MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK will contest UN opinion on 'arbitrary detention' of Julian Assange
The United Kingdom will formally contest the opinion of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that Julian Assange is a victim of arbitrary detention. From Stockholm Swedish prosecution said the UN ruling had no formal impact into an ongoing rape investigation against the WikiLeak's founder. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHe walked into the Ecuadorian Embassy in London VOLUNTARILY as he is a suspected rapist and is scared of facing the Swedish justice system.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree 100% with the statements of the British and Swedish governments.
This man is a weasel.
What? The UK ignoring a UN resolution?
Feb 06th, 2016 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyone shocked by yet another act of roguery?
An opinion/ruling that means nothing.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should read some of the criticisms of it. They're comical. My favourite:
'Entirely within the power of Ecuador to “free” him.
Mr Assange, this way, the door.'
Has the UN working group the same composition as the C24? In which case a two fingered salute is appropriate.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2
Feb 06th, 2016 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UN is a body with a Human Rights Commitee led by Saudi Arabia and a Decolonization Committee led by latino colonists.
@2. Dear, dear, you have lost it, haven't you? If I were referring to your brain or mind, I question whether you have ever had either. Tell us about this “UN resolution”. What's its reference number? Which members voted for, against or abstained? Did the “resolution” pass in the General Assembly or the Security Council? The truth, as you should know, is that there is no “resolution”. If it were a GA resolution, it would be non-binding anyway. And had it been presented to the Security Council, I have little doubt that it would have been vetoed.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0This “working panel” has simply made itself look stupid. It even admits that it has no lawyers on the “panel”. It relies on those bits of international law that it is aware of. No research then. They just sit around and natter to each other, then come up with a “statement” they think they can get away with.
Let's take just one aspect. The UK has pointed out that it is not signatory to the Caracas Convention nor does it recognise it. The response of the head of the “panel” is amazingly lame. Apparently, he reckons that international law cannot be disregarded even if it contained in a treaty, convention or whatever that is not applicable to a particular country. “Diplomatic asylum” is not recognised anywhere outside of south america. But we'll remember this. Argieland needs to bear in mind that it will no longer be possible for it to repudiate anything unless all other parties agree. It certainly can't do so arbitrarily.
So, just as an example, argieland cannot repudiate the 1850 Arana-Southern Treaty and it means exactly what Britain says it means.
Poor Nostrils
Feb 06th, 2016 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0He thought it was a UN Resolution.
Bahahahahaha..... behold an Argentinean education.
It's just a working group that is now being ridiculed because it claims someone is being arbitrarily detained because that person refuses to walk through a door.
According to this UN Committee decision, running away and hiding amounts to “arbitrary detention” and they wonder why the UN is such a joke.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like UK's quiet diplomacy isn't working...
Feb 06th, 2016 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0again.
Are you sure they're really doing it?
Disband the UN.
It only causes harm.
The UN has become a useless institution. Rogue states and states that abuse human rights telling the rest of us how to live...the old do as we say not as we do syndrome. If Assange had nothing to hide, he would have faced his accusers and not voluntarily hid out in the Embassy of the Commie Republic of Ecuador.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK pols are a bunch of wimps. They could have ended this long ago by making life very inconvenient for the Ecuadorian Embassy folks until the Ambassador was forced to kick him out.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 10 “ If Assange had nothing to hide, he would have faced his accusers and not voluntarily hid...”
Feb 06th, 2016 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Nisman had nothing to hide, he would have faced the congress and not done the old Argentina suicide thing....
And how would that work with our embassies all over the place YB? Retaliation, ever heard of that? Get back in your trailer and eat up your grits.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 yankeeboy
Feb 06th, 2016 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is that the same kind of diplomacy that the US used when the Iranians stormed the US embassy taking its members hostage?
As I recall the US tried a hostage rescue which went badly wrong, left brave US servicemen dead, and the US with lots of egg on its face.
Sometimes doing things softly softly is a better way than running in half cocked and shooting up the place.
After all, it's the Ecuadorians who are stuck with Assange. It's the Ecuadorians who have him hanging around their necks like an Albatross. And it's the Ecuadorians who'll eventually kick him out as he is a useless turd, who hasn't brought them anything but 5 mins of fame, and then years of nothing. The Ecuadorian ambassador couldn't get a meeting with a tea towel at St James' Court right now, let alone a minor official.
As for Assange, this UN committee ruling means nothing. No one is forcing Assange to stay in the Ecuadorian embassy. He's free to leave any time he wants to.
@10. Do you mind? Let's hear about your expertise in dealing with embassies.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to a listing, you have an embassies in placing like China and Russia. Making life difficult for the Chinese and Russians, are you? North Koreans? Argieland? India and Pakistan?
13. If the UK appears weak its because it is.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 014. How do you figure? I blame Carter for that debacle. Best thing Carter did was give us Reagan.
Happy Birthday President Reagan!!
Not weak YB, just (international) law abiding. Remember the SAS taking out the terrorists at the Iranian Embassy siege? But, redneck knuckle drsggers like yourself wouldnt appreciate that. Dame Helens got a message for you… listen carefully to that and the English rock…
Feb 06th, 2016 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes weak, and there's no such thing as “international” law.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How dumb are you?
@18 yankeeboy
Feb 06th, 2016 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is international law. However getting sovereign nations to follow it is the problem, even when they've promised to, just like the USA promised not to use torture, until you felt like you could by redefining what constitutes torture (even though went US servicemen were waterboarded that was torture - but it's okay to do it to non-white Christians).
And the UK isn't being weak, far from it. As I said in my post above running in and shooting up the place isn't always the answer. And what has been the result of the UK's softly-softly approach? Assange has alienated most of those who followed him (even cost lots of them money by running out on his bail), AND he has destroyed wikileaks reputation into the pot. Wikileaks is a relic, and nothing it did altered the world, and its actions (just like the actions of its 'founder') showed how biased they were. They were very 'brave' at stealing information from countries where they knew they wouldn't be executed (or allow others to do it for them), yet not once did they try to expose the forced labour camps in North Korea and China, or investigate the oppression and murder of political opponents of people like Putin.
And you blame Carter for the failed rescue attempt? Or do you blame him for allowing the Iranians into the Embassy in the 1st place? Or is it both? It's doubtful that it was his 'fault' but he was responsible by the very fact that he was elected US President, and as the saying goes 'the buck stops here'.
Or do you blame the CIA who spent an awful lot of years undermining leaders in places like Iran and Iraq, encouraging revolutions, in the mistaken belief that they'd all suddenly embrace US style democracy?
In fact if you look closely at US foreign policy following WW2, it hardly puts the US in a good light. But hindsight is always 20-20.
Oooh LPRR, dont confuse YB, he is down there in his trailer in Biloxi planning tomorrows bus trip to JC Penny to get two new pairs of shorts and a tube of denture fixative.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Dixie Chicks drew a good bead on those rednecks and W. Brucie backed em up too. They are doomed like Romney.
Perhaps worth pointing out that the US and UK have both had naval forces picked up by the Iranians in the gulf in recent years. The Americans were quickly released with little fuss whereas the British forces were paraded and humiliated. Although the circumstances were not identical it's still interesting the Iranians thought so little of us they had their fun whereas the Great Satan they gave a free pass. I happen to think Yankeeboy has a point.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding Assange, even the Guardian thinks the UN decision is daft, i think we should just ignore it. He didn't even take his case to the ECHR as he knows he would have lost as the Euro judges comes from countries were the rule of law applies unlike Mexico and Benin were the UN judges are from. Still, only 5 more years for Assange in the Embassy and the rape investigation will expire. Let him stay there - Ecuador's problem, not ours.
I can't think of any punishment quite as harsh as being cooped up in a tiny building full of Ecuadorians. Except perhaps being cooped up in a tiny building full of Argentines.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marti at 12...“If Nisman had nothing to hide, he would have faced the congress and not done the old Argentina suicide thing...” It wasn't suicide...he was “suicided” by the Ks....
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.To some we are weak?
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet those who think this can give no alternative or constructive advice,
Some fail to understand the difference between a UN Resolution and a basic opinion.
If we are thus deemed weak, then kindly inform us what one would do,
It seems to me that there are very few alternatives,
1, we could cut of diplomatic relations with Ecuador,
2, remove diplomatic protection
Then ask them to leave the embassy,
3, attempt a military rescue,
Or something along those lines,[ and probably won’t work ]
Or we could just wait him out, sooner or later he will either come out of his own free will, the embassy will kick him out, or he will just drop dead,
Ecuador could remove his immunity,
Or, amnesty international comes along and take over the problem,
Takes him home with them and deals with his everyday needs and expenses? ,
But from our government’s point of view, he has absconded bail,
And an EAW has been issued, either way he will be arrested when he leaves the embassy,
Which is only fair and legal,
But my personal view, is that he is not worried abt the brits, or the swedes,
It’s the Americans getting their hands on him that he fears,
As they may well put him in prison and throw away the key, for ever,
Just my ad hoc opinion.
19. What a stupid post! There's law but it only applies to those who choose to follow it? Bahahahaha
Feb 06th, 2016 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How about only if someone chooses to enforce it?
Stupid Brits claim they have mastered quiet diplomacy. I guess its so quiet nobody can hear it.
You lost your way after Thatcher.
You became weak eurocrats, Statists, Collectivists
You don't have too long before you'll never get it back
20. Didn't you call the Bush family hicks too? Gads you're dumb.
Still trying to find a downside for the UK.
Feb 07th, 2016 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ecuador is paying to host a guest at their own taxpayer's expense. The UK didn't have to go all gung ho and raid the embassy. They just have to wait.
I mean the US never got hold of Assange and they couldn't even keep Snowden from leaving Hong Kong but the UK has prevented Assange from stepping out a door for 1,315 days.
For all that hard power, Snowden has been singing like a canary in Moscow for 2 1/2 years now.
Yank, its on the cards that the UK will leave the European Union, so dont give up on us just yet. Thatcher was like the curates egg, just like all the GOP candidates. As for Assange, the UK is playing it just right, that embassy is far more uncomfortable than a Swedish jail, and it shows that in the UK you cant escape the law. A lesson for potential rapists but perhaps a little too subtle for the majority of Americans.
Feb 07th, 2016 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where did I say “raid the embassy”?
Feb 07th, 2016 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Psst I didn't say that
What I said was make the Embassy folks life difficult.
Totally different
And its done all the time
weak
Life for an embassy is difficult if you have an unwelcome guest souring relations with your host country especially if your host country is very generous with overseas aid.
Feb 07th, 2016 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0America has been impotent and weak since Vietnam, serial beatings and defeats by third world nations despite all the redneck bluster. So dont try to lecture us on weakness. Enjoy the lecture by Helen.
If we're so impotent why do you beg us to protect you?
Feb 07th, 2016 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whaaa whaaa whaaa
Please send more troops, more equipment..put your money and blood up so we can continue to get free healthcare and whine that you're bullies.
Whiners.
Weak.
@29 ”America has been impotent and weak since Vietnam
Feb 07th, 2016 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Probably not entirely accurate. Largely depends on the leadership. The US leadership for the Desert Storm coalition was effective and squashed what was then the fourth largest military in the world without significantly affecting CONUS, NATO, and Korean theatre defensive capability. The previous Clinton and present Obama leaderships were/are almost deliberately ineffectual. I'd say there is tremendous potential that is not properly employed due to the political leaders, which was also the case of the Johnson government during the Vietnam war.
The last piece of filth that this UN committee went out to protect was a Somali paedophile, he was also paid compensation and allowed to avoid deportation by a weak UK Government. Whilst Assange isn't quite in the same league as the Somali shit he is wanted in Sweden for a criminal offence. Guess the main story here is that UN is badly out of control and its human rights commission should be disbanded.
Feb 07th, 2016 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for yankeeboy, UK is weak, US ain't much better. Currently the only strong nations prepared to take resolute action are China and Russia. US is going to have to stand up to them sometime and you're right, you won't need any allies to take those two bad boys on. In any event I've always wanted Britain to stay on the sidelines, sell lots of stuff to both warring parties and only step in when both sides are severely weakened and its all just about over. That's an old USA tactic and it proved very effective...twice.
@9. And the US response would have been to do what? Bomb Quito? Bring in some US Marine snipers to assassinate Assange? How disappointing. The best sniper in the WORLD is a member of the British Armed Forces. We're winning, thanks.
Feb 07th, 2016 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11. Have you consulted your State Department? Do you make life difficult for the Chinese, Iranian, Russian embassies? How did you get on with Cuba? You had to give in, right?
@15. @10 might have been the wrong number.
@16. How come you want us to be on your side all the time. Remember one of your little “adventures” we refused to join? It was called Vietnam. You lost!
@18. Have you lost your mind? “International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations”. Even the United States accepts international law. Out on your own, are you?
@25. Except that those who choose not to follow “international law” are labelled “rogue”. Isn't that a form of enforcement?
And what is it we won't be getting back? We haven't “lost” anything recently.
28. The measure of strength is not always the same. On how many occasions has US military might failed? Didn't each one make you “weak”? Start with the Bay of Pigs.
@30. But WE don't. Europe may do but WE don't. Instead, we build our own aircraft carriers that are better than yours. Our own submarines that you can't find. Our own destroyers that yours have to beg to turn off their equipment to give yours a chance in exercises. How come your much-vaunted M1A2 Abrams tank uses British armour? What part of your F-35 is down to British engineers and technicians? How come your Delta Force is based on the SAS. Even your much-acclaimed SEALs are based in the SAS and SBS. Just how many American lives and how much equipment did Admiral Ernest King see destroyed because he wouldn't take British advice?
You just aren't that good. I quite like the majority of ordinary American people I've met. But not the numbnuts. Like you.
32. And where would these wars with China and Russia be fought?
Feb 07th, 2016 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said before beware of Russia, they're going to lash out as their economy sinks next year.
Putin will take it down in flames.
I assure you if there's a war will not be fought on US soil or anywhere near our shores.
It wont be fought on British soil either,
Feb 07th, 2016 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0or near our shores,
France [bless em]
will nukey the bear before that, hopefully...?
@34. Let's just imagine. The US has so many “allies”. You're currently flying over and sailing through the South China Sea. Not yours? How are you with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania?
Feb 08th, 2016 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Russia is only 64 miles from the US. Why not a war that starts in Alaska. In 2011, Russia proposed the TKM-World Link tunnel project. Are they already digging? Air Force and Navy not likely to be a lot of use!
I think that the most salient point about this article is that it is about a Brit who has taken refuge in an embassy other than the US Embassy to flee the repression of a British government. So, prima facia it has nothing to do with the US. Despite this the British government propagandists that run Mercopeguin have decided to place it in the US section. Does the British government know something more about this case than it is revealing? Foe instance, does the British government know that Assange will be extradited to the US?
Feb 09th, 2016 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Assange does make the claim that he will be extradited to the US himself.
@37 Hepatia
Feb 09th, 2016 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try researching before posting and making yourself look like an idiot.
Assange isn't British, he's Australian. He wasn't 'fleeing' repression, he was fleeing an arrest warrant. He had been out on bail, had contested it in the courts and LOST, and then fled to the ONLY embassy that would take someone accused of a serious sexual assault.
And despite being in charge of Wikileaks, who were supposed to have gathered loads of information on the US and the West (but not countries that would've had him 'suicided' like Russia, China and North Korea), he was never able to produce ONE shred of evidence to support his bizarre claim that he would be extradited to the US from Sweden!?!
And his claim was bizarre. Sweden, who had CONSTANTLY protected wikileaks and its servers from the US, and have no agreements or pacts to extradite people to the US. Whereas he was (apparently) perfectly safe in the UK, where we DO have agreements with the US to extradite people.
You see, Hepatia, in civilised countries people accused of crimes - such as rape - aren't given shelter in their embassies. Only in crazy countries who think that they'll gain something by it do things like that...and even then they didn't give him true immunity, just some pathetic thing not recognised by the majority of countries in the world, just a few in South America.
The US doesn't need to extradite Assange. Why would they? By his unfounded claims he has ruined the reputation (such as it was) of wikileaks, whose supporters have evaporated into thin air. Extraditing Assange to the US (who have NEVER even issued an International Arrest Warrant against him - which is important if you want to extradite someone from another country) would only give him and his looney looking followers fuel for the fire.
But there is no fire. There isn't even any smoke. There is just Assange, a man accused of a serious sexual assault, hiding out in an embassy so he can escape justice.
But he won't escape.
Britain..... inflicting Julian Assange on Ecuador since 2012!
Feb 09th, 2016 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0The thing that gets me is the sheer blithering incompetence of Operation Extradite Assange. As the US has shown time and again, all you really need to get your hands on somebody is a Lear Jet and a rubber mallet. And yet here we have a convoluted complicated extravaganza worthy of a Bond villain. And not only that, but Assange is allowed to flee Sweden before charges are even brought, in the UK he gets only 10 days in the proper pokey before he's allowed house arrest, then he gets three levels of appeals over three years all the way to the Supreme Court, and then when he loses, he's granted two weeks and allowed to walk around freely without even a dog from MI5 keeping tabs on him, far less a proper Predator Drone.
Feb 09th, 2016 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Somebody ought to be getting fired for this!
Unless of course Julian's some kind of double agent in yet another gringo plot to make Latin America look silly, and is in on it from the start, in which case maybe somebody actually is doing a proper job.
Well, they never got me and now I am dead they can't anyway. Assange is an antipodean whinger, he's trapped and won't escape Sweden. Should have headed for Kenya.
Feb 09th, 2016 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK will return Assange to Argentina within the next 25 years.
Feb 09th, 2016 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When this is all over there has to be a serious reckoning with Ecuador.
Feb 09th, 2016 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@42 Marti
Feb 09th, 2016 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've just spat coffee all over my keyboard! Brilliant! :)
Mercopress has not updated for 3 days,
Feb 09th, 2016 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nothing to do with Assange by any chance..
Hepatitis
Feb 09th, 2016 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again you make a statement which has absolutely NO connection with factual events. What an idiot!
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/02/06/uk-will-contest-un-opinion-on-arbitrary-detention-of-julian-assange#comment429841: Australia is a British country so Assange is a Brit.
Feb 10th, 2016 - 01:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is an extradition treaty between the US and Sweden. See Title 18 USC section 3181. But the existence of this treaty may be irrelevant since Sweden has shown willingness to conspire with the US in order to effect extraordinary renditions. And the US has been willing to proceed in those occasions when Sweden has not been willing to collude - violating Sweden's sovereignty in the process.
I personally think that the DoJ has decided that it is not possible to prosecute WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act. But the fact is that the grand jury is still running and issuing subpoenas. So I think either they are considering an indictment under some other law or their purpose now is only to spook the US media.
The placement by the British government propagandists of this article in the US section of Mercopenguin may be in support of this latter purpose.
@47 Hepathetic says: “Australia is a British country so Assange is a Brit.”
Feb 10th, 2016 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0This will surprise a number of people.
So, hepathetic, does this mean that a UK citizen doesn't need a visa to visit Australia ?
47 Hepatia (#)
Feb 10th, 2016 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0What are you blathering on about.
Australia and Great Britain are completely different countries.
Julian Assange is an Australian citizen...see losing Ashes 2015.
It's alright. Hepatia shows how ignorant he/she really is
Feb 10th, 2016 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0But then our constituonal arrangement is quite complicated so it is hardly surprising someone of Hepatia's intelligence cannot understand it. If it isn't a simplistic republic with a president then it does not compute for people like Hepatia.
Argentinean education rarely fails to surprise me with its simplistic world view.
By the way, Ecuador can keep him. His popularity in Australia is negligible. I hope he rots in that embassy for a decade.
I just love the pictures of him standing on the (almost) pavement height balcony 'telling' the rest of the world how hard done to he is!
Feb 10th, 2016 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't want to face up to any 'nasties' though does he?
Yankeeboy: STFU and stop demeaning your strongest supporter and military lapdog - the UK.
You are making yourself look a right cunt.
Am I demeaning them or pointing out places where they should improve?
Feb 10th, 2016 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think they lost their way after they went full crazy into being Eurocrats.
It won't be too much longer before they will never be able to untangle from that monster.
Anyhoo, surprised nobody is talking about Hillary's embarrassment last night.
I seem to remember Trump saying when he first started campaigning he thought it would be Trump against Sanders.
FYI more Independents voted for Republicans...
That could mean a lot of things
One of them being lots of Dem leaning Independents are voting Repub this year.
“Anyhoo, surprised nobody is talking about Hillary's embarrassment last night.”
Feb 10th, 2016 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's because nobody outside the US gives a flying f*#k about your politics. You're just not that important anymore.
America will be giving Hillary back to Argentina within the next 25 years.
Feb 10th, 2016 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0don't forget Hillarys puppy Hepatia lol
Feb 10th, 2016 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 053. You've not been reading the threads here.
Feb 10th, 2016 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do try to keep up.
Another interesting point made clear by this article is that the head line claims that the UK is going to “contest” this ruling. However, the text of the article claims that despite appearing before the UN body and presenting its best arguments there the UK will do no more than ignore the ruling. That is the UK has acted in bad faith before the UN body and it never was going to accept its determination.
Feb 11th, 2016 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 057 Hepatia “That is the UK has acted in bad faith before the UN body and it never was going to accept its determination.”
Feb 11th, 2016 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UN Working Group is not invested with any authority to make determinations. “The UN Working Group in no way represents in any capacity the opinions of the UN.” The Working Group is a UN body but it is not, and does not represent, ‘the United Nations’. …this means is that the Working Group cannot issue binding decisions (contrary to what Julian Assange’s legal team are arguing), hence their description as ‘opinions’. Nor can it provide authoritative interpretations of any human rights treaty (having not been granted that role by the parties to any such treaty). … There is, however, an enormous elephant in the room which the Working Group’s opinion entirely ignores; that Mr Assange voluntarily entered the Ecuadorian embassy and, in breach of his bail conditions, has remained their ever since. Moreover, even prior to his taking refuge, Mr Assange was not in detention but on bail,…Both the Swedish and the UK Governments, however, have already announced their disagreement with the opinion, and, as we have seen, they are under no legal obligation to comply with it. Indeed, it cannot be argued that they have failed to give ‘due consideration’ to it, as their opposition has been motivated. One might ask whether the real loser here is not the UN system of human rights protection. By producing such a poorly-reasoned opinion, the Working Group has brought itself into disrepute,…”
http://www.ejiltalk.org/julian-assange-and-the-un-working-group-on-arbitrary-detention/
Oh Hepatia
Feb 11th, 2016 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know you are trying to gain some traction on this.... but it isn't really working is it.
Who knows, within 25 years, perhaps Ecuador will stop arbitrarily detaining Assange and actually let him walk out the front door.
It isn't difficult. I am pretty sure due to OH&S legislation, it is probably the door with a bright green light above it saying EXIT!
Albania is going to give Hepatia back to Argentina within 25 years.
Feb 11th, 2016 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hepatia
Feb 11th, 2016 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your interpretation only.
Hepatitis will infect every Argentine citizen in the next 25 years.
Feb 12th, 2016 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does that include Mr think...
Feb 14th, 2016 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2016/02/06/uk-will-contest-un-opinion-on-arbitrary-detention-of-julian-assange#comment430050: Your post simply repeats the arguments made by the UK before the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention back when it believed that the Group was the relevant body. These arguments have been dismissed. It now appears that the UK believes the Group is irrelevant. So, what has happened to change the view of the UK? Well, the group has had the audacity to rule against it. What is going to happen when the UK again needs this Group to rule in favor of one of its citizens illegally detained is now unclear.
Feb 15th, 2016 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The headline claims that the UK is going to “contest” the ruling. However, the body makes clear that the UK is going to attempt to simply ignore the ruling. By going down this path the UK is in good company: Iran, Burma, the KSA, ....
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!