6 ms·

I'd appreciate it if someone could make an earnest answer to explain to me how on Earth one could agree with the U.N. panel. As I understand it: Assange has b

I'd appreciate it if someone could make an earnest answer to explain to me how on Earth one could agree with the U.N. panel. As I understand it: Assange has been charged in Sweden with rape, on the basis of an alleged victim's complaint. This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant. I know that some question the veracity of the complaint against him, but that does not change the fact that Sweden has clearly followed its own law in pursuing the complaint, including the arrest warrant. (Remember, there's a different standard for arresting someone than convicting them!) On the basis of this arrest warrant, he is now subject to arrest in the U.K. for extradition. Again, this is totally normal. True, there may be questions about whether the Swedish prosecutor could have/should have come to the U.K. to question Assange. But the fact of the matter, legally speaking, is that he is subject to legal arrest in Sweden and, therefore, legally subject to arrest in the U.K. regardless of how the prosecutor chooses to pursue the case. The Swedish prosecutor clearly does not legally have to come to the U.K. to interview him. That's presumably the whole reason that, under Swedish law (and also, more or less, under U.S. law), one can be arrested for questioning. So that a defendant cannot run out the clock on his or her prosecution by dodging the prosecutor. It is often said that he is doing all this to avoid extradition to the U.S. But: a. This is totally speculative, and not a legal basis for avoiding a duly issued arrest warrant in Sweden. a. That didn't stop him from hanging out in Sweden before his rape charge. b. If he is extradited to the U.S., that too will presumably be in the course of a legal process. There is, after all, a good argument that he committed a U.S. crime. Again, one may question the merits of the prosecution in Sweden, or the hypothetical charge in the U.S., but that doesn't make what has happened so far "arbitrary."

Umn44 11y ago
"This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant." Except for anyone who has a clue, they know they are trumped up charges. This is the guy running wikileaks.
tptacek 11y ago
Some additional problems with the "extradition to the US" angle: * It's not his original argument. His original argument was that the Swedish prosecutor was biased against all men, and that sexual assault charges are a "political issue" in Sweden, so his case can't fairly be heard there. * It doesn't make any sense legally, because Sweden's extradition treaty with the US specifically forbids extradition for espionage or political offenses, the UK treaty doesn't, and if he's rendered to Sweden for trial proceedings, both the UK and Sweden would have to authorize an extradition to the US --- but if the US decides to have him extradited from the UK, only the UK needs to agree. Assange's case was heard before the Chief Magistrate in the UK, who rendered a detailed decision based on significant amounts of witness testimony (which uncovered an instance of Assange's lawyer overtly attempting to deceive the court by claiming Swedish prosecutors had never sought to question Assange despite documented evidence to the contrary), and again before the UK High Court (which again produced a detailed decision against him), and finally before the UK Supreme Court, which again decided against him. I'll also note that the UN WGAD opinion contains factual errors. For instance, it claims that Assange was under "house arrest" before fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy. He was not: as an extradition target, he was subject to monitoring and a curfew, but was otherwise allowed to leave his house at will. It appears as if the UN WGAD opinion is really about litigating the decisions of the Swedish prosecutors, which doesn't seem like a legitimate application of the Arbitrary Detention process.
- lawnchair_larry 11y ago
  Is it your belief that he would not end up in US custody? And do you think he also believes that?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes.
    - lawnchair_larry 11y ago
      Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody.
wbhart 11y ago
The answer is actually quite simple. Julian Assange has not been charged with rape in Sweden. He has never been charged with a crime anywhere, yet he was put in solitary confinement, then held under house arrest for a very long time, then he asked for and was granted asylum by Ecuador because of a grand jury investigation against him in the US (and reports of a sealed indictment). Asylum is an international law which is binding on all parties. Moreover the UK has consistently denied Assange's right to leave the embassy without arrest for medical treatment, and the conditions inside the embassy are not fit for detainment. Assange is forced to either give up his asylum or his human rights, both of which are inalienable. The UN could not possibly have reached any other conclusion in the matter. International law is binding. One might also consider three additional facts. Firstly, one of the complainants in Sweden said she had not been raped by Assange and that the police railroaded her. The other has said that she did not want to accuse Assange of anything. Note also that various women's groups have sided with Assange. Knowing the facts on record, they do not believe he committed a crime. Secondly, the case against Assange was closed and he was allowed to leave Sweden. It was reopened later, it is alleged, by a different prosecutor after political interference. Finally, under current UK law, Assange would not be extradited to Sweden because the prosecutor is not judicially independent in Sweden and no charges have been laid. In other words, he would not be subject to arrest and extradition under current law. I doubt that those three facts played any part in the UN decision which was about his arbitrary detainment and various other violations of international law by the UK and Sweden, not about the case in Sweden itself.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Your statement if factually incorrect it contradicts everything that was actually brought up before the UK courts including the UK supreme court. Assange was placed under curfew he had to surrender his passport while awaiting a decision on extradition to Sweden, that process could also have resulted in Sweden deposing him in a UK court. He however decided to "flee" to a country which would not mind giving the "west" a political middle finger violating his curfew order under UK law (which is why the British government said they will arrest him, it has nothing to do with his alleged offenses in Sweden). Like it or not Assange exploited his status to get treatment that no regular individual under the sun could get, normal people can't hide in embassies, they can't get the attention of the global media, and they sure most likely will not get a UN panel hearing (which is a Joke since UN working groups are based on the UN regional groups which mean that you'll have bastions of Human Rights from countries like Senegal, Algeria, Georgia, Iran, Pakistan, Benin etc serving on the panel for "Arbitrary Detention"). UN Panels have for quite some time became a mockery and a kangaroo court as the majority of UN members are as far from being democratic and hold actual human rights value as pretty much possible. Assange could at any point leave the embassy face the charges as far as UK law goes (violation of his court ordered curfew), face the charges as far as Sweden goes and be on his marry way either to prison or freedom. There was never actual risk of him being extradited to the US it would never work, and the US could've grabbed him at any time when he was roaming the UK or when he goes back to Australia, for the most part with the exception of the current situation he never really attempted to hide in non-extradition countries and considering that both the UK and Australia are part of the 5-eye's a "less than transparent" extradition or rendition from those countries would've been considerably easier than from Sweden and the US had every chance to try that before which they never have attempted. I know attacking the US is in fashion but people really don't understand just how different it is in places that actually utterly ignore every human right possible, where every institution is built to ignore them and when these rights are not something that is imprinted on the population from birth. Democracy doesn't come through a piece of paper or a few institutions democracy comes from the spirit of the people, the US is simply an easy target you never hear about the 1000's gitmo's in Indonesia and you only hear about a blogger being put to death in Saudi Arabia when he got some hook up with the US or a European country, you maybe will hear about some reporter Iran has imprisoned for espionage but you don't hear about the 1000's gay men they hang from construction cranes at the town square each year. People really need to shift their focus on what actually is wrong with this world but as always the tiny smudge of dog shit on the sole of your shoe is an easier target than the huge crap pile down the street.
zanny 11y ago
The alternative perspective is that, for the same reasons recent cover stories have shown involving the US preparing to abduct Snowden if he ever left Russia, and the fact the US continues to practice human rights violations in Gitmo without stopping, that nobody who is on the bad side of the US government has any valid reason to expect legal treatment in a country that has in the past ten years actively engaged in illegal torture and continues practicing illegal detainment. I said this elsewhere - if I committed a generic felony in the US, such as robbery or rape, and lived in the EU and was going to be extradited, I would not need to fear for my life (I would somewhat, since US prisons are extremely corrupt places, but that is mostly due to corruption and a lack of accountability within the prison system than something intentional) in the way someone who has actively worked against the interests of the US government in the international information scene through leaks or other reveals they don't like. You are not just involved in the general criminal justice proceedings when its personal between you and the CIA, and are much more likely to "disappear" and end up dead in a ditch months after the public forgets about you. Both Snowden and Assange have legitimate reasons to fear for their life, because rights and liberty and rule of law only last as long as you are playing along within the system as it is presented to you - when you start tearing down the curtains all bets are off.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  The guy was in the UK for about 2 years before he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, the initial court hearing was in Feb 2011 (he was in the UK for some time before that) he didn't ended up in the Embassy till late June 2012. If the US wanted to "abduct" him doing it from within the UK which is both a 5-eye country and a general close intelligence and law enforcement proxy of the US would've been considerably easier. In fact he was under UK "custody" for several occasions during the hearings (and before it got to the Supreme court I don't think it even received media attention) he could've been easily whisked away to some CIA chartered jet as you claim at any point. The US doesn't want to get him on BS charges, the US also doesn't want to put him in gitmo it would serve no purpose for them if they'll ever go after him they'll do it openly and with every smoking gun known to men and try him in public anything less than that is going to be utterly pointless and counter productive.
notahacker 11y ago
Yeah. I suspected when it was announced they'd be ruling in Assange's favour that they'd base the decision on the assumption the UK ought to accept Ecuador's view that Assange was entitled to "diplomatic asylum", and thus should be entitled to the same freedom to pass through the UK on the way to Ecuadorean territory as any recognised diplomat. Which is an understandable decision for a UN body to reach, regardless of the specifics of the case and whether it creates a precedent to allow much worse people than Assange to use embassies and retroactively-awarded diplomatic status as get out of jail free cards. It's easy to see why they'd be even more worried about a situation where countries involved in disputes decide that keeping their rivals' ambassadors under house arrest is a better idea than just expelling them from the country. But instead they seem to have ruled on a more general basis that waiting for someone to allow themselves to be arrested and charged under an internationally valid arrest warrant constitutes "arbitrary detention", which is risible, irrespective of whether the allegation against Assange has any basis or not.
latj 11y ago
No one on Assange's side is worried about "questioning over the activities of Wikileaks" as BBC story put it. It is very likely he has already been found guilty in abstentia in a secret trial. You are arguing due process. What others are saying is that the US is powerful enough to cause every other country on the planet to behave in a way that would allow due process to bring anyone in a participating country (so not Yemen or Syria) to a US prison. I dont think this is controversial. If you are in a participating state and the US government wants you for any reason, they can set off a chain of events that will bring you to them. If you are in a non participating state they will just send the drones and it doesnt matter if you are a US citizen, a child, or a bystander. So, Assange (and his supporters) are saying-- we dont want Assange to avoid justice, we want him to avoid parts of the justice system which may be bending under the influence of the US. The way they are expressing this is by themselves trying to bend parts of the system. You have to remember, laws dont mean anything anymore, if they ever did. Its been 800 years since Magna Carta and we dont believe in its ideas anymore nor any of our other founding principals. You arent innocent until proven guilty if your guilt makes a good news story, you dont need to be present, you dont need to know who your accusers or judge is, you dont need representation by someone who understands the law, there doesnt need to be any proof you committed a crime and if its going to be too expensive to arrest you and hold your trial we will just blow you up remotely. The Authorities have had years to question Assange in UK but clearly that is not what the bosses were telling them to do. Until, a few weeks ago that is. Maybe the pressure is subsiding and now justice can be pursued. Or maybe Assange will come down with a tragic case of radiation poisoning shortly after. Who knows.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > It is very likely he has already been found guilty in abstentia in a secret trial. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that such a thing is not permissible. Zero wiggle room on this in the various decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_State...
  - latj 11y ago
    I recall reading that evidence Assange was being tried in absentia was leaked but not released. I cannot find anything about it now. I'm willing to accept that I am remembering incorrectly or it must have been a bad source. After all, a few days ago when I heard Santorum's name for the first time this election, I thought "Santorum...but doesnt that mean.....?" Only after looking it up did I remember we made that up. The mind is a frightening thing.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
swehner 11y ago
You could go read the "opinion" of the panel. It is available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID= http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne... The link is http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2...

Umn44 11y ago

"This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant." Except for anyone who has a clue, they know they are trumped up charges. This is the guy running wikileaks.

tptacek 11y ago

Some additional problems with the "extradition to the US" angle: * It's not his original argument. His original argument was that the Swedish prosecutor was biased against all men, and that sexual assault charges are a "political issue" in Sweden, so his case can't fairly be heard there. * It doesn't make any sense legally, because Sweden's extradition treaty with the US specifically forbids extradition for espionage or political offenses, the UK treaty doesn't, and if he's rendered to Sweden for trial proceedings, both the UK and Sweden would have to authorize an extradition to the US --- but if the US decides to have him extradited from the UK, only the UK needs to agree. Assange's case was heard before the Chief Magistrate in the UK, who rendered a detailed decision based on significant amounts of witness testimony (which uncovered an instance of Assange's lawyer overtly attempting to deceive the court by claiming Swedish prosecutors had never sought to question Assange despite documented evidence to the contrary), and again before the UK High Court (which again produced a detailed decision against him), and finally before the UK Supreme Court, which again decided against him. I'll also note that the UN WGAD opinion contains factual errors. For instance, it claims that Assange was under "house arrest" before fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy. He was not: as an extradition target, he was subject to monitoring and a curfew, but was otherwise allowed to leave his house at will. It appears as if the UN WGAD opinion is really about litigating the decisions of the Swedish prosecutors, which doesn't seem like a legitimate application of the Arbitrary Detention process.

lawnchair_larry 11y ago
Is it your belief that he would not end up in US custody? And do you think he also believes that?
- tptacek 11y ago
  Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes.
  - lawnchair_larry 11y ago
    Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody.

wbhart 11y ago

The answer is actually quite simple. Julian Assange has not been charged with rape in Sweden. He has never been charged with a crime anywhere, yet he was put in solitary confinement, then held under house arrest for a very long time, then he asked for and was granted asylum by Ecuador because of a grand jury investigation against him in the US (and reports of a sealed indictment). Asylum is an international law which is binding on all parties. Moreover the UK has consistently denied Assange's right to leave the embassy without arrest for medical treatment, and the conditions inside the embassy are not fit for detainment. Assange is forced to either give up his asylum or his human rights, both of which are inalienable. The UN could not possibly have reached any other conclusion in the matter. International law is binding. One might also consider three additional facts. Firstly, one of the complainants in Sweden said she had not been raped by Assange and that the police railroaded her. The other has said that she did not want to accuse Assange of anything. Note also that various women's groups have sided with Assange. Knowing the facts on record, they do not believe he committed a crime. Secondly, the case against Assange was closed and he was allowed to leave Sweden. It was reopened later, it is alleged, by a different prosecutor after political interference. Finally, under current UK law, Assange would not be extradited to Sweden because the prosecutor is not judicially independent in Sweden and no charges have been laid. In other words, he would not be subject to arrest and extradition under current law. I doubt that those three facts played any part in the UN decision which was about his arbitrary detainment and various other violations of international law by the UK and Sweden, not about the case in Sweden itself.

dogma1138 11y ago
Your statement if factually incorrect it contradicts everything that was actually brought up before the UK courts including the UK supreme court. Assange was placed under curfew he had to surrender his passport while awaiting a decision on extradition to Sweden, that process could also have resulted in Sweden deposing him in a UK court. He however decided to "flee" to a country which would not mind giving the "west" a political middle finger violating his curfew order under UK law (which is why the British government said they will arrest him, it has nothing to do with his alleged offenses in Sweden). Like it or not Assange exploited his status to get treatment that no regular individual under the sun could get, normal people can't hide in embassies, they can't get the attention of the global media, and they sure most likely will not get a UN panel hearing (which is a Joke since UN working groups are based on the UN regional groups which mean that you'll have bastions of Human Rights from countries like Senegal, Algeria, Georgia, Iran, Pakistan, Benin etc serving on the panel for "Arbitrary Detention"). UN Panels have for quite some time became a mockery and a kangaroo court as the majority of UN members are as far from being democratic and hold actual human rights value as pretty much possible. Assange could at any point leave the embassy face the charges as far as UK law goes (violation of his court ordered curfew), face the charges as far as Sweden goes and be on his marry way either to prison or freedom. There was never actual risk of him being extradited to the US it would never work, and the US could've grabbed him at any time when he was roaming the UK or when he goes back to Australia, for the most part with the exception of the current situation he never really attempted to hide in non-extradition countries and considering that both the UK and Australia are part of the 5-eye's a "less than transparent" extradition or rendition from those countries would've been considerably easier than from Sweden and the US had every chance to try that before which they never have attempted. I know attacking the US is in fashion but people really don't understand just how different it is in places that actually utterly ignore every human right possible, where every institution is built to ignore them and when these rights are not something that is imprinted on the population from birth. Democracy doesn't come through a piece of paper or a few institutions democracy comes from the spirit of the people, the US is simply an easy target you never hear about the 1000's gitmo's in Indonesia and you only hear about a blogger being put to death in Saudi Arabia when he got some hook up with the US or a European country, you maybe will hear about some reporter Iran has imprisoned for espionage but you don't hear about the 1000's gay men they hang from construction cranes at the town square each year. People really need to shift their focus on what actually is wrong with this world but as always the tiny smudge of dog shit on the sole of your shoe is an easier target than the huge crap pile down the street.

zanny 11y ago

The alternative perspective is that, for the same reasons recent cover stories have shown involving the US preparing to abduct Snowden if he ever left Russia, and the fact the US continues to practice human rights violations in Gitmo without stopping, that nobody who is on the bad side of the US government has any valid reason to expect legal treatment in a country that has in the past ten years actively engaged in illegal torture and continues practicing illegal detainment. I said this elsewhere - if I committed a generic felony in the US, such as robbery or rape, and lived in the EU and was going to be extradited, I would not need to fear for my life (I would somewhat, since US prisons are extremely corrupt places, but that is mostly due to corruption and a lack of accountability within the prison system than something intentional) in the way someone who has actively worked against the interests of the US government in the international information scene through leaks or other reveals they don't like. You are not just involved in the general criminal justice proceedings when its personal between you and the CIA, and are much more likely to "disappear" and end up dead in a ditch months after the public forgets about you. Both Snowden and Assange have legitimate reasons to fear for their life, because rights and liberty and rule of law only last as long as you are playing along within the system as it is presented to you - when you start tearing down the curtains all bets are off.

dogma1138 11y ago
The guy was in the UK for about 2 years before he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, the initial court hearing was in Feb 2011 (he was in the UK for some time before that) he didn't ended up in the Embassy till late June 2012. If the US wanted to "abduct" him doing it from within the UK which is both a 5-eye country and a general close intelligence and law enforcement proxy of the US would've been considerably easier. In fact he was under UK "custody" for several occasions during the hearings (and before it got to the Supreme court I don't think it even received media attention) he could've been easily whisked away to some CIA chartered jet as you claim at any point. The US doesn't want to get him on BS charges, the US also doesn't want to put him in gitmo it would serve no purpose for them if they'll ever go after him they'll do it openly and with every smoking gun known to men and try him in public anything less than that is going to be utterly pointless and counter productive.

notahacker 11y ago

Yeah. I suspected when it was announced they'd be ruling in Assange's favour that they'd base the decision on the assumption the UK ought to accept Ecuador's view that Assange was entitled to "diplomatic asylum", and thus should be entitled to the same freedom to pass through the UK on the way to Ecuadorean territory as any recognised diplomat. Which is an understandable decision for a UN body to reach, regardless of the specifics of the case and whether it creates a precedent to allow much worse people than Assange to use embassies and retroactively-awarded diplomatic status as get out of jail free cards. It's easy to see why they'd be even more worried about a situation where countries involved in disputes decide that keeping their rivals' ambassadors under house arrest is a better idea than just expelling them from the country. But instead they seem to have ruled on a more general basis that waiting for someone to allow themselves to be arrested and charged under an internationally valid arrest warrant constitutes "arbitrary detention", which is risible, irrespective of whether the allegation against Assange has any basis or not.

latj 11y ago

No one on Assange's side is worried about "questioning over the activities of Wikileaks" as BBC story put it. It is very likely he has already been found guilty in abstentia in a secret trial. You are arguing due process. What others are saying is that the US is powerful enough to cause every other country on the planet to behave in a way that would allow due process to bring anyone in a participating country (so not Yemen or Syria) to a US prison. I dont think this is controversial. If you are in a participating state and the US government wants you for any reason, they can set off a chain of events that will bring you to them. If you are in a non participating state they will just send the drones and it doesnt matter if you are a US citizen, a child, or a bystander. So, Assange (and his supporters) are saying-- we dont want Assange to avoid justice, we want him to avoid parts of the justice system which may be bending under the influence of the US. The way they are expressing this is by themselves trying to bend parts of the system. You have to remember, laws dont mean anything anymore, if they ever did. Its been 800 years since Magna Carta and we dont believe in its ideas anymore nor any of our other founding principals. You arent innocent until proven guilty if your guilt makes a good news story, you dont need to be present, you dont need to know who your accusers or judge is, you dont need representation by someone who understands the law, there doesnt need to be any proof you committed a crime and if its going to be too expensive to arrest you and hold your trial we will just blow you up remotely. The Authorities have had years to question Assange in UK but clearly that is not what the bosses were telling them to do. Until, a few weeks ago that is. Maybe the pressure is subsiding and now justice can be pursued. Or maybe Assange will come down with a tragic case of radiation poisoning shortly after. Who knows.

ceejayoz 11y ago
> It is very likely he has already been found guilty in abstentia in a secret trial. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that such a thing is not permissible. Zero wiggle room on this in the various decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_State...
- latj 11y ago
  I recall reading that evidence Assange was being tried in absentia was leaked but not released. I cannot find anything about it now. I'm willing to accept that I am remembering incorrectly or it must have been a bad source. After all, a few days ago when I heard Santorum's name for the first time this election, I thought "Santorum...but doesnt that mean.....?" Only after looking it up did I remember we made that up. The mind is a frightening thing.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

swehner 11y ago

You could go read the "opinion" of the panel. It is available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID= http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne... The link is http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2...