5 ms·

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 incons

by 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?
tremon 7y ago
Then make your case on your disagreements with that report, not on your (frivolous) assumption that he would have had a fair trial.
- strictnein 7y ago
  When we all think of kangaroo courts, I know the first place we think of is... checks notes Sweden.
- nemo 7y ago
  The report assumes a priori that an extradition threat was real, now we see Trump's DOJ did eventually file one, but he was hiding in the Embassy for years on a false pretext of an imaginary extradition to avoid facing rape charges. The rights of the rape victims to see justice weren't addressed or considered. The question of whether Assange was fleeing justice for rape wasn't ever seriously addressed but just waved away.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    The moment Assange was dragged out of the embassy, there was an extradition request from the United States. Assange was clearly correct about what would happen, and all the people who laughed off the threat of extradition to the US look pretty silly now.
    - nemo 7y ago
      The only indictment that there is evidence for is from 2017 under the Trump DoJ, 5 years after he fled justice to the embassy. Assange made up a story about a fictional sealed indictment when he fled justice. He just did such a poor job fleeing justice that he wound up with a sealed indictment for criminal behavior he engaged in after he'd moved into the embassy.
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        A grand jury was convened at the latest in 2011,[1] before Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikil...
tripzilch 7y ago
In the context of all the other times when the US got reported for human rights abuse, I think it's pretty damn persuasive. Just because the US ignores all those special UN reports, doesn't mean the rest of the world does...

by nemo 7y ago

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?

tremon 7y ago

Then make your case on your disagreements with that report, not on your (frivolous) assumption that he would have had a fair trial.

strictnein 7y ago
When we all think of kangaroo courts, I know the first place we think of is... checks notes Sweden.
nemo 7y ago
The report assumes a priori that an extradition threat was real, now we see Trump's DOJ did eventually file one, but he was hiding in the Embassy for years on a false pretext of an imaginary extradition to avoid facing rape charges. The rights of the rape victims to see justice weren't addressed or considered. The question of whether Assange was fleeing justice for rape wasn't ever seriously addressed but just waved away.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  The moment Assange was dragged out of the embassy, there was an extradition request from the United States. Assange was clearly correct about what would happen, and all the people who laughed off the threat of extradition to the US look pretty silly now.
  - nemo 7y ago
    The only indictment that there is evidence for is from 2017 under the Trump DoJ, 5 years after he fled justice to the embassy. Assange made up a story about a fictional sealed indictment when he fled justice. He just did such a poor job fleeing justice that he wound up with a sealed indictment for criminal behavior he engaged in after he'd moved into the embassy.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      A grand jury was convened at the latest in 2011,[1] before Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikil...

tripzilch 7y ago

In the context of all the other times when the US got reported for human rights abuse, I think it's pretty damn persuasive. Just because the US ignores all those special UN reports, doesn't mean the rest of the world does...