- Thread starter
- #26
Ah right. My bad. That's what I thought you meant. Carry on
But I don't understand WGAD's ruling. Are they saying the allegations are unlawful? And that the extradition request is unlawful?
This is the relevant part of the statement from the WGAD themselves;
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E
...In mid-2010, a Swedish Prosecutor commenced an investigation against Mr. Assange based on allegations of sexual misconduct. On 7 December 2010, pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued at the request of the Swedish Prosecutor, Mr. Assange was detained in Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in isolation. Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days. While under house arrest in the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange requested the Republic of Ecuador to grant him refugee status at its Embassy in London. The Republic of Ecuador granted asylum because of Mr. Assange’s fear that if he was extradited to Sweden, he would be further extradited to the United States where he would face serious criminal charges for the peaceful exercise of his freedoms. Since August 2012, Mr. Assange has not been able to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and is subject to extensive surveillance by the British police.
The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. The Working Group found that this detention is in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the ICCPR, and falls within category III as defined in its Methods of Work.
The Working Group therefore requested Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention. The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation.
I think, without going into the wording of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR (and so on...), that it is solely the fact that Sweden refuses to assure Julian Assange that it will NOT hand him over to United States custody once due process with regards to his Swedish charges have been met that prevent him from leaving the Embassy and meeting with his obligations in that matter.
Because of the United States' conduct over the years in how they treat 'enemy combatants', methods of 'extraordinary rendition' and their secret military trials and holding of all manner of prisoners indefinitely and without charge Assange has clear reason to worry for his safety and well-being.
According to the U.S Military Commissions Act of 2006 (H.R 6166 - congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6166), which was set up to "establish procedures governing the use of commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants (combatants) engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses specifically made triable by commissions under this Act" Assange may be in danger of trial by military commission for the following;
"(This act) makes the following offenses triable by commissions: (1) murder of protected persons; (2) attacking civilians; (3) attacking civilian objects; (4) attacking protected property; (5) pillaging; (6) denying quarter; (7) taking hostages; (8) employing poison or similar weapons; (9) using protected persons as a shield; (10) using protected property as a shield; (11) torture; (12) cruel or inhuman treatment; (13) intentionally causing serious bodily injury; (14) mutilating or maiming; (15) murder in violation of the law of war; (16) destruction of property in violation of the law of war; (17) using treachery or perfidy; (18) improperly using a flag of truce; (19) improperly using a distinctive emblem; (20) intentionally mistreating a dead body; (21) rape; (22) sexual assault or abuse; (23) hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft; (24) terrorism; (25) providing material support for terrorism; (26) wrongfully aiding the enemy; (27) spying; (28) conspiracy; (29) perjury and obstruction of justice; and (30) contempt."
He may be subject to additional Espionage Act violations as well.
I think that his fears are well justified. I think that if Sweden wants this other matter settled one way or another they have to give assurances that they will NOT hand Julian Assange over to the United States.
Last edited: