UndercoverElephant wrote:John Hemming clearly feels no such shame.
I have explained why I think he would be safer in Sweden than England. I have cited an article that supports my view with detailed arguments. To this your response is:
undercoverelephant wrote:I'm not having this argument with you.
To me this is the key argument. What does he do now? Is he going to spend the next 5 years of his life in an Embassy. At least the UK Government did not ignore the Vienna Convention. (Which I believe some were tempted to do)
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.
Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council is legally binding but it hasn't been enforced.
Ricardo Patiño said the UK had violated "important articles of the Universal Human Rights Convention and of the International Treaty on Political and Civil rights".
"Ridiculous", the word UK Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond used to trash UK's international status and reputation.
member of the UN panel wrote:
Individual dissenting opinion of WGAD member Vladimir Tochilovsky
1. The adopted Opinion raises serious question as to the scope of the mandate of the Working Group.
2. It is assumed in the Opinion that Mr. Assange has been detained in the Embassy of Ecuador in London by the authorities of the United Kingdom. In particular, it is stated that his stay in the Embassy constitutes “a state of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.”
3. In fact, Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the Embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest. Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention. This could be some premises, as in Mr. Assange’s situation, or the territory of the State that does not recognise the arrest warrant. However, these territories and premises of self-confinement cannot be considered as places of detention for the purposes of the mandate of the Working Group.
4. In regard to the house arrest of Mr. Assange in 2011-2012, it was previously emphasised by the Working Group that where the person is allowed to leave the residence (as in Mr. Assange’s case), it is “a form of restriction of liberty rather than deprivation of liberty, measure which would then lie outside the Group’s competence” (E/CN.4/1998/44, para. 41(e)). Mr. Assange was allowed to leave the mansion where he was supposed to reside while litigating against extradition in the courts of the United Kingdom. As soon as his last application was dismissed by the Supreme Court in June 2012, Mr. Assange fled the bail.
5. The mandate of the Working Group is not without limits. By definition, the Working Group is not competent to consider situations that do not involve deprivation of liberty. For the same reason, issues related to the fugitives’ self-confinement, such as asylum and extradition, do not fall into the mandate of the Working Group (see, for instance, E/CN.4/1999/63, para. 67).
6. That is not to say that the complaints of Mr. Assange could not have been considered. There exist the appropriate UN human rights treaty bodies and the European Court of Human Rights that do have mandate to examine such complaints regardless whether they involve deprivation of liberty or not.
7. Incidentally, any further application of Mr. Assange may now be declared inadmissible in an appropriate UN body or ECtHR on the matters that have been considered by the Working Group. In this regard, one may refer to the ECtHR decision in Peraldi v. France (2096/05) and the reservation of Sweden to the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.
8. For these reasons, I dissent.
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.
Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council is legally binding but it hasn't been enforced.
Ricardo Patiño said the UK had violated "important articles of the Universal Human Rights Convention and of the International Treaty on Political and Civil rights".
"Ridiculous", the word UK Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond used to trash UK's international status and reputation.
In one sense law is what is enforcible. There is to be fair a separate argument that there is also law in principle. However, on a practical basis enforcement is key.
UndercoverElephant wrote:Are you seriously denying that the Americans are desperate to get their hands on Assange?
The question is whether they would try a rendition type approach with him. I don't think so.
I think the rule of law would apply in Sweden or the UK (particularly E&W).
My understanding of that gives him substantially more protection in Sweden than England.
No John, let's start at the beginning and stop the bullshit.
Do you, or do you not, agree that the United States are desperate to get hold of Julian Assange in order to prosecute and punish him for whistleblowing on US warcrimes by publishing information sent to him by Chelsea Manning.
UndercoverElephant wrote:No John, let's start at the beginning and stop the bullshit.
Why do you say "stop the bullshit", but spend a lot of time insulting me for well evidenced and reasonable arguments?
A lot of this arises from where things started. In the end Julian Assange upset two women in Sweden. Whether what he did was criminal in accordance with Swedish law or not is a question for the Swedish courts. However, this was not something that happened because the USA are very unhappy with him for Wikileaks.
I accept that the release of some of the video material about Iraq was in the public interest.
You are a lying, immoral **** who is one the side of corrupt power John Hemming
Assange Extradition facts:
1) Julian Assange is not charged with anything in Sweden or any other country.
2) Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid Questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.
3) The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation. After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor.
4) In all instances, the 3 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange.
5) A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.
6) Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and cast doubt on the allegations.
7) After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange's company: b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian Assange as well.
8.) The law firm hired in the Assange investigation is run by Claes Borgstrm (politician and legal representative for both plaintiffs) and by former minister Thomas Bodsrtm. Both are members of the Social Democrat Party in Sweden. Bodstrm is a friend of police interrogator Irmeli Krans, who interrogated complainant SW.
9) Police interrogator Irmeli Krans is, in turn, friends with the other plaintiff, complainant AA, with whom she has political ties (Social Democrat Party). Krans also breached protocol by commenting negatively about Julian Assange on social media.
10) Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18.) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5) and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights. Prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under the Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange.
11) Both the EAW and the Interpol red-notice were issued for Julian Assange by Sweden just before Wiki leaks began to publish Cablegate.
12) The allegations against Julian Assange do not constitute an offence in Australia or the UK.
13) If extradited to Sweden; still without charge, Juylian Assange would be held incommunicado and placed under solitary confinement. Pre-trial detention would last for an indefinite period. The trial in Sweden would be held in secret.
14) The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliation. They have no formal legal training.
15) Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial)
Last edited by Little John on 06 Feb 2016, 01:57, edited 1 time in total.
UndercoverElephant wrote:No John, let's start at the beginning and stop the bullshit.
Why do you say "stop the bullshit", but spend a lot of time insulting me for well evidenced and reasonable arguments?
A lot of this arises from where things started. In the end Julian Assange upset two women in Sweden. Whether what he did was criminal in accordance with Swedish law or not is a question for the Swedish courts. However, this was not something that happened because the USA are very unhappy with him for Wikileaks.
I accept that the release of some of the video material about Iraq was in the public interest.
Do you, or do you not, agree that the United States are desperate to get hold of Julian Assange in order to prosecute and punish him for whistleblowing on US warcrimes by publishing information sent to him by Chelsea Manning?
You seem somewhat reluctant to answer this very simple question, which everybody reading this knows the answer to.
Little John wrote:...on the side of corrupt power John Hemming
This story just popped up on my facebook page. It is about a Tory MP who claimed 49p in expenses for half a pint of milk, but "forgot" to mention £400,000K in undeclared earnings. So I googled the MP in question and found this article in the Torygraph.
