition treaty and conducts torture in its cells. Jordan, for example. The UK had to extract promises from Jordan that it wouldn't torture Abu Qatada before he was sent there because of its torture record. But that was a high profile case, and most

                    • What, you think it's *easier* for a country to nab people *without* the cooperation of the host?

                      Typo.

                      As for extraordinary rendition, what you think that Pakistan isn't capable of raiding across a barely existent border with Afghanistan and nabbing a wanted person and torturing them?

                      On what planet is Afganistan a first world country?

          • by vakuona ( 788200 )

            Assange is asking for something that Sweden cannot give. Sweden is obliged, by treaty, to consider every extradition request that it receives. IANAL, but I am sure the Swedish government cannot limit the ability of courts to rule on extradition requests in any case.

            Assange might as well ask for Sweden to ensure that it won't rain while he is there. His request is just as reasonable.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Why should Sweden agree to assurances for Assange not to be extradited to the US?

          Because they have previously hosted US aircraft involved in the abduction and torture of European citizens.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

        Nothing Assange has done meets the legal definition of espionage. In any case, Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US that specifically bars extradition for espionage or political crimes. Assange actually wants a binding guarantee that he won't be extradited for anything, even if the US make a sufficiently-evidenced and legally correct request under the treaty that would suffice for extraditing any other person. This would require tearing up that treaty and creating a new one, with a special "no Assan

      • by gmack ( 197796 )

        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..

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The issue I believe is that he will be extradited not the fact he will face a trial or questioning.

      If it was just about questioning and a trial, we would not be having this conversation.

      All they have to do is give a gurarantee that he will not be extradited for WikiLeaks.

      I think he and everybody and even the "victims" (who do not want to be part of it really I believe) want to get this over with.

      I for one am sick and tired of hearing about this case. All they have to do is go there and question him, they re

      • by Anonymous Coward

        They don't refuse anymore, they'd like to question him in London now. The current delaying is on the Assange/Ecuadorian side http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35373355

        • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

          Yeah, isn't that odd. Assanges bluff got called and now he's backpedalling with help from his corrupt equadorian chums.

    • I'm curious - you say that the committe "long ago" lost credibility. When was that long ago? And over what?

      (I've not heard mainstream criticism of the committee until this case right now...)

  • by CRC'99 ( 96526 ) on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @07:06AM (#51518045) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.

      As opposed to the opposition party, who was booted out of office in the biggest swing in electoral history? The situation was the same under the previous party, too - they'd wear out their tongues on american shoeleather just as fast.

      There's a reason last election had the most minority parties ever represented in the senate. Australians are sick of the crap *both* major parties are pulling. We haven't had a Prime Minister complete a full term since 2007.

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      I had to check the headling to realize you are talking about the australian government.

      Honestly, could just as well be my country. Seems to be endemic. We might be at the edge of the third major political system of the 20th century imploding (you know, after facism and communism, the bell is definitely tolling for representative democracy).

      Any countries with a competent government left? I'm thinking about moving anyway, might as well pick by that criterium.

      • The problem with any two party system is they vote out one bunch of corrupt self-serving, thieving bastards and replace them with the others. What would happen if enough people voted "neither of the above"?

        Perhaps the future lies with the Spaniards. An election just before Christmas is still playing out. The two traditional parties, PP and PSOE, received only 50.7% of the vote meaning almost half the voters said "we've had enough of your bullshit".

        • by Tom ( 822 )

          The problem with any two party system

          It's not a two party system problem. My country has 5 or 6 relevant parties.

          It's a systemic problem. Politics is a high-stakes game for low achievers. If you are really good, you don't go into politics. You can earn more for less work and more fun in the private sector.

          "Follow the money" is always a good rule. If you think the chancellor (yearly salary: Less than half a million Euros) can meet with the head of a big bank (yearly salary: 20+ millions) and they will talk like peers, you are an idiot.

  • The UK has a law that says that it will only recognize European Arrest Warrants (which is what Sweden are using to extradite Assange) if charges have been filed or if certain things have been done by a judge. Why wont the UK apply those laws in the Assange case (where AFAIK no charges have been filed and the judge hasn't done the certain things) and refuse extradition? (and say to Sweden they need to file charges or get the judge to do the certain things if they want Assange)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • 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... [guardian.co.uk]

      Points 120 onward.

  • What should the UK do? drop charges against anybody who runs into am Embassy of a country which does cooperate legally? I see a big field of business here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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.
      • As for his assertion about being extradited from Sweden to the US. Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

        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....

        • Absolutely so it's all just smoke & mirrors on Assange's part and absolutly nothing to do with fear of being extradited to the US
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Yup, the ruling is essentially a deconstruction of the rule of law - a lawful agency and government is no longer allowed to pursue someone who has had a lawful arrest warrant issued against them if said person decides to place themselves into a situation where their only possible actions are "surrender to the authorities" or "remain in self detention".

      What was this UN panel smoking at the time they came to the conclusion they did? Was Osama bin Laden "unlawfully detained" in his Pakistani compound because

  • I don't see how Australia's government and Australians themselves have an interest in Assange's detention.
  • Whenever governments start belittling UN resolutions and formal statements they start to lose their weight in the international community little by little. It also that governments that do such will themselves start having a hard time arguing points using UN as an authority.

    • 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 mome

  • Embassy life (Score:5, Informative)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @09:36AM (#51518567) Homepage Journal
    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... [cryptome.org]

    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... [theaustralian.com.au]
    "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... [theguardian.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... [smh.com.au]
    "... 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 [wikipedia.org]
    "...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"
    • by Max_W ( 812974 )

      ...political asylum by the United States embassy in Budapest, where Mindszenty lived for the next fifteen years...

      The United States Embassy in Budapest is a large six stories building, with spacious courtyards. Mindszenty could walk outdoors, could walk around the immense building: http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/... [wikimapia.org]

      Julian is stuck in a small apartment. He cannot walk outdoors at all. Even in a maximum security prisons inmates can walk outdoors for an hour a day. Even in Alcatraz prison there was a large outdoors ground for prisoners. It is not fair to compare Julian Assange with Mindszenty.

      London municipal govern

  • I guess he only said that he would give himself up if they ruled against him, not if they ruled for him. But it seems like he was implying that this would end come the ruling, one way of the other, not that the stalemate would go on past the ruling if they found in his favour.

  • Hardly surprising that the ‘Australian Foreign Affairs Says UN Assange Ruling Not Binding’ when Australian laws enforced by authorities appointed by Australian governments aren’t even considered to be legally binding. An example being the false records of Australian newspapers published fraudulently sold by Australian state & national public libraries as authentic ‘archives’ of newspapers published. – The sale of false records as authentic archives is not a crime acco

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Working...