No he fracking wasn't.
Accusations were made in Sweden of a sexual assault nature. That is un acceptable anywhere.
Rather than respond to legal questioning he chose to run and hide.
How is squirming away in a foreign embassy just because it has no relationship with the country that would like to speak with you constitute "arbitrarily detained"?
Neither the Swedish authorities nor the British police "detained" you, you chose to hide behind a diplomatic immunity you had no right to!
You had the freedom to walk out the front door of that embassy any time you liked.. you were detained only by your own arrogance and if the UN feels you should be compensated for that you have only your own hubris to claim on.
Julian, you are a spineless coward, if you had nothing to hide you would not have taken this course of action .. man up and stop living the lie you have to this time!

http://gizmodo.com/un-panel-rules-th...-assange-has-been-arbit-1757272094

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter): Neither the Swedish authorities nor the British police "detained" you, you chose to hide behind a diplomatic immunity you had no right to!

That's just it - if he insists he did not commit sexual assault - he can prove it in a Swedish court.

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):

Stop sitting on the fence! lol.

Although I do agree with you, he definitely wasn't forced to stay in there.

Fred

Ecuador's President is such a brilliant man!

Ignoring Ecuador's poor press freedom and concentrating on Julian's instead!


No Tax On Rotax

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter): Rather than respond to legal questioning he chose to run and hide.

"Rather than turn himself over to Swedish authorities who would then immediately turn him over to U.S. authorities to be detained for the rest of his life..."

There, fixed that for you.

Assange and his lawyers have offered to answer any and all questions from Swedish authorities, if they would interview him while at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedes refused that. Why? These accusations of "rape," which comes down to Assange not wearing a condom, look weak and probably entirely spurious. This is what they contrived so they could establish extradition proceedings. By the way, never, ever has the EU gone to such effort to extradite a person under similar circumstances.

It is plainly obvious what is going on here.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1): That's just it - if he insists he did not commit sexual assault - he can prove it in a Swedish court.

Are you familiar with the presumption of innocence? = Presumed innocent until proven guilty.
There is no trial. Remember that he is still yet to be normally charged for any crime,

The remember that the first prosecutor, Eva Finné, closed the case which she motived
with that no crime had been committed. Marianne Ny then reopened the case and upped
the suspicion level* without presenting any other evidence then an unused condom.

The prosecutor claims that she will not decide whether or not to charge him until after she has questioned
him. She have also refused to travel to London to question him on the embassy claiming (wrongfully)
that it is not possible for a Swedish prosecutor to question a suspect outside Sweden.

So for several years the prosecutor have been sitting on her fat a** doing nothing despite that is
her duty and responsibility to act progress the case forward (accordingly to:
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)** which means either
charge/prosecute the suspect or close the case. Assange doesn't have to do anything.
ALL responsibility belongs to the prosecutor.

*this was required to be able to issue an EAW which requires the higher of the two suspicion levels.

Quoting **Article 5 - Right to liberty and security: 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial

There are also allot of other "coincidental" matters such as that the police officer (Irmeli Krantz)
questioning the women *happened* to be a friend of one the women (Anna Ardin IIRC).
The women were questioned together rather the separate and of course the recorder
used during questioning *happened* to be broken. So nobody knows exactly what the
women said to the police in that first interview and how many "blanks" the police officer
"!helped them to fill in".

The lawyer initially representing both of the women (now only representing Anna) is Claes Borgström.
a lawyer who got another of his clients convicted for 8 murders that he never committed.

[Edited 2016-02-05 09:28:40]

Cue the tinfoil hats, we're headed down the rabbit hole!  

Edit: As always, when dealing with Assange's ongoing to battle to evade the law, it's worth reminding ourselves of what's fact and fiction in all of this: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...thology-extradition-julian-assange

[Edited 2016-02-05 09:43:55]

In other cases, Great Britain and Sweden accepted rulings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as legally binding...

*duck & cover*


David

Quoting scbriml (Reply 9): Are there any formal charges laid against Assange in the US? Is there an outstanding extradition request from the US?

That's willful blindness on your part. It is patently obvious the U.S. wants their clutches on Assange. The charges are very iffy at best.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 9): That simply isn't how the World works.    If Assange was wanted in the US, are you suggesting for one minute that the US authorities would agree to interview him in a 3rd-party embassy in a different country? Yeah, right.

The world where the U.S. is an authoritarian state, and if you release information they deem as "classified" even though there are no standards or review boards to even define what that means, in the most Orwellian way?

That's the way the world needs NOT work. And I, for one, applaud whistle-blowers like Manning, Snowden and Assange. Our government is supposed to work on behalf of its citizens, and is not for maintaining the power of the shadowy, powerful few.

It's sad when I hear such authoritarian doublespeak.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11): Presumably, you think he should be allowed to choose where he answers these allegations. Then if the discussion does not go his way, then decides, well actually I would rather not answer these charges at all.

After seeing how Manning was treated, I see every reason for him to go with this option. Furthermore, this is an inquiry at this point, not an arrest. What is the problem with the prosecutor interviewing him at the Embassy?

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11): f issued in 2010, it is fairly likely he would be in the US by now.

How so? Would the U.S. have stormed the embassy? Don't you think if the U.S. had issued an arrest warrant he wouldn't have fled to a friendly country's embassy?

Why can't /doesn't Equador issue him some diplomatic status which gives him Diplomatic Immunity? Is it possible when he is already inside the country, or would that have to been issued and agreed upon with e UK prior to his arrival? Anyone familiar with this that can shed some light?

P.S. On a technical note, how can he be "Arbitrarily Detained" if he is not "detained" neither de facto or de jure?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 9): Are there any formal charges laid against Assange in the US? Is there an outstanding extradition request from the US?

So, there is absolutely no reason why Sweden couldn't guarantee that Sweden will not formally accept any extradition request while he stays in country for those proceedings.
Name a single case in which countries have spend several mullions to get their hands on a rapist, let a lone in such a week case.
That panel was made for such decisions, they ruled. He is illegally detained. Period.
The UK and Sweden just joint ranks with North Korea and below Iran. Both countries can never ever use international law to argue anything at all.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11): If things are as he claims, why has the US not requested his extradition at any point.

In this day and age, would such a decision even have to be on public record? I don't see much news coverage of the trial and conviction phases before someone gets taken out by a hellfire missile either ...

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1): he can prove it in a Swedish court.

He has to get there first and, based on his previous history of breaking his bail, I doubt if he will voluntary stand in a court room.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 4): The Swedes refused that. Why?

Because they aren't stupid.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 4): These accusations of "rape," which comes down to Assange not wearing a condom, look weak and probably entirely spurious.

Really? With his ego? He knew he was required to but obviously considered himself above the law that was designed to protect women.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 4): It is plainly obvious what is going on here.

Really? Looks like he's trying to avoid the normal course of a criminal complaint and investigation.

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 5): Are you familiar with the presumption of innocence?

Yep. And I've seen people investigation and cleared, just as I have seen people investigated and ended up in a court room to face a jury. Personally I don't care if that bum sends 10 or 20 years in that embassy before he leaves and is arrested.

And I assume you are familiar with the legal issue of someone violating his bail conditions that wealthy celebrities put up for him. Those folks who trusted him are SOL in terms of getting their money back. Like the gal he raped they discovered the guy isn't to be trusted.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 13): Why can't /doesn't Equador issue him some diplomatic status which gives him Diplomatic Immunity?

Because they know that the UK would violate his diplomatic immunity.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 14): So, there is absolutely no reason why Sweden couldn't guarantee that Sweden will not formally accept any extradition request while he stays in country for those proceedings.

Except that per Swedish law, any extradiction request would have to be decided on the merits by a Swedish court, not by the Swedish government. The Swedish government is quite simply unable to give such a guarantee, and were they somehow to give one, it would have absolutely zero influence on any potential decision to permit an extradiction.

If Assange was so concerned about Sweden extraditing him, why did he choose to to relocate WikiLeaks there in the first place, hailing their press freedom and liberal whistleblower laws? Why did he even go there of his own free will in 2010?

Besides, since when has a wanted fugitive been permitted to dictate how his case is handled?

Quoting tu204 (Reply 13): Why can't /doesn't Equador issue him some diplomatic status which gives him Diplomatic Immunity? Is it possible when he is already inside the country, or would that have to been issued and agreed upon with e UK prior to his arrival? Anyone familiar with this that can shed some light?

There are a lot of strings of attached with diplomatic immunity, along with different levels of immunity. It is not as simple as Ecuador saying he is a diplomat then he can do whatever he wants. For most diplomatic immunity only protects you if you were performing official business at the time of the incident.

That is assuming Ecuador cares. I suspect they don't, but rather they took him in just for the publicity not expecting this would turn into a 4+ year saga.

[Edited 2016-02-05 14:10:22]

Quoting scbriml (Reply 9):

The US seems to have worked towards an extralegal rendition from Sweden.
( with the Swedes holding their feet still )

arrest for rendition were handed out to Sweden.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...bi-norway-extradite-julian-assange
Same thing for a range of other (European and elsewhere) nations.

( and the rape charges look extremely "manufactured" to begin with.)

With all the busybody extralegeal stuff done US they don't have a legal foot to stand on anymore.
Rouge nation.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 20):

You realize that the US has charged Snowden with a crime (espionage)? The US has not charged Assange with anything.

But that doesn't fit your narrative so continue on.

Quoting polot (Reply 21): You realize that the US has charged Snowden with a crime (espionage)? The US has not charged Assange with anything.

And even then, what could the US realistically charge Assange with? Unless they can prove that he coerced Manning to do the deed, which the latters story makess pretty clear wasn't the case, there isn't really much they can charge him with.

And added to that is the fact that the extradiction treaty between the US and Sweden doesn't allow for extradiction on charges of espionage.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 13): Why can't /doesn't Equador issue him some diplomatic status which gives him Diplomatic Immunity? Is it possible when he is already inside the country, or would that have to been issued and agreed upon with e UK prior to his arrival? Anyone familiar with this that can shed some light?

Quoting polot (Reply 19): There are a lot of strings of attached with diplomatic immunity, along with different levels of immunity. It is not as simple as Ecuador saying he is a diplomat then he can do whatever he wants. For most diplomatic immunity only protects you if you were performing official business at the time of the incident.

To answer this question...

You get diplomatic immunity only if you are actually accredited by the guest country (i.e. Great Britain). So Ecuador is free to give Assange diplomatic status, but the UK Foreign Ministry must agree with that. As a diplomat, however, one is granted immunity even when the acts are *not* related to any official duties. A consul, however, can be tried, punished, his residence searched...

There would also be the possibility of declaring Assange a diplomatic courier. In theory, this can be anybody who happens to hang around near an embassy or the foreign ministry. Any diplomatic courier must carry a letter designating him as such a courier, and it must list the items he's carrying. A diplomatic courier cannot be held up under any circumstances, and he loses the status as soon as he has delivered the items.


David

[Edited 2016-02-05 15:59:09]

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 22): And added to that is the fact that the extradition treaty between the US and Sweden doesn't allow for extradition on charges of espionage.

So why was a US government bizjet in Copenhagen ready for Snowden ?

Assange chose to hide in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Assange chooses to remain in there; he can leave at any time.

Assange chose to do what he did with WikiLeaks; so being worried about being extradited from Sweden (if he ends up there) to the US is his own doing.

Seriously, this guy needs to make better choices and be responsible for his actions instead of making himself look like some poor victim.

I applaud him for releasing the stuff he did, but did he think there wouldn't be any consequences?

He only has himself to blame for his current situation.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 4): By the way, never, ever has the EU gone to such effort to extradite a person under similar circumstances.

Please keep the EU out of this issue. You may tell whatever you want about Ecuador, Britain and Sweden, and maybe even the USA, should they one day tell that they want to talk to him.

But the EU is as unrelated as the little green men on Mars.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 26): Assange chose to hide in the Ecuadorian Embassy.Assange chooses to remain in there; he can leave at any time.Assange chose to do what he did with WikiLeaks; so being worried about being extradited from Sweden (if he ends up there) to the US is his own doing.Seriously, this guy needs to make better choices and be responsible for his actions instead of making himself look like some poor victim.I applaud him for releasing the stuff he did, but did he think there wouldn't be any consequences?He only has himself to blame for his current situation.

  


I agree, by his own hand. A victim of himself and his actions, nobody else's.

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 18):

My understanding is that the Court may decide on whether a particular application complies with the law of extradition. The Court decides whether the Government may extradite. It does not determine that it must . The final decision on whether to extradite an individual rests with the the Government.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):

Surely it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt? I don't know whether Assange is guilty of rape or not (although it is clear that others believe he is). Either way, it is almost impossible to prove innocence when the evidence comes down to one persons word against anothers.

He is guilty of a breach of his bail conditions (and the trust if those who put up sureties) but that is not a Swedish concern but a British one.

[Edited 2016-02-05 17:44:05]

If anybody was still wondering why so many people in the US have negative feelings about the UN and consider it a joke of a pointless debate club, rulings like this is why.

A lot of posters here are ignoring 5 simple facts, which are:

1) There is no charge against Assange in Sweden. Swedish law enforcement just wants to question him as part of a preliminary inquiry.

2) The US espionage case against Assange is not something he dreamt up from paranoia - it is a fact. It exists and has been repeatedly confirmed by US Justice Department and the FBI.

3) The accusation of alleged rape by Assange was disproven by the Swedish prosecutors in 2010. But the case was reopened on the insistence of Claes Borgström, a Swedish politician and lawyer.

4) The Swedish Court of Appeal (confirmed by Sweden’s Supreme Court) found in 2014 that the prosecutor had breached her duty in the Assange case, by refusing to accept Assange’s statement in the UK for 5 years.

5) Assange left Sweden after being denied a residence and work permit, not because he was fleeing an imminent arrest. He departed five weeks after the initial accusations were brought before the Swedish police, during which time the prosecutor declined to question him on a number of occasions.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 32):

He has to take care of numbers 1 and 2 if he wants his freedom back, no?

Thanks for the answers regarding diplomatic immunity, I was aware that there are different levels.
Regarding diplomatic courier, could Assange gust be given diplomatic mail to deliver to a country that is safe for him?

Another question is why does the Swedish Prosecutor refuse to question him in the UK? Out of principle?

Quoting polot (Reply 21):

Nobody affected by US extralegal renditions has been charged with "nothing".
They've just been held incommunicado, waterboarded and tortured to your peers liking.

The United States of America, self acclaimed leading democracy and ruled by law
applicable to everybody equaly does not exist any longer in a meaningful way.
( if it ever has been more than a mirage anyway )

Quoting tu204 (Reply 34): Another question is why does the Swedish Prosecutor refuse to question him in the UK? Out of principle?

I'm guessing because they know he will be able to answer the allegations he faces and clear his name and therefore the Swedish won't be able to kiss and suck up to the a$$ of the USA by extraditing him there, no?

The Swedish seem to have an interest in prolonging this.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25): So why was a US government bizjet in Copenhagen ready for Snowden ?

Apart from Copenhagen being the capital of Denmark, not Sweden; as far as I know, Snowden hasn't been charged with espionage.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 32): 1) There is no charge against Assange in Sweden. Swedish law enforcement just wants to question him as part of a preliminary inquiry.

He was questioned as part of the preliminary inquiry August 31st, 2010. What he is wanted for now, is the interrogation, which is the final step before official charges can be laid against him. Because this will almost certainly result in him having to go before a Swedish court, his presence in Sweden is therefore required.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 32): 5) Assange left Sweden after being denied a residence and work permit, not because he was fleeing an imminent arrest. He departed five weeks after the initial accusations were brought before the Swedish police, during which time the prosecutor declined to question him on a number of occasions.

His lawyer was informed on September 22nd, 2010, that the prosecutor was now ready for the interrogation step of the proceedings. 5 days later, Assange left for London. That's one hell of a coincidence.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 23): No, they would simply refuse to recognise his diplomatic status. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why hasn't Ecuador already taken that course of action?

Because the UK would violate his diplomatic immunity, like I already said. It is within the power of a nation state to make anyone an ad hoc diplomatic curier, it doesn't require the host state to agree. And it is damn clear that the UK would give a sh*t about international law.
To catch someone wanted for questioning. ..... yeah, right.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 38): And it is damn clear that the UK would give a sh*t about international law.

How so? This man fled to an embassy, which at the time welcomed him as the said nation's leader (known for cracking down on free speech at home) wanted to make some kind of political point.
I doubt they expected him to still be there years later.

He fled to avoid questions from that hugely undemocratic nation of Sweden. No rule of law there of course!
Really? What is Mr Assange so worried about, why is he so worried about answering questions about a series of quite serious charges. Which he can answer maybe even disprove?

Suggestion, don't meet your heroes. Mr Assange used to have a lot of people backing him, then they had to meet and deal with this character.
Even the UK paper which printed redacted elements of Wikileaks thinks he is taking the piss and plain avoiding facing questions. Though they also clashed with Assange wanting to leak everything, even if it meant putting lives in danger, including of those penetrating terrorist networks, in fact he rather thought they had it coming to them.
They refused to do that, as did the other papers, so Assange fell out with them, as he had just about with everyone he has ever done business with.

[Edited 2016-02-06 04:34:20]

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 38): Because the UK would violate his diplomatic immunity

An immunity he does not hold as its not legally recognised outside of Latin America. The UK would violate nothing, as just like the majority of the planet (including Germany), they don't recognise it. Nice spin though to bash the UK.

'He is protected due to the inviolability of the Ecuadorian embassy, not because of his diplomatic asylum. Inviolability of the premises is granted by Article 22 of the VCDR'

http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/freque...-questions-about-diplomatic-asylum

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 40): The UK would violate nothing,

Quote: 5.The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. 6.The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply, except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

"The Mission" can assign an ad hoc curier and he is just as untouchable as any other diplomatic curier.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 41): "The Mission" can assign an ad hoc curier and he is just as untouchable as any other diplomatic curier.

In the case of Assange, it would be correctly viewed internationally as facilitating the departure of a fugitive with outstanding warrants. Unless they are still debating this course of action (unlikely) after this length of time it appears clear the Ecuadorians want no part in this, haven't made him a diplomatic courier and if he stepped out of the embassy today would be correctly arrested for skipping his agreed bail conditions and no violation of immunity would exist.

If the UK had gone ahead with the ridiculous idea of entering the embassy and forcibly arresting him, then you would have been correct. But they didn't.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 42): In the case of Assange, it would be correctly viewed internationally as facilitating the departure of a fugitive with outstanding warrants.

Please quote where such exception is written into the Vienna Convention.
The hole point of diplomatic immunity is that the host nation doesn't get to decide who has it and who doesn't.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting scbriml (Reply 44): f it was that simple, why is he still inside the embassy after three and a half years?

Breaching an embassy is a whole different ball game, than not accepting diplomatic immunity of one curier. The UK probably doesn't want it's embassies violated, but I would be surprised if they used many as hoc curiers...

Quoting scbriml (Reply 44): Except he doesn't have diplomatic immunity and Ecuador have shown no interest in trying to give it to him. Maybe they know something you don't?

They know just as well as me that all they would get is a violation of their diplomatic personell if they tried.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting scbriml (Reply 27): Quoting Aesma (Reply 25): So why was a US government bizjet in Copenhagen ready for Snowden ? You know this, how?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...rnment-jet-wait-copenhagen-denmark

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 37): Apart from Copenhagen being the capital of Denmark, not Sweden; as far as I know, Snowden hasn't been charged with espionage.

So Denmark was ready to hand him over while there was no charge ? That's better I guess.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 31): If anybody was still wondering why so many people in the US have negative feelings about the UN and consider it a joke of a pointless debate club, rulings like this is why.

And Guantanamo is the reason everybody consider the US a joke when it talks about freedom.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 43): Please quote where such exception is written into the Vienna Convention.

Huh? Page 2 of the Vienna Convention, Fourth paragraph:

Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to
ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

Granting Assange, a non-Ecuardorian citizen, temporary immunity to evade lawful arrest would appear to be against the documents founding principles. Unless of course, you can show such a course benefits both Assange and Ecuador.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 38): Because the UK would violate his diplomatic immunity

Please provide any evidence to support this statement. Other than your opinion, of course.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 46): So Denmark was ready to hand him over while there was no charge ? That's better I guess.

 

I guess you misunderstood me, because AFAIK Snowden has been charged with theft of government property amongst other things. But he hasn't been charged with espionage.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 14): That panel was made for such decisions, they ruled. He is illegally detained. Period.

He can leave there any time. He'd just justify himself in a Swedish court of law.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 17): Why can't /doesn't Equador issue him some diplomatic status which gives him Diplomatic Immunity? Because they know that the UK would violate his diplomatic immunity.

He wouldn't have diplomatic status unless the UK would recognise it through acceditation.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 26): I applaud him for releasing the stuff he did, but did he think there wouldn't be any consequences?

While I support that information was published, which certain people would rather hold confidential, but for me the line was crossed when he published the names of locals cooperating with US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of anonymised versions, stating that they deserve whatever was coming to them for working with the US.

Jan