Assange Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

The fact that most of the American and British media are continuing to victimise Assange and failing utterly to report the story in a fair manner is not evidence of their being right, either factually or morally. On the contrary, it is evidence of the level of impartiality and government control over those media outlets.

It is evidence of the widespread view that he should go to Sweden.

You are ignoring everything I posted, John. You are ignoring the Newsweek article, the UN panel and my arguments. You are nothing but a mouthpiece for the very same establishment that the UN has ruled against, and thus your opinion is worth absolutely nothing whatsover.

The fact that there is a "widespread view" in the UK, the US and Sweden that Assange should go to Sweden (and end up in the US) is not relevant. There is probably a "widespread view" in the establishment, government and media of most countries that this panel rules against that the panel is wrong. If dissidents and whistleblowers didn't require assistance from bodies like the UN panel on human rights, then those bodies wouldn't exist.

[UndercoverElephant]

John Hemming

The situation could not be clearer: the UN panel on human rights - the panel which rules on cases of dissidents and whisteblowers being illegally detained - has ruled in Assange's favour, against the governments of the UK and Sweden. You are simply parroting the government line on this, and thus the UN has effectively ruled against you too. The very people who are the de facto highest authority in the world to make a judgement on this say that you are wrong.

It does not matter how many times you say "Assange should go to Sweden", it willl still be wrong. The reason the UN panel ruled in his favour is because they agreed with the claim that if he goes to Sweden then he is very likely to end up facing an unfair legal process in the United States. You can deny this until you are blue in the face, John. YOUR OPINION does not matter. MY OPINION does not matter. What does matter is the opinion of the legal experts who, by agreement of international treaties on human rights that the UK and Sweden have signed. And those legal experts say that Assange is right and you, the British and Swedish governments are wrong. Repeating claims that have been ruled as wrong does not make them any less wrong.

Assange has no choice but to remain where he is and the governments of Sweden and UK should allow him to travel to Ecuador. And if you don't agree, then you are wrong. It is up to the UN panel to decide what SHOULD happen, not the government of the UK and certainly not you.

[johnhemming2]

It is up to the UN panel to decide what SHOULD happen, not the government of the UK and certainly not you.

Why is it up to the UN panel?

What is the basis in UK law that makes its opinions have any legal authority?

[UndercoverElephant]

It is up to the UN panel to decide what SHOULD happen, not the government of the UK and certainly not you.

Why is it up to the UN panel?

What an absurd question. The whole point in their existence is to rule in cases like this. Cases where whistleblowers and dissidents are being denied justice by the governments they have whistleblown on or criticised.

What is the basis in UK law that makes its opinions have any legal authority?

That is an irrelevant question. Let's imagine the dissident, instead of having whistleblown on the UK/US and being "arbitrarily held" in London, had whistleblown on the Russians and was being arbitrarily held in Moscow, or on Zimbabwe and being held in Harare. Now imagine that Putin, Mugabe or the Russian/Zimbabwean media responds to the ruling of the UN Panel by saying "Where in Russian/Zimbabwean law does it say that the UN Panel on human rights has any legal authority?"

It's irrelevant. Either you recognise the authority of the UN to rule in such matters, or you don't. And if you don't recognise it when they rule against you then you have no right to ask the Russians, Zimbabweans or anybody else to take any notice of them. If you are going to be consistent, then you're clearly implying that this UN panel should not exist, and its rulings are of no consequence.

In other words, by refusing to accept this ruling, the governments of the UK and Sweden (and you) are setting a precedent whereby whistleblowers and dissidents have no protection at all - you are advocating a world where anybody who exposes serious war crimes can be arbitrarily detained by the country involved and its allies, regardless of international treaties, laws or the authority of the UN.

I don't want to live in such a world. Do you?

[johnhemming2]

What an absurd question.

It is a key question. The way the UK constitution works is that the UK courts follow certain legal procedures. At times international conventions mean that the UK courts follow the decisions of international bodies (the ECJ the ECtHR that sort of thing).

Without the legal process in place it might as well be a committee in a pub for all the legal force it has.

[UndercoverElephant]

What an absurd question.

It is a key question. The way the UK constitution works is that the UK courts follow certain legal procedures. At times international conventions mean that the UK courts follow the decisions of international bodies (the ECJ the ECtHR that sort of thing).

Without the legal process in place it might as well be a committee in a pub for all the legal force it has.

You are ignoring my argument, John. I will therefore repeat it, and see if you ignore it again:

Let's imagine the dissident, instead of having whistleblown on the UK/US and being "arbitrarily held" in London, had whistleblown on the Russians and was being arbitrarily held in Moscow, or on Zimbabwe and being held in Harare. Now imagine that Putin, Mugabe or the Russian/Zimbabwean media responds to the ruling of the UN Panel by saying "Where in Russian/Zimbabwean law does it say that the UN Panel on human rights has any legal authority? This ruling matters to us about as much as somebody saying something in the pub."

Either you recognise the authority of the UN to rule in such matters, or you don't. And if you don't recognise it when they rule against you then you have no right to ask the Russians, Zimbabweans or anybody else to take any notice of them. If you are going to be consistent, then you're clearly implying that this UN panel should not exist, and its rulings are of no consequence.

In other words, by refusing to accept this ruling, the governments of the UK and Sweden (and you) are setting a precedent whereby whistleblowers and dissidents have no protection at all - you are advocating a world where anybody who exposes serious war crimes can be arbitrarily detained by the country involved and its allies, regardless of international treaties, laws or the authority of the UN.

I don't want to live in such a world. Do you?

The key question is not about whether or not you can argue that the ruling is legally binding. The key question is whether or not the governments of the UK and Sweden should abide by it, and what might be the consequences of ignoring it.

[johnhemming2]

I don't want to live in such a world. Do you?[/b]

I don't want a world in which people are arbitrarily detained. The law of Habeas Corpus (1679) is key in respect of that in the UK.

However, we also should aim to have a world governed by the rule of law more generally. That means there has to be legal authority for any courts and their jurisdiction needs to be defined.

I have asked you where the legal authority is in terms of UK law and you believe that is an irrelevant question.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't want to live in such a world. Do you?[/b]

I don't want a world in which people are arbitrarily detained. The law of Habeas Corpus (1679) is key in respect of that in the UK.

However, we also should aim to have a world governed by the rule of law more generally. That means there has to be legal authority for any courts and their jurisdiction needs to be defined.

I have asked you where the legal authority is in terms of UK law and you believe that is an irrelevant question.

It is indeed an irrelevant question.

I am not arguing whether or not the UK and Swedish governments are legally required to accept this ruling, because I am not a legal expert (and neither are you, for that matter). What you or I think about this legal technicality really is as relevant as something somebody says in a pub.

What I am doing is exploring the consequences of ignoring it (which is what the Newsweek article I posted does). I am pointing out that if you choose to ignore the ruling of this UN panel when its your war crimes that have been exposed, then you cannot expect any other countries to do anything other than ignore similar rulings when their war crimes are exposed. And the logical consequence of that decision is that whistleblowers have no protection from those countries whose crimes they expose.

If you do not want to live in a world where people are arbitrarily detained, then you should accept the ruling of the UN panel whose job it is to rule on whether or not people are being arbitrarily detained. You cannot just arbitrarily ignore their rulings when you don't like them.

[johnhemming2]

There is an important point about the rule of law. That is that we need to follow it. You cannot arbitrarily pick on a committee and say that we should follow the decisions of that committee because you like what it says.

Hence the important legal point is what impact the decision of this committee has in terms of UK law.

[UndercoverElephant]

What your argument boils down to is this:

"The UN panel does not understand the situation. Julian Assange is not being arbitrarily detained."

That is no different to Putin, Mugabe or any despot you can think of from saying exactly the same thing. The bottom line is that Assange exposed serious American war crimes and the UN panel has ruled that he is being arbitrarily detained because of this. The opinion of John Hemming, ex Liberal Democrat member of the UK Parliament, is as relevant as the opinion of Geoff Dann, leading expert on edible wild European fungi (i.e. not).

The whole point in having a UN panel to make these rulings is that the people the judgements involve are being denied justice by the people they've exposed and their allies. And "their allies" includes you.

[UndercoverElephant]

There is an important point about the rule of law. That is that we need to follow it. You cannot arbitrarily pick on a committee and say that we should follow the decisions of that committee because you like what it says.

You're right. I can't. And I am NOT. I am quite happy to accept the ruling of this commitee whether or not I agree with it, because I believe it is essential to protect whistleblowers from the people whose crimes they expose, and if you are going to do that then you have to do it consistently. You can't apply a double standard when it is your mates whose war crimes have been exposed.

It is you, not me, who is arbitrarily ignoring it. Unless, that is, you are saying you would consistently ignore it.

Hence the important legal point is what impact the decision of this committee has in terms of UK law.

You are still ignoring the actual argument I am making. It is the UK (at the behest of its ally, the United States) which has been ruled against. If the UK is free to ignore such rulings based on UK law, then any other country can ignore it based on their own laws. Which countries do you think are likely to be merciful to people who have exposed their war crimes?

The problem here is very simple, John. When we talk about "war crimes", and "human rights" then it is supposed to be other countries who commit war crimes and are guilty of human rights abuses. But in this case, the UN panel that rules on such matters has ruled that it is the UK/Sweden/US who are guilty of war crimes and arbitrary detention, and the response has been to dismiss the ruling as "ridiculous".

[johnhemming2]

If the country is to accept the legal force of decisions by the panel then it has to pass a law of some form in order for that to happen.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is that sort of law which gives force to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

The Panel requires something equivalent to have legal force. What is it?

[UndercoverElephant]

If the country is to accept the legal force of decisions by the panel then it has to pass a law of some form in order for that to happen.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is that sort of law which gives force to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

The Panel requires something equivalent to have legal force. What is it?

Are you being intentionally stupid, John?

Why are you still talking about "legal force"? I have repeatedly told you that I am not arguing with you about whether or not the decision of the UN panel has "the equivalent of legal force" in the UK. I have repeatedly explained why that question is irrelevant. In response, all you can do is repeat the irrelevant question, without addressing the reasons I've provided as to why it is irrelevant.

Do you think that I, or anybody else likely to be reading this, is sufficiently dense as to be unable to understand that you are avoiding addressing my actual argument?

I REPEAT:

Either you accept the decisions of the UN panel on human rights, or you do not. And if you do not accept them when they rule against you then you have no right to expect anybody else to accept them either, ever. They might as well not exist. And that means that people who expose serious war crimes have no protection from the people whose war crimes they expose.

Now, what part of that are you having trouble understanding, John?

Clue: "the UN panel's ruling does not have legal force in the UK" is not the right answer. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know, I don't care, and it is irrelevant to my argument, which you are studiously ignoring. At no point in this discussion have I ever said "The UK government is legally obliged to accept the UN ruling." I am not a lawyer and neither are you.

[johnhemming2]

I am not arguing with you about whether or not the decision of the UN panel has "the equivalent of legal force" in the UK. I have repeatedly explained why that question is irrelevant. In response, all you can do is repeat the irrelevant question, without addressing the reasons I've provided as to why it is irrelevant.

This is where your failure to understand the basic principles of the rule of law is obvious.

There is an argument as to whether UK law should incorporate international systems of assessment of cases. I agree with having the 1998 Human Rights act covering ECHR and ECtHR. There is a role for such things.

However, the key question for Julian Assange is what the force of law is. If it is not incorporated into UK law then he cannot rely on it. If in the future it is incorporated into UK law then it can be relied in - from that point, not retrospectively.

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not arguing with you about whether or not the decision of the UN panel has "the equivalent of legal force" in the UK. I have repeatedly explained why that question is irrelevant. In response, all you can do is repeat the irrelevant question, without addressing the reasons I've provided as to why it is irrelevant.

This is where your failure to understand the basic principles of the rule of law is obvious.

Jesus wept. How many times do I have to post my position before you actually respond to what I'm saying instead of making a point that is irrelevant?

There is an argument as to whether UK law should incorporate international systems of assessment of cases. I agree with having the 1998 Human Rights act covering ECHR and ECtHR. There is a role for such things.

However, the key question for Julian Assange is what the force of law is. If it is not incorporated into UK law then he cannot rely on it. If in the future it is incorporated into UK law then it can be relied in - from that point, not retrospectively.

No John, you are still just ignoring what I'm posting:

I REPEAT, AGAIN:

Either you accept the decisions of the UN panel on human rights, or you do not. And if you do not accept them when they rule against you then you have no right to expect anybody else to accept them either, ever. They might as well not exist. And that means that people who expose serious war crimes have no protection from the people whose war crimes they expose.

Now, what part of that are you having trouble understanding, John?

All you can do in response to these questions, and this argument, is state, over and over again, that the the UK government is not legally compelled to allow Assange to travel to Ecuador. I am not disputing this, because I am not a legal expert. So why do you feel the need to keep pointing it out? Answer: because you have no decent response to offer to the point I am actually making.

Politicians are very good at dodging the issues they are being asked about. However, while you might get away with this sort of bullshit on TV, you will not get away with it here.