The UN working group (a tiny group of people, hardly "the UN") ruling in this case is worthless because it considers the *entire* length of time, from initial arrest when the EAW is issued to the current moment where Assange is within the embassy, as "arbitrary detention", and in so doing it directly casts massive negative aspersions on every level of the British court system, which is nothing short of an insult to the UK.
It is the UN working group in charge of those questions, so as far as the UN goes, that is the word of god.
The same people that have had Libya, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia on the UN Human Rights Council...
Yeah, thats definitely a "word of god" with some credibility there...
Assange was fleeing a valid arrest warrant, he is an illegal fugitive and should still answer for that. The only thing forcing him into the embassy was his own desire to not be extradited - that doesnt make it a valid action.
On the face of it that is correct, but of cause we both know that is nonsense. Not because the charge is nonsense, it may or may not, but because of the amount of money the UK is spending on arresting someone for *questioning*.
Actually, its being spent to fulfil a *valid* European Arrest Warrant. Assange had multiple appeals over multiple years to try and make the arrest warrant invalid, and he couldn't.
Its valid, the UK is obliged to arrest him. The reasoning is all there in Assange case public court rulings, if you so inclined to actually read the legal rulings:http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... dgment.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf
And since the UK government is on record saying that they would arrest him, even if the arrest is a violation of international law, due process of law is obviously not in the books for Asssange.
Wanna come up with a citation of that? Oh, and before you point to the working group on arbitrary detention, their findings aren't law, they aren't even legally binding on the UN.
Other governments get removed by force for that kind of stunt. If a legal body is on record saying that law plays no role in an arrest, the arrest warrant simply can´t be legal. Maybe in the UK, but North Korea also has arrest warrants and i am kinda sure we don´t believe those to be legal either.
He is arbitrarily detained.
Ahh, the whole circular argument - yeah, we already covered this elsewhere. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is not a legally binding body, the UK is not obliged to accede to its findings, it has no basis in UK law.
I'm not exactly sure who you think the UN is, but they don't pass laws - they get countries together and get them to pass cooperative treaties and agreements. There is no such agreement which makes the aforementioned working group a law making one by which member states are bound to. None at all.
So your argument there falls flat on its face - the working group can release all the findings it wants, its no more binding on the UK or any other country than a Greenpeace press release is.