WikiLeaks The U.N Working Group on Arbitrary Detention rules IN FAVOUR of Julian Assange

Remove this Banner Ad

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Ah right. My bad. That's what I thought you meant. Carry on :thumbsu:

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:

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,405
AFL Club
Geelong
This is the relevant part of the statement from the WGAD themselves;



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.

I can see that there is genuine reason for concern that Sweden might hand Assange over to the US and then be denied fair treatment in the US. But I still find WGAD's ruling to be without merit - and even amatuerish in nature. I suspect we are not looking at the sharpest legal minds in the shed.

The only time he has been detained is the 8 days (not 10 that WGAD claims) between when he gave himself up to British police and when he was released on bail. This detainment was not an arbitrary one. He was subject to an international arrest warrant on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

WGAD's claim that he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days is also not true. As part of his bail conditions he was required to wear an electronic tag and live in a stately home but was free to come and go at any time. Again, these conditions were not arbitrary.

Since 19 June 2012 he has voluntarily spent his time in the Ecuadorian embassy. He is not currently detained and was never arbitrarily detained.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I can see that there is genuine reason for concern that Sweden might hand Assange over to the US and then be denied fair treatment in the US. But I still find WGAD's ruling to be without merit - and even amatuerish in nature. I suspect we are not looking at the sharpest legal minds in the shed.

The only time he has been detained is the 8 days (not 10 that WGAD claims) between when he gave himself up to British police and when he was released on bail. This detainment was not an arbitrary one. He was subject to an international arrest warrant on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

Fair enough. There may be more to it than what I can find though. I might need to dig a little deeper.

WGAD's claim that he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days is also not true. As part of his bail conditions he was required to wear an electronic tag and live in a stately home but was free to come and go at any time. Again, these conditions were not arbitrary.

I think WGAD made a boo-boo. Assange started his 'house arrest' on December 19 2010, and stayed there a year. However, he didn't enter the Ecuadorean Embassy seeking asylum until June 19, 2012. The dates between December 2010 and June 2012 might be where WGAD got their figure of 550 days. As its incorrect I hope they alter this.

As for the house arrest itself according to this 2010 Telegraph article;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...h-Court-says-he-must-wear-electronic-tag.html

...As part of his bail conditions Mr Assange, who has surrendered his passport, will wear an electronic tag and must report to Beccles police station in Suffolk every day.

His home for the foreseeable future will be Ellingham Hall, Mr Smith’s 10-bedroom Georgian manor house on the Norfolk-Suffolk border, which is set in 600 acres near Bungay. He will not be allowed to leave the ''immediate environs’’ of the house, apart from when he reports to police...


Since 19 June 2012 he has voluntarily spent his time in the Ecuadorian embassy. He is not currently detained and was never arbitrarily detained.

Yeah, a concise definition of 'arbitrary detention' as it applies in the Assange case might be helpful. I can't help but feel that, because Sweden cannot guarantee his continued human rights and wellbeing beyond settlement of the rape issue it judges actions carried out by the U.K as arbitrary even though, in normal circumstances they are a part of criminal extradition proceedings.

Nothing about the Assange case is exactly 'normal' though!

ADDITIONAL: There is a definition. Kind of.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf

B. When does deprivation of liberty become arbitrary?


The question of when detention is or becomes arbitrary is not definitively answered by the international instruments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights merely provides in article 9 that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”.

Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is scarcely any clearer: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”

When determining the mandate of the Working Group, the Commission used a pragmatic criterion: while it did not define the term “arbitrary”, it considered as arbitrary those deprivations of liberty which for one reason or another are contrary to relevant international provisions laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international instruments ratified by States (Resolution 1991/42, as clarified by resolution 1997/50)...

I think the rape case itself is irrelevant to the WGAD's findings. It is what happens next, a possibility Sweden refuses to rule out, that informs the Working Group's findings.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,809
AFL Club
Adelaide
12670152_10153968562879470_6806616247433101314_n.jpg
 

medusala

Cancelled
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,420
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
My lay person understanding of extradition is that the petitioning jurisdiction has to prove it has a substantial case and that the alleged action is a crime in the jurisdiction in which the hearing is being held. I don't see how Sweden could provide a blanket immunity from extradition.

Not if its someone in the UK and the US wants to extradite them.
 

Demonic Ascent

Bang! Bang bang bang!
Feb 21, 2006
18,408
16,033
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Because Washington's potential charges against him are political (whistle-blowing) he believes he has a just case in looking for that asylum. By the British government's own admission ( 'we will arrest Assange as soon as he leaves the embassy') they are ensuring that Julian has extremely good grounds on which to worry for his own personal safety.

Assange is an Australian citizen is he not? As far as I am aware he has never been a citizen of the US? What grounds do they believe they can arrest him on? Why would a citizen of another country be subject to US laws surrounding treason? Are we all subjects of the US now?

It is such blatant authoritarianism that it is sickening. Big Brother right out front and not even trying to hide. Commit war crimes, torture, illegal invasions/occupations resulting in mass murders, illegal arrests, assassinations, coups etc etc etc and we turn a blind eye. Have the temerity to publish documents exposing those crimes and you'll face life behind bars or exile/ostracisation.
 
Last edited:

Power Raid

Make me an Admin!
Oct 15, 2004
75,933
66,946
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Fremantle
Are the charges of rape frivolous? If so release him, if there is substance then why should he not face the courts?
 

Demonic Ascent

Bang! Bang bang bang!
Feb 21, 2006
18,408
16,033
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Are the charges of rape frivolous? If so release him, if there is substance then why should he not face the courts?

He hasn't been charged, it is an ongoing investigation. He is wanted for interview/questioning. Similar cases in the past have interviewed/questioned people via video link-up or in the country where they reside. Sweden however has sought extradition in this instance. With the very real threat of extradition to the US to face their kangaroo court it is clear why he won't simply give himself up to Swedish authorities.

He shouldn't face the courts because he hasn't been charged with anything.
 

Power Raid

Make me an Admin!
Oct 15, 2004
75,933
66,946
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Fremantle
He hasn't been charged, it is an ongoing investigation. He is wanted for interview/questioning. Similar cases in the past have interviewed/questioned people via video link-up or in the country where they reside. Sweden however has sought extradition in this instance. With the very real threat of extradition to the US to face their kangaroo court it is clear why he won't simply give himself up to Swedish authorities.

He shouldn't face the courts because he hasn't been charged with anything.

thanks

extradition seems extreme for questioning. I would support extradition if charges were laid or recommended post questioning.

nothing wrong with a video link as an interim.
 

Bomberboyokay

Cancelled
Sep 27, 2014
34,229
28,849
AFL Club
Essendon
Are the charges of rape frivolous? If so release him, if there is substance then why should he not face the courts?

It has been suggested. If I recall correctly, the original Swedish prosecutor/person didn't think they required further investigation. And if I further recall correctly it is unusual for Sweden to require suspects (he still hasn't been charged) to travel to Sweden for an interview.

21 August 2010

Sweden has cancelled an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape but did not give any further explanation.

[...]

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.

In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11049316
 
Last edited:

kfc1

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 27, 2010
10,752
9,707
AFL Club
Essendon
can't believe you shitlords defending a rapist
you should never require proof from a rape victim
#triggered
 

Bomberboyokay

Cancelled
Sep 27, 2014
34,229
28,849
AFL Club
Essendon
The supporting act in this charade has been played by the second Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny. Until recently, Ny had refused to comply with a routine European procedure that required her to travel to London to question Assange and so advance the case that James Catlin, one of Assange’s barristers, called “a laughing stock … it’s as if they make it up as they go along”.

Indeed, even before Assange had left Sweden for London in 2010, Marianne Ny made no attempt to question him. In the years since, she has never properly explained, even to her own judicial authorities, why she has not completed the case she so enthusiastically re-ignited – just as she has never explained why she has refused to give Assange a guarantee that he will not be extradited on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington.

https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/05/freeing-julian-assange-john-pilger-on-the-final-chapter/
 

Bomberboyokay

Cancelled
Sep 27, 2014
34,229
28,849
AFL Club
Essendon
21 augusti 2012

One of the most vexing questions in the Assange case is why the Swedish prosecutor insists on having him extradited to Sweden, instead of simply questioning him in London. A long series of contradictory explanations has been provided by the Swedish Prosecution Authority throughout the proceedings.

In the early stages of the extradition process, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Marianne Ny, frequently claimed that British as well as Swedish law prevented her from interrogating Assange anywhere but in Sweden. Some examples: On 20 November 2010, Ms. Ny was quoted as saying that Swedish law prevented her from questioning Assange by video link or at an embassy in London. On 3 December the same year Ms. Ny told TIME Magazine that she could not legally interview Assange by telephone or video link. She made similar comments two days later, claiming that it was impossible to question Assange in London.

Two months later, Ms. Ny suddenly changed her story. In a witness statement submitted in the extradition proceedings in London, dated 4 February 2011, she admitted that it was possible for her to interview Assange in London within the framework of a system for legal co-operation called Mutual Legal Assistance. However, Ms. Ny claimed, that would not be ”an appropriate course” to take, because she considered it necessary to interrogate Assange ”in person”.


The legal basis for Ms. Ny's comments appears dubious, to say the least. The rules setting out the procedures for Mutual Legal Assistance make clear that a foreign prosecutor can question a suspect in the UK by telephone, videolink, or through British police (see Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines for the United Kingdom, 8th edition, pp. 15, 20 and 29). If the latter option is used, it is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview. In fact, Ms. Ny had a wide range of options for interrogating Assange in the UK: by telephone, video link or by interviewing him in person, together with British police.

As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery. The interview was conducted in co-operation with Serbian police. Thus, at the same time that Ms. Ny claimed it was an impossibility to interview the founder of Wikileaks in London, her colleagues were busy interrogating an infamous gangster in Serbia.

In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring responded that ”it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system”. Professor Bring also stated that the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an interview, since "the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime".

Last Saturday, Fria Tider sent a message to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affair's official Twitter channel, asking if Professor Bring was right in saying that the reason why the prosecutor would not interrogate Assange in London was ”prestige”. After a short exchange of messages, the Ministry provided the following response:

"You do not dictate the terms if you are a suspect. Get it?"

In an opinion piece published last Sunday in Sweden'’s largest daily Dagens Nyheter, two Swedish journalists claimed that Marianne Ny had privately stated that she would not change her position on Assange even if she were wrong.

Today, two years after Assange was first questioned by Swedish police in Stockholm, it seems increasingly clear that the reason why he has not been interviewed again has very much to do with prestige and little to do with law.

http://www.friatider.se/swedish-min...dictate-the-terms-if-you-are-a-suspect-get-it
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

coerced

Cancelled
Jan 8, 2016
2,182
2,393
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I wonder if the Swedish legal system comes down as hard on asylum seekers accused of rape.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
can't believe you shitlords defending a rapist
you should never require proof from a rape victim
#triggered

Can't call him that until he's been convicted. For what its worth, if he was granted immunity from custody for any charge relating to Wikileaks subsequent to an appearance in Sweden on these charges I'd be for him fronting up there.

To clear his name, or face justice as the case may be.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Jun 26, 2007
41,096
20,378
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Can't let it just go as they (Sweden, Britain,US) will just look like a bullshit artist (US) and their toadying knob smoking kiss arses (Sweden, UK).
Hopefully they'll get the imbecile Trump as Prez...that should fukem for a decade or two.
#votecomboverfuktardman
 

Demonic Ascent

Bang! Bang bang bang!
Feb 21, 2006
18,408
16,033
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
can't believe you shitlords defending a rapist
you should never require proof from a rape victim
#triggered

Rapist huh?

When Swedish prosecutors first examined complaints about Assange by two women in 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm dismissed all but one of the allegations, including the accusation of sexual assault, saying “there is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever”. After speaking to prosecutors, Assange remained in Sweden for another week to be interviewed about the one remaining allegation (of molestation). However, after an appeal by former Swedish politician Claes Borgstrom, another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reopened the whole case. Assange remained in Sweden and offered to be interviewed again, but, in the first of what would turn out to be a long litany of excuses, was told Ny was unable to speak to him because one of her staff was ill. Ny’s office then told Assange’s lawyer he was free to leave Sweden, but once Assange did so, an arrest warrant was issued for him. Assange then offered to return to Sweden to speak to Ny and gave her a full week of dates in which he would do so. These were all rejected.

This was all despite Swedish police having access to the texts of one of the alleged victims of Assange saying she “did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him”, that she was shocked when he was arrested given she only wanted him to take an STD test, and that “it was the police who made up the charges”.
..........................................................
Once he had sought refuge in the Ecaudorean embassy in 2012, Assange continued to offer Swedish authorities the opportunity to speak with him, and they continued to reject them. But while they regularly rejected Assange’s offer to be interviewed, other suspects were treated very differently: during the last five years, the Swedes have on 44 occasions asked to travel to the UK to interview, or asked British police to interview, other people in Britain in relation to allegations including violent crime, fraud and even murder. Assange, however, couldn’t be treated the same way — he had to go to Sweden.

In fact, so absurd was Ny’s refusal to question Assange that in November last year, a Swedish court found she had breached her duty in failing to progress the case.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/30/the-strange-case-of-julian-assange/

Open your eyes.
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
17,259
17,388
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
Not sure there is a place for sarcasm when talking about rape.
I thought he was having a crack at someone in regards to Assange and the requirement for proof from the alleged rape victims.
 

Maggie5

Moderator
Apr 3, 2010
46,479
53,123
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
I thought he was having a crack at someone in regards to Assange and the requirement for proof from the alleged rape victims.
See that is the problem with sarcasm, I took it differently. All good with your explanation though.
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,809
AFL Club
Adelaide
Its funny that assange is actually a victim of domestic violence from a jealous lover. and here we are openly accusing him of rape based on the vindictiveness of one woman that become a political tool.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad