Julian Assange decision by UN panel ridiculous, says Hammond
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
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."
* 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.
This is factually incorrect. The UK High Court ruled only on the question of whether the European Arrest Warrant was valid. It did not consider the reasonableness of the allegations and dismissed defense attempts to challenge them on empirical grounds:
> "[Assange's objections] are matters which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to determine whether the allegations may fail." (126)
I think you may have misread my comment; maybe you're trying to argue that the High Court decision doesn't include witness testimony? If you look carefully at what I wrote, I didn't claim that it did.
And I'm sure the US's official policy is that they don't torture anyone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
There were also some more and less "official" paramilitary gangs roaming around hunting for prostitutes male or female and taking care of them but no real penal code that targeted gays specifically.
And I never said invasion was a good idea, but open inclusion and almost a free pass on way too much shit isn't working either, a better way needs to be found and until then I think we can all live without Saudi Arabia heading panels at the (currently oxymoronic) UN Human Rights Council or China being in a position to tell the rest of the UN members how a free press should look like.
Wait -- was he charged, or wasn't he?
Your response doesn't tell us anything.
He was released on bail within the UK and had to surrender his passport until the time in which the matter would be settled.
Assange was notified of the European arrest warrant by the UK authorities in late 2010, the whole case dragged out for another 2 years before he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
The fact of the matter that Assange lost 2 full appeal processes which resulted in the Swedish Supreme court upholding the arrest warrant, and the UK supreme court upholding the extradition under a lawful European arrest warrants. These are 2 European western democracies with a functional legal system which unlike what some people might think here isn't exactly the PR department or a henchman of the US government.
Assange has refused to surrender under a lawful arrest warrant and violated the conditions of his bail these are 2 offenses which will on their own will land you in prison regardless of any other charges. A normal person can't say well fuck it I don't think you should arrest me so screw you after losing an appeal in front of the supreme court, a normal person can't say well fuck it I don't think you should extradite me and I'll just skip bail if you don't mind after losing another appeal process in front of the supreme court.
It doesn't matter what you think about this case, what you think about Assange or WikiLeaks the matter of fact here is that Assange believes he is above the law, and he acted upon his belief by violating laws and seeking refuge in a foreign country without an extradition treaty.
Normal people aren't afforded these luxuries, and if it was some banker or politician who acted in the same manner everyone would been up in arms shouting to get them out of that embassy by force if necessary. And the claims that the Swedish authorities refusing to depose him in that embassy are some how a sign that the case was manufactured are also insane, the authorities should not humor people who piss on the law, it's not up to some one to decide where they will be deposed especially not after they've broken the law again and are now in a position to say what they want without being touchable.
Say Sweden can depose him, try him in absentia and find him guilty what good would it do? he's still tucked away in a place when they can't touch him, and if they do the same and acquit him it it will show that if you have enough money, power or political capital you can do what ever the fuck you want (which is sadly true probably far too many places) and get preferential treatment just because you are a special snowflake.
At this point even if he goes back to Sweden, tried, and acquitted he should face jail he has spat on the entire legal process in 2 fairly respected western democracies and made a mockery of their legal system, the crimes he committed by hiding in the embassy have nothing to do with the crimes he allegedly committed to prior to that, they didn't lead to this situation, his own actions did.
This isn't a Hollywood movie ala the "Fugitive", you can't just decide that the law doesn't apply to you and run away even if it is to prove your so called innocence while committing other crimes in the process, if you think it's fine then we might as well go back to the wild west with a high noon court or even further in time with trial by combat.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
> 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.
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
What past arrests? His possible arrest in Sweden is dependent on him being interrogated, which can't happen because he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. The only arrest I'm aware of is him being on house arrest while the UK courts assessed the validity of Sweden's extradition request.
>>> 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
I'd prefer if we didn't base international extradition issues on assumptions of further unjust treatment by the "evil" US.
>>> Again, he hasn't been charged with anything
Again, that's a idiosyncrasy of Swedish law, not a grand conspiracy to deprive JA of his rights. IF he actually fronted up to the interrogation/second round of questioning by Swedish authorities back in 2010 instead of fleeing the country to the UK none of this would be an issue. He's actively been evading possible criminal prosecution for 5 years since and yet we're meant to believe it's because the US will extradite him from Sweden despite the extradition treaty between those two countries excluding extradition for political or espionage offences or cases involving the death penalty. Furthermore this narrative of extradition from Sweden to the US has been concocted by Assange and his legal team, I can only assume to attempt to keep him from facing prosecution in Sweden. It has zero basis in fact.
I understand self preservation is a serious driving force in a person's life so I can understand why Assange is doing this. What I can't understand is how so many people can wilfully ignore the facts of this situation because they have a personal affinity for one of the interested parties.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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_State...
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.
It is available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne...
The link is
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2...
Which is certainly uncharitable towards others' alternative opinions, but how can you honestly not be suspicious at this point? That's why the tactics are so insidious and destructive to civil society: there's really no way to innoculate yourself. Either you potentially let yourself be swayed by a NatSec astroturfing campaign, or let the same sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to where you can't even participate in a political discussion with people of opposing viewpoints.
Would be curious how many others have the same reaction and how they deal with it. Though there's a certain amusing irony that one would have cause for paranoid suspicion of those comments as well.
Sadly, I tend to doubt that's the case.
I assumed the government spying apparatus must be keeping at least some amount of eyes on this and similar places, even if it's just an intern or two.
As to whether they're trying to poison (or otherwise influence) this community in some way? It's certainly possible. But there's also the famous advice from a former government agent (who was once involved with infiltrating domestic radical communities) -- which goes about like this (someone out there might have a better quote):
"My advice? Stop worrying about infiltrators. That is, just assume you're being infiltrated and monitored, and that there's nothing you can do about it. You'll waste an infinite amount of time and energy speculating who the source might be, who to point fingers at -- to the point where you end up poisoning your own community form within. Which is precisely what these monitoring agencies want you to do."
My own view is basically existentialist: if I were ever to get deeply involved in resistance politics -- or even if I'm not, and just casually hanging out with people who are -- sure, almost inevitably I'm going to end up monitored, perhaps even "cased" (i.e. someone might slither up to me at a bar or meeting somewhere, to find out what I know or what I'm about).
But at the end of the day... really, just fuck all those people. If they're playing that game, as far as I'm concerned, they've already given up, and are already dead inside, on some level.
And I'm not going to let that stop me for a minute from speaking freely, calling things as I see them, or hanging out with people I consider to be to be basically ethical and well-meaning (though I may sometimes question their approaches), just because of what some agency flack somewhere might be doing with me to pad his quota and make himself look good for his bosses.
But that's just me. You can make your own choices.
Once it exists and you assume it exists you have to change your behavior in a way that maximizes outcomes for yourself. Its subtle psychological coercion.
At the very least decisions made by non-elected officials in the name of national security need oversight. So even if you yourself are not political, just by surveilling you they have forced you to become political in the sense that now you MUST participate in an issue and debate regarding the value of national security vs. your personal security.
But we don't have to let it get to us, and upset our inner equilibrium.
I would imagine that any political party cannot outright support him. It's pretty much impossible for a government to guarantee no extradition, for example, if there hasn't been an extradition request already made, that's just not how the law works in the UK, but they could possibly make it easier for Assange to feel more trust in the legal process.
Did you know he has 4 children? I didn't know that.
Citation for such a claim?
I realize this is a highly politically charged issue and Assange is a hero to most people (and me) but there is merit to these charges, which will never get cleared up in a court room because of US shenanigans with backdoor rendition hanging like a dark cloud over the whole thing. I can appreciate his work and not his character, just like I can appreciate the Unabomber manifesto argument without endorsing his personal actions.
The article's first line states it more as a matter of Hammond's opinion:
> The UK foreign secretary has branded as "ridiculous" a UN panel's ruling that Julian Assange be allowed to go free
Hammond made a statement, thus the 'says' in the headline. 'Branding' is attaching a label or description (such as 'ridiculous') to something. If somebody were to make the statement 'that car is fantastic', then they would be branding it as fantastic. Both the sentences 'X branded the car as fantastic' and '"the car is fantastic", said X', would be equally valid statement.
I think you're reading into all this far, far too much.
Anyone reading this should really notice the bias of this article. It has smear-campaign written all over. One would expect that of course from a FVEY country.