6 ms·

Melzer: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool." In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation t

by k1m 7y ago

Melzer: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool." In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation to be "arbitrary detention": > In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy. > The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty. > The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

nemo 7y ago
He fled justice to hide in an embassy. He was fully free to leave, and should have faced justice from the start. Fugitives from justice do not enjoy pleasant conditions - that's not a strike against liberty, but a necessary condition of the rule of law.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Put scare quotes around "justice" and your comment will be more accurate.
- k1m 7y ago
  I find it remarkable that so many here feel they are in a better position to assess whether Assange's human rights have been violated than experts on the topic at the UN who've spent considerable time looking into his situation.
  - nemo 7y ago
    Appealing to authority is a lot less persuasive when it's a non-binding report from a minor working group. I read their account. It was poorly argued and inconsistent. Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?
    - k1m 7y ago
      It's funny that when it comes to Assange, suddenly the UN group's findings become "non-binding". Did you read what they had to say about it? > The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate. > The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... Journalist John Pilger also made the point that Britain and Sweden participated in and have previously supported this UN group: > The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex. > Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London. http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-untold-story http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-un... You write "Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?" What makes you think that Britain and Sweden's refusal to accept the outcome has anything to do with the evidence presented? The UN group found against Britain and Sweden, and they didn't like that outcome. Isn't that a likely explanation?
- jules-jules 7y ago
  Free to leave to where? Solitary confinement in a UK prison for publishing embarrassing information? Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with you there.
zaarn 7y ago
The later parts are all about the time in prison Assange is currently under, which, granted, is probably not the best of times. But if you run from the law, why should Assange or a human rights expert expect to be handled like in a 5 star hotel?
- tripzilch 7y ago
  Um it's only a "5 star hotel" if you compare it to what would happen to him after extradition to the US.

by k1m 7y ago

nemo 7y ago

He fled justice to hide in an embassy. He was fully free to leave, and should have faced justice from the start. Fugitives from justice do not enjoy pleasant conditions - that's not a strike against liberty, but a necessary condition of the rule of law.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Put scare quotes around "justice" and your comment will be more accurate.
k1m 7y ago
I find it remarkable that so many here feel they are in a better position to assess whether Assange's human rights have been violated than experts on the topic at the UN who've spent considerable time looking into his situation.
- nemo 7y ago
  Appealing to authority is a lot less persuasive when it's a non-binding report from a minor working group. I read their account. It was poorly argued and inconsistent. Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?
  - k1m 7y ago
    It's funny that when it comes to Assange, suddenly the UN group's findings become "non-binding". Did you read what they had to say about it? > The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate. > The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... Journalist John Pilger also made the point that Britain and Sweden participated in and have previously supported this UN group: > The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex. > Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London. http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-untold-story http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-un... You write "Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?" What makes you think that Britain and Sweden's refusal to accept the outcome has anything to do with the evidence presented? The UN group found against Britain and Sweden, and they didn't like that outcome. Isn't that a likely explanation?
jules-jules 7y ago
Free to leave to where? Solitary confinement in a UK prison for publishing embarrassing information? Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with you there.

zaarn 7y ago

The later parts are all about the time in prison Assange is currently under, which, granted, is probably not the best of times. But if you run from the law, why should Assange or a human rights expert expect to be handled like in a 5 star hotel?

tripzilch 7y ago
Um it's only a "5 star hotel" if you compare it to what would happen to him after extradition to the US.