Assange Watch

[Automaton]

It's in the 4th-from-last paragraph:

Josephine Fock, MP for the Alternative party, said: “At the time the aircraft was given permission to land in Copenhagen, the US had not yet given assurances that Snowden would not face the death penalty or torture – Denmark does not extradite people to such countries.”

[johnhemming2]

I was looking at the other Guardian link.

Snowden is of course a major target for the US government. It is an interesting question as to whether the assurances on the death penalty should be given before the plane lands or whether actually that would before he would transfer from say the Danish authorities to US authorities.

I would personally expect the latter point. However, I don't know enough about the details.

There is a big difference between Snowden and Assange. Assange has never worked (I assume) for the US government.

[Automaton]

Yes, Snowden is different in that sense. I'd like to think that difference wouldn't be enough to persuade Denmark to drop their standards and send him back to the US for torture, but I clearly would be wrong. If they can do it so easily, I'm quite sure the UK and Sweden can too.

[johnhemming2]

I don't think Denmark did drop their standards.

[johnhemming2]

You are a truly vile human being.

You clearly need a safe space in which your world view is not presented with facts that challenge it.

You haven't challenged my world view with facts. You've attempted to challenge it by posting utter cr*p that nobody believes.

Your "utter cr*p" is my "reports of the UN panel on arbitrary detention".

[UndercoverElephant]

You clearly need a safe space in which your world view is not presented with facts that challenge it.

You haven't challenged my world view with facts. You've attempted to challenge it by posting utter cr*p that nobody believes.

Your "utter cr*p" is my "reports of the UN panel on arbitrary detention".

That will be the panel that ruled in Assange's favour and against the British government.

[johnhemming2]

True and that is what I have been quoting from inter Alia which you call utter cr*p

[UndercoverElephant]

This is how you are misleading people. Quoting the minority verdict of the panel member who Ukrainian, but failing to recognise that immense political pressure was put on the panel by the UK and US governments and that there might just be a iddly-tiddly little reason why a Ukrainian would have caved in to that pressure (I presume you are aware the political situation in that part of the world...)

You are clearly talented when it comes to deceiving people, but not quite talented enough for it to work on Powerswitch. We're not stupid, John. Stop treating us as if we are.

As the Ukranian member of the panel said in his minority report Assange is punishing himself.

Oh yes...the Ukranian.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/United_Nati ... _Detention

Craig Murray reports on the official statement by the UK Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond:

“I reject the decision of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD). It is a group made up of lay people and not lawyers. Julian Assange is a fugitive from justice. He is hiding from justice in the Ecuadorean embassy.”

These are the cvs of the group (including the ex-chair who started the work). Hammond’s statement that they are lay people and not lawyers is a blatant, a massive, an enormous, a completely astonishing lie. Yet nowhere has the media called him on this lie.

Sètondji Adjovi (Benin, Second Vice-Chair) Adjovi, an academic and practitioner specialising in international criminal procedure and judicial reform, worked at the International Criminal Court and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda before his appointment to the UNWGAD.

Mads Andenas (Norway, Chair and member until mid-2015) Chair of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention until mid-2015. Has previously held positions as Director of the Centre of European Law at King’s College, University of London and Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London. Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo.

José Guevara (Mexico, First Vice-Chair) Guevara is a legal academic and practitioner who focuses on Human Rights Protection and International Criminal Law. Prior to joining the UNWGAD, worked in the NGO sector, Mexico City’s Ombudsman’s office and in government in the area of human rights. Guevara is the recipient of the Open Society Foundation’s New Executives Fund leading the Mexican Commission for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights.

Seong-Phil Hong (Chair-Rapporteur, Republic of Korea) An expert member of the Asian Council of Jurists of the Asia Pacific Forum and legal academic, Seong-Phil Hong has specialised in the case for reparations regarding Japan’s Enforced Sex Slavery during the Second World War and accountability for human rights violations by the North Korean regime.

Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine) A legal academic and practitioner whose expertise lies in international criminal justice and procedure. Tochilovsky was part of the Preparatory Committee and Commission that drafted the guidelines on criminal procedure for the International Criminal Court.

Leigh Toomey (Australia) An expert in the UN Human Rights system, Toomey has taught at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and has served as a UN human rights expert both in the capacity as an NGO representative and as a representative for Australia at the UN General Assembly and Commission for Human Rights.

It is worth noting that the UN decision accords very closely with the minority verdicts of the two dissenting UK Supreme Court judges in the deeply split UK Supreme Court decision on the case. So by calling the UN panel “ridiculous”, Hammond is saying the same of two UK Supreme Court justices.

You will not recall much media coverage of the dissenting verdicts in the UK Supreme Court decision. There was almost none. By contrast, the media are showing an obsessive interest in the dissenting Ukrainian member’s opinion in this UN decision.

Norwegian Professor Mats Andenas, the chair of the Working Group who started the work, has today stated that the UK and US put enormous political pressure on the members of the UN working group, which they had resisted courageously. Can anybody think of a reason why the dissenting Ukrainian member might have been less able to resist enormous pressure from the UK and US governments?

You are attempting to mislead people, John Hemming. And you are doing it for the same reason the mainstream media and the political establishment are doing it: you want to see Assange in the hands of the Americans, because you suck up to the rich and powerful interests that fear whistleblowers like him. Which makes you a very unpleasant person.

[johnhemming2]

You are attempting to mislead people, John Hemming. And you are doing it for the same reason the mainstream media and the political establishment are doing it: you want to see Assange in the hands of the Americans, because you suck up to the rich and powerful interests that fear whistleblowers like him. Which makes you a very unpleasant person.

That is basically rubbish.

For the avoidance of doubt I do not want him to end up in the USA. From my perspective he is not a god who should be protected from mockery. However, I don't think he should end up being punished for running wikileaks.

He should, however, do what is effectively an interview under caution for the Swedish authorities.

I have quoted from the panel report where the swedish government are indicated as saying he faces no risk of extradition to the USA from Sweden.

30. The Government of Sweden found it was important to emphasise that, to this date, no request for extradition regarding Mr. Assange has been directed to Sweden. Any discussion about an extradition of Mr. Assange to a third state is therefore strictly hypothetical. Furthermore, as has been explained above, any potential decision for extradition must be preceded by a thorough and careful examination of all the circumstances of the particular case. Such an examination cannot be made before a state has requested extradition of a specific person and specified the reasons invoked in support of the request. In addition, if a person has been surrendered to Sweden pursuant to an EAW, Sweden must obtain the consent of the surrendering state, in this case the United Kingdom, before being able to extradite the person sought to a third country. In light of the above, the Government refutes the submission made by the source that Mr. Assange faces a risk of refoulement to the United States.

If I were him I would want the original document from Sweden rather than a report of it in the panel report as I would wish to be certain.

I accept that from your perspective people who disagree with you are "unpleasant". However, that is life. I have no problem discussing things with people with whom I disagree. I don't see their motivations as being automatically bad.

I can find the source documents (eg the panel report) on the net. You should be able to do this yourself and confirm that rather than being "utter cr*p" I am accurately quoting parts of the report in context.

[UndercoverElephant]

If I were him I would want the original document from Sweden rather than a report of it in the panel report as I would wish to be certain.

In which case you are saying that as things stand, walking out of that embassy does indeed carry a risk of ending up in the United States. And quite frankly, any risk of that happening is not worth it. He's better off stuck in that embassy than in the hands of the Americans. That is the whole point.

[johnhemming2]

If I were him I would want the original document from Sweden rather than a report of it in the panel report as I would wish to be certain.

In which case you are saying that as things stand, walking out of that embassy does indeed carry a risk of ending up in the United States. And quite frankly, any risk of that happening is not worth it. He's better off stuck in that embassy than in the hands of the Americans. That is the whole point.

No. I am saying he should simply get an original copy of the document from Sweden ideally in a letter to him. That should be sufficient for him to leave.

It would in English law give him legal authority under estoppel to stop him being extradited as it is in the end an executive decision subject to judicial review. I don't know the Swedish law situation.

[UndercoverElephant]

If I were him I would want the original document from Sweden rather than a report of it in the panel report as I would wish to be certain.

In which case you are saying that as things stand, walking out of that embassy does indeed carry a risk of ending up in the United States. And quite frankly, any risk of that happening is not worth it. He's better off stuck in that embassy than in the hands of the Americans. That is the whole point.

No. I am saying he should simply get an original copy of the document from Sweden ideally in a letter to him. That should be sufficient for him to leave.

It would in English law give him legal authority under estoppel to stop him being extradited as it is in the end an executive decision subject to judicial review. I don't know the Swedish law situation.

Neither do I, but I am willing to bet that Julian Assange has some fairly good legal advice.

[Little John]

None of this has anything to do with the law and has everything to do with raw power and politics. But, the authorities are compelled, until and unless their wall of propaganda can turn public opinions sufficiently, to maintain some semblance of pretence it is about the law. No matter how ludicrously weak that pretence may be.

A pretence aided and abetted by the likes of disgusting little weasels like John Hemming, of course.

[johnhemming2]

None of this has anything to do with the law and has everything to do with raw power and politics. But, the authorities are compelled, until and unless their wall of propaganda can turn public opinions sufficiently, to maintain some semblance of pretence it is about the law. No matter how ludicrously weak that pretence may be.

A pretence aided and abetted by the likes of disgusting little weasels like John Hemming, of course.

If you don't have any rational arguments resorting to abuse does not aid the debate.

[biffvernon]

Meanwhile, following John Pilger, both Craig Murray and Jonathan Cook get it exactly right.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... afka-2016/

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016- ... t-assange/

To my astonishment, the FCO Official Spokesman has just confirmed to me that the FCO stands by Phillip Hammond’s statement that the members of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are lay persons, and not lawyers. Even though every single one of them is an extremely distinguished lawyer.

I confess I am utterly astonished. I know there is nothing more dull than an old buffer like me droning on about falling standards in public life. But when I was in the FCO, the vast majority of colleagues would have refused to advance what is a total and outright lie, about which it cannot be argued there is an area of interpretation, doubt or nuance.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office officially states that the members of the UN Working Group are all lay people, and not lawyers. Given a chance to retract, they confirm to me that this is their official position.