Assange Watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Feb 2016, 13:53

Crazy that our Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, a businessman with no legal training, can declare that the ruling is ridiculous and not legally binding, while in an iterview on Radio 4 a few minutes ago, a member of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Sètondji Roland Adjovi, who is a professor of international law, explained why the ruling was binding on the UK and Swedish governments.

Who is Adjovi?
https://scholar.google.com/citations?us ... AAAJ&hl=en
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detentio ... mbers.aspx

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 05 Feb 2016, 14:35

If it is legally binding then there will be a way of enforcing it through the courts. My money is on it not being legally binding.

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 05 Feb 2016, 15:19

EU wrote:

If he's got any sense then he'll also have prepared a load of other leaks to be released in the event of his extradition and/or incarceration in the US.

I'm sure he has. But there again, will he risk assassination for his cause?

And before anyone says that's unlikely with such a high profile figure, I wouldn't bet *my* life on it. I doubt he would either.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 05 Feb 2016, 15:26

The Yanks are going to lock him up or the Yanks are going to kill him, either directly or, if not, indirectly. I very much doubt this brave man will escape from their clutches with either his liberty or his life.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Feb 2016, 15:47

johnhemming2 wrote:If it is legally binding then there will be a way of enforcing it through the courts. My money is on it not being legally binding.

The British and Swedish governments would then find themselves in very inauspicious company. According to that slimy slice of evil, Phillip Hammond, this rulling is "ridiculous". The ruling is from the same panel that has previously ruled in favour of Aung San Suu Kyi (leader of Myanmar's democracy movement), Jason Rezaian (Washington Post journalist recently released by Iran) and Mohamed Nasheed (former president of the Maldives and human rights and environmentalist activist, who was illegally detained having been the first democratically elected leader to depose a dictator of 30 years). In other words, it puts the British and Swedish governments on a similar level, ethically and legally, with the Burmese Military Junta, the government of Iran and a Maldivian dictatorship. All Hammond can say is "Assange is a fugitive from justice in Sweden", conveniently ignoring the fact that everybody who is remotely educated about this case knows perfectly well that it has f*ck all to do with a rape allegation in Sweden and everything to do with the Americans wanting to get hold of him because he exposed serious war crimes by US armed forces.

And you, utterly predictably, are implicitly siding with those who are continuing to hold him illegally and immorally (and YES, that is what the UN panel has ruled is happening - he is effectively detained). What is genuinely "ridiculous" is Phillip Hammond claiming he is technically a free man, or that his detention is really the result of a rape allegation.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 05 Feb 2016, 15:50

The point I am making is that the ruling is unlikely to be enforceable in England and Wales (the judicial jurisdiction that is relevant).

My own view is that he should have gone to Sweden. They may get a way around this by interviewing him in the Embassy.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Feb 2016, 15:52

johnhemming2 wrote: My own view is that he should have gone to Sweden.

Had he gone to Sweden he would already be rotting in a high security US prison, probably being subjected to torture.

Either you know this to be true, and you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, in which case you are an immoral liar, or you don't know it is true, in which case you are an idiot.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:06

Wow! Just say what you think UE, don't hide behind the door.

Good on you for having the balls to spell out what you think. I can't find much to disagree with.

And respect to Assange for having the balls to release all the information he has done. The people of the UK need to well up and support him in no uncertain terms......

I think (hope) JH is getting his coat.....

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:14

UndercoverElephant wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:It is a simple point that I disagree with this unevidenced assertion.
Rubbish. You are simply not that stupid, which makes you a seriously unpleasant person instead.

When Phillip Hammond says "Julian Assange is a fugitive from justice in Sweden and we are obliged to arrest and extradite him because of rape allegations" he is deliberately trying to mislead people. From the start, the entire sexual assault and rape non-case against Assange was a cover for the fact that the Americans want to get hold of him and punish him for exposing their war crimes. The reason it has to be done dishonestly is that there are strict British laws preventing the extradition of people to countries where they might face the death penalty, torture or otherwise be treated unfairly, and the British and American governments both know that if an attempt was made to extradite him directly from the UK, the courts would block it. That is what this entire case is really about and today's ruling proves that to be the true. Regardless of whether or not it is llegally binding in the UK, this judgement by the United Nations is incontrevertible evidence, based on international humanitarian law and an independent assessment of the whole situation, that Assange is being detained because of his role as a whistleblower, NOT as a rapist.

And YOU, you nasty, immoral little creep, are taking the time to try to re-inforce the impression that actually it is all about a rape case. You are pretending you do not understand it is about the fact that the Americans want to get him for exposing their vicious war crimes. You are siding with the evil forces of power against a brave man who has stood up to them and exposed their crimes against humanity. Your motivations for doing this remain unknown. People will have to make their own minds up about why you would choose to behave in this manner.

Two things are guaranteed to make you very unpopular on this forum, John Hemming. One of them is being an establishment shill and the other is being a disingenuous liar.

You are both. You are fooling nobody. Everybody reading this (apart from lurkers and passers-by) is well aware of the truth, both about the Assange case, and about John Hemming.

All of this...

...bears repeating

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:16

I might add that I am not hiding behind a pseudonym either. John Hemming, for all his obvious faults, is at least posting under his own name, and for that he deserves respect. So for those who don't know, my name is Geoff Dann, and I'm one of the UK's leading experts on wild food.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:25

johnhemming2 wrote: The essential flaw in your thesis is the idea that the rule of law in Sweden in terms of protection against extradition is weaker than that in England.

I'm not having this argument with you.

The UN panel on illegal detention, the same panel that has consistently ruled in favour of human rights activists, defenders of democracy and journalists being detained unlawfully by rogue regimes, has today ruled in favour of Assange and against the British and Swedish governments. If it was true (that Assange could just have gone to Sweden to clear his name of the rape allegation, with no risk of ending up in US hands on "espionage" charges) then why has the UN ruled in Assange's favour? "My thesis" is the only reasonably explanation for this decision by the UN. Do you have any other explanation?

Or are you claiming your legal expertise is superior to that of the UN panel that today ruled in favour of Assange?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:35

http://johnpilger.com/articles/freeing- ... st-chapter

Freeing Julian Assange: the last chapter

One of the epic miscarriages of justice of our time is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the international tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - has ruled that Julian Assange has been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden.

After five years of fighting to clear his name - having been smeared relentlessly yet charged with no crime - Assange is closer to justice and vindication, and perhaps freedom, than at any time since he was arrested and held in London under a European Extradition Warrant, itself now discredited by Parliament.

The UN Working Group bases its judgements on the European Convention on Human Rights and three other treaties that are binding on all its signatories. Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. It would fly contemptuously in the face of international law if they did not comply with the judgement and allow Assange to leave the refuge granted him by the Ecuadorean government in its London embassy.

In previous, celebrated cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden have given support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution and confinement endures in the heart of London.

The Assange case has never been primarily about allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. The Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the case, saying, "I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape" and one of the women involved accused the police of fabricating evidence and "railroading" her, protesting she "did not want to accuse JA of anything". A second prosecutor mysteriously re-opened the case after political intervention, then stalled it.

The Assange case is rooted across the Atlantic in Pentagon-dominated Washington, obsessed with pursuing and prosecuting whistleblowers, especially Assange for having exposed, in WikiLeaks, US capital crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of civilians and a contempt for sovereignty and international law. None of this truth-telling is illegal under the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as "part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal".

Obama, the betrayer, has since prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the US presidents combined. The courageous Chelsea Manning is serving 35 years in prison, having been tortured during her long pre-trial detention.

The prospect of a similar fate has hung over Assange like a Damocles sword. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a "Manhunt target list". Vice-President Joe Biden has called him a "cyber terrorist". In Alexandra, Virginia, a secret grand jury has attempted to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted in a court. Even though he is not an American, he is currently being fitted up with an espionage law dredged up from a century ago when it was used to silence conscientious objectors during the First World War; the Espionage Act has provisions of both life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange's ability to defend himself in this Kafkaesque world has been handicapped by the US declaring his case a state secret. A federal court has blocked the release of all information about what is known as the "national security" investigation of WikiLeaks.

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 the 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. In 2010, the Independent in London revealed that the two governments had discussed Assange's onward extradition.

Then there is tiny, brave Ecuador. One of the reasons Ecuador granted Julian Assange political asylum was that his own government, in Australia, had offered him none of the help to which he had a legal right and so abandoned him. Australia's collusion with the United States against its own citizen is evident in leaked documents; no more faithful vassals has America than the obeisant politicians of the Antipodes.

Four years ago, in Sydney, I spent several hours with the Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia and, as I write, is attending an international conference on Syria hosted the Cameron government - about 15 minutes' cab ride from the room that Julian Assange has occupied for three and a half years in the small Ecuadorean embassy just along from Harrods. The Syria connection is relevant if unreported; it was WikiLeaks that revealed that the United States had long planned to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. Today, as he meets and greets, Prime Minister Turnbull has an opportunity to contribute a modicum of purpose and truth to the conference by speaking up for his unjustly imprisoned compatriot, for whom he showed such concern when we met. All he need do is quote the judgement of the UN Working Party on Arbitrary Detention. Will he reclaim this shred of Australia's reputation in the decent world?

What is certain is that the decent world owes much to Julian Assange. He told us how indecent power behaves in secret, how it lies and manipulates and engages in great acts of violence, sustaining wars that kill and maim and turn millions into the refugees now in the news. Telling us this truth alone earns Assange his freedom, whereas justice is his right.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:35

I might also add that the reason I am so angry about this is that Julian Assange is one of the few people who have been willing to risk everything to challenge some of the most evil people in the world, and is paying a very high price for doing so. As a result he deserves all the support he can get for right-minded, educated intelligent people. His treatment at the hands of the British and Swedish governments, acting on behalf of the most evil people in the world (the US authorities), is something I feel deeply ashamed about. It makes me feel deeply ashamed to be British.

John Hemming clearly feels no such shame.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:35

UndercoverElephant wrote:Or are you claiming your legal expertise is superior to that of the UN panel that today ruled in favour of Assange?

I almost certainly have more experience in the UK and European Courts than the panel members apart from the Ukrainian who did not agree with the majority. I am not sure which one did not participate, but only three supported the committee decision.

It looks like the Ukrainian is the only one who has actually acted as an advocate.

If you wish to bet that the English courts will enforce this decision then please tell me how much, what the odds are and who you would accept as an independent stakeholder.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Feb 2016, 17:38

johnhemming2 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Or are you claiming your legal expertise is superior to that of the UN panel that today ruled in favour of Assange?
I almost certainly have more experience in the UK and European Courts than the panel members apart from the Ukrainian who did not agree with the majority. I am not sure which one did not participate, but only three supported the committee decision.

It looks like the Ukrainian is the only one who has actually acted as an advocate.

If you wish to bet that the English courts will enforce this decision then please tell me how much, what the odds are and who you would accept as an independent stakeholder.

I have no idea what the British courts will decide. I don't know how free they are from political manipulation and I am not a legal expert. That is why I depend on experts from the United Nations to guide my opinions. Had the UN ruled against Assange, my position would have changed.

They didn't. Which means that basically they agree with me, and disagree with you.