3 ms·

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 i

by 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.
- wbhart 11y ago
  Many of the facts to which I am referring weren't known at the time of his UK court appearances. They emerged later when various documents were either released or leaked or the law changed. So it isn't completely surprising that those things contradict what was presented at his hearings, nor that he lost those cases. I note that you appear to be making a distinction between house arrest and curfew. I'm not precisely sure of the legal or technical distinction. Another person seems to be making something of the distinction below. When I say "house arrest", I'm referring to the time when Assange was held in a property in the UK with an ankle bracelet which confined him to that property except when he had to report to the Norfolk police every day. Usually I thought curfew meant that someone was not allowed to travel away from home at night and house arrest was where you can't leave a given property. These seem to be the plain readings of the wikipedia definitions anyway.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  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 The whole point of these things is that they are for exceptional cases, which this is. People really need to shift their focus on what actually is wrong with this world I say this as an American: the US needs to get off its high horse. A lot of things are really great here, and really terrible elsewhere. But the appeal to worse problems and the handwaving of good deeds do not negate all of the very serious problems with US domestic and foreign policy. It is a ridiculous fallacy to claim that US problems and sins should be ignored because there are bigger problems and bigger sinners, especially when those problems were in part caused by the US.
- ivanca 11y ago
  >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. You see, when US tried to change one of the countries that kill hundreds of gay men by force (Iraq) things didn't go to well... Iran doesn't care about online complaints, so complaining about them doesn't help a little bit
pdabbadabba 11y ago
I'm not sure this does it for me. > The answer is actually quite simple. Julian Assange has not been charged with rape in Sweden. But under Swedish law (and, for that matter, the law of most nations), one does not need to be charged with a crime in order to be arrested. > Asylum is an international law which is binding on all parties. But I don't know what anyone involved has done to violate the international asylum norms. 1. Asylum is not a get out of jail free card--at most, it is a legal basis for Ecuador to not return Assange to the U.K. The international law of asylum does not prevent the U.K. from arresting him is he returns to U.K. This is why... 2. It is debatable whether a nation may grant asylum through its embassy on foreign soil. The more customary approach to asylum requires the would-be asylee to be within the borders of the nation granting asylum. > Assange is forced to either give up his asylum or his human rights, both of which are inalienable. 1. What human rights? Again, there is no right only to be arrested after being formally charged with a crime. In the U.S. the usual standard is probable cause and in many countries, including Sweden, it is also well accepted that one can be arrested for investigative purposes. Of course there are limits on how long one can be detained without charges. But here, Assange has only been "detained" in excess of these limits through his own actions. If he had cooperated, he would have been either released or formally charged long ago. 2. One's right to asylum does not protect one from prosecution outside of the country granting asylum. I think we agree that your points about the case in Sweden did not bear on the decision here about arbitrary detention. I frankly don't have much of an opinion about them, except to say that these factual doubts about the Swedish case do not invalidate the Swedish arrest warrant. The proper way of ventilating these issues is through the investigation and, if necessary, trial process--not by fleeing the country to avoid arrest.
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  I feel like you are willfully ignoring the points GP made... Past arrests of Assange have resulted in violations of his inalienable rights. Thus, given the threat of more arrests he is warranted to ask for amnesty since it can very easily be assumed he will face more unjust treatment (especially given he has not been charged with anything). At that point all of your other objections are moot, in that asylum was legally granted by Ecuador but is not being recognized by the UK authorities who are thus in violation of international law. >>> Asylum is not a get out of jail free card You're correct, it's a "don't go to jail in the first place free card", which is the whole point of asylum. >>> It is debatable whether a nation may grant asylum through its embassy on foreign soil. No it's not >>> One's right to asylum does not protect one from prosecution outside of the country granting asylum. Again, he hasn't been charged with anything
xorcist 11y ago
Let's be clear about a few things: Whether Assange is "charged" with "rape" or not are a game of words since exact terms are not interchangable between law systems. He is wanted for a hearing with the prosecutor, after which he may or may not be charged with an actual crime, which may or may not lead to an arrest, depending on the severity of the crime. The crime mentioned is not yet specific but a scale and may end up between something like sexual harassment and rape, depending on that hearing. Futhermore, it is easier to extradite someone to the US from UK than from Sweden. It is also more complicated to arrest someone on a European arrest warrant than someone who is not. Assange has spent many months in both countries before the warrant. I won't speculate in eventual guilt, but I don't think he is helped by the theories floating about that this is part of an elaborate plot to extradite him, or that there was something clearly illegal about the process. It doesn't make sense.

by wbhart 11y ago

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.

wbhart 11y ago
Many of the facts to which I am referring weren't known at the time of his UK court appearances. They emerged later when various documents were either released or leaked or the law changed. So it isn't completely surprising that those things contradict what was presented at his hearings, nor that he lost those cases. I note that you appear to be making a distinction between house arrest and curfew. I'm not precisely sure of the legal or technical distinction. Another person seems to be making something of the distinction below. When I say "house arrest", I'm referring to the time when Assange was held in a property in the UK with an ankle bracelet which confined him to that property except when he had to report to the Norfolk police every day. Usually I thought curfew meant that someone was not allowed to travel away from home at night and house arrest was where you can't leave a given property. These seem to be the plain readings of the wikipedia definitions anyway.
nitrogen 11y ago
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 The whole point of these things is that they are for exceptional cases, which this is. People really need to shift their focus on what actually is wrong with this world I say this as an American: the US needs to get off its high horse. A lot of things are really great here, and really terrible elsewhere. But the appeal to worse problems and the handwaving of good deeds do not negate all of the very serious problems with US domestic and foreign policy. It is a ridiculous fallacy to claim that US problems and sins should be ignored because there are bigger problems and bigger sinners, especially when those problems were in part caused by the US.
ivanca 11y ago
>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. You see, when US tried to change one of the countries that kill hundreds of gay men by force (Iraq) things didn't go to well... Iran doesn't care about online complaints, so complaining about them doesn't help a little bit

pdabbadabba 11y ago

I'm not sure this does it for me. > The answer is actually quite simple. Julian Assange has not been charged with rape in Sweden. But under Swedish law (and, for that matter, the law of most nations), one does not need to be charged with a crime in order to be arrested. > Asylum is an international law which is binding on all parties. But I don't know what anyone involved has done to violate the international asylum norms. 1. Asylum is not a get out of jail free card--at most, it is a legal basis for Ecuador to not return Assange to the U.K. The international law of asylum does not prevent the U.K. from arresting him is he returns to U.K. This is why... 2. It is debatable whether a nation may grant asylum through its embassy on foreign soil. The more customary approach to asylum requires the would-be asylee to be within the borders of the nation granting asylum. > Assange is forced to either give up his asylum or his human rights, both of which are inalienable. 1. What human rights? Again, there is no right only to be arrested after being formally charged with a crime. In the U.S. the usual standard is probable cause and in many countries, including Sweden, it is also well accepted that one can be arrested for investigative purposes. Of course there are limits on how long one can be detained without charges. But here, Assange has only been "detained" in excess of these limits through his own actions. If he had cooperated, he would have been either released or formally charged long ago. 2. One's right to asylum does not protect one from prosecution outside of the country granting asylum. I think we agree that your points about the case in Sweden did not bear on the decision here about arbitrary detention. I frankly don't have much of an opinion about them, except to say that these factual doubts about the Swedish case do not invalidate the Swedish arrest warrant. The proper way of ventilating these issues is through the investigation and, if necessary, trial process--not by fleeing the country to avoid arrest.

pdeuchler 11y ago
I feel like you are willfully ignoring the points GP made... Past arrests of Assange have resulted in violations of his inalienable rights. Thus, given the threat of more arrests he is warranted to ask for amnesty since it can very easily be assumed he will face more unjust treatment (especially given he has not been charged with anything). At that point all of your other objections are moot, in that asylum was legally granted by Ecuador but is not being recognized by the UK authorities who are thus in violation of international law. >>> Asylum is not a get out of jail free card You're correct, it's a "don't go to jail in the first place free card", which is the whole point of asylum. >>> It is debatable whether a nation may grant asylum through its embassy on foreign soil. No it's not >>> One's right to asylum does not protect one from prosecution outside of the country granting asylum. Again, he hasn't been charged with anything

xorcist 11y ago

Let's be clear about a few things: Whether Assange is "charged" with "rape" or not are a game of words since exact terms are not interchangable between law systems. He is wanted for a hearing with the prosecutor, after which he may or may not be charged with an actual crime, which may or may not lead to an arrest, depending on the severity of the crime. The crime mentioned is not yet specific but a scale and may end up between something like sexual harassment and rape, depending on that hearing. Futhermore, it is easier to extradite someone to the US from UK than from Sweden. It is also more complicated to arrest someone on a European arrest warrant than someone who is not. Assange has spent many months in both countries before the warrant. I won't speculate in eventual guilt, but I don't think he is helped by the theories floating about that this is part of an elaborate plot to extradite him, or that there was something clearly illegal about the process. It doesn't make sense.