
Julian Assange decision by UN panel ridiculous, says Hammond - nns
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35504237
======
pdabbadabba
I'd appreciate it if someone could make an earnest answer to explain to me how
on Earth one could agree with the U.N. panel.

As I understand it:

Assange has been charged in Sweden with rape, on the basis of an alleged
victim's complaint. This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a
criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant. I know that some
question the veracity of the complaint against him, but that does not change
the fact that Sweden has clearly followed its own law in pursuing the
complaint, including the arrest warrant. (Remember, there's a different
standard for arresting someone than convicting them!)

On the basis of this arrest warrant, he is now subject to arrest in the U.K.
for extradition. Again, this is totally normal.

True, there may be questions about whether the Swedish prosecutor could
have/should have come to the U.K. to question Assange. But the fact of the
matter, legally speaking, is that he is subject to legal arrest in Sweden and,
therefore, legally subject to arrest in the U.K. regardless of how the
prosecutor chooses to pursue the case. The Swedish prosecutor clearly does not
legally _have_ to come to the U.K. to interview him. That's presumably the
whole reason that, under Swedish law (and also, more or less, under U.S. law),
one can be arrested for questioning. So that a defendant cannot run out the
clock on his or her prosecution by dodging the prosecutor.

It is often said that he is doing all this to avoid extradition to the U.S.
But: a. This is totally speculative, and not a legal basis for avoiding a duly
issued arrest warrant in Sweden. a. That didn't stop him from hanging out in
Sweden before his rape charge. b. If he is extradited to the U.S., that too
will presumably be in the course of a legal process. There _is_ , after all, a
good argument that he committed a U.S. crime.

Again, one may question the merits of the prosecution in Sweden, or the
hypothetical charge in the U.S., but that doesn't make what has happened so
far "arbitrary."

~~~
wbhart
The answer is actually quite simple. Julian Assange has not been charged with
rape in Sweden.

He has never been charged with a crime anywhere, yet he was put in solitary
confinement, then held under house arrest for a very long time, then he asked
for and was granted asylum by Ecuador because of a grand jury investigation
against him in the US (and reports of a sealed indictment).

Asylum is an international law which is binding on all parties. Moreover the
UK has consistently denied Assange's right to leave the embassy without arrest
for medical treatment, and the conditions inside the embassy are not fit for
detainment.

Assange is forced to either give up his asylum or his human rights, both of
which are inalienable. The UN could not possibly have reached any other
conclusion in the matter. International law is binding.

One might also consider three additional facts. Firstly, one of the
complainants in Sweden said she had not been raped by Assange and that the
police railroaded her. The other has said that she did not want to accuse
Assange of anything. Note also that various women's groups have sided with
Assange. Knowing the facts on record, they do not believe he committed a
crime. Secondly, the case against Assange was closed and he was allowed to
leave Sweden. It was reopened later, it is alleged, by a different prosecutor
after political interference. Finally, under current UK law, Assange would not
be extradited to Sweden because the prosecutor is not judicially independent
in Sweden and no charges have been laid. In other words, he would not be
subject to arrest and extradition under current law.

I doubt that those three facts played any part in the UN decision which was
about his arbitrary detainment and various other violations of international
law by the UK and Sweden, not about the case in Sweden itself.

~~~
dogma1138
Your statement if factually incorrect it contradicts everything that was
actually brought up before the UK courts including the UK supreme court.

Assange was placed under curfew he had to surrender his passport while
awaiting a decision on extradition to Sweden, that process could also have
resulted in Sweden deposing him in a UK court.

He however decided to "flee" to a country which would not mind giving the
"west" a political middle finger violating his curfew order under UK law
(which is why the British government said they will arrest him, it has nothing
to do with his alleged offenses in Sweden).

Like it or not Assange exploited his status to get treatment that no regular
individual under the sun could get, normal people can't hide in embassies,
they can't get the attention of the global media, and they sure most likely
will not get a UN panel hearing (which is a Joke since UN working groups are
based on the UN regional groups which mean that you'll have bastions of Human
Rights from countries like Senegal, Algeria, Georgia, Iran, Pakistan, Benin
etc serving on the panel for "Arbitrary Detention").

UN Panels have for quite some time became a mockery and a kangaroo court as
the majority of UN members are as far from being democratic and hold actual
human rights value as pretty much possible.

Assange could at any point leave the embassy face the charges as far as UK law
goes (violation of his court ordered curfew), face the charges as far as
Sweden goes and be on his marry way either to prison or freedom.

There was never actual risk of him being extradited to the US it would never
work, and the US could've grabbed him at any time when he was roaming the UK
or when he goes back to Australia, for the most part with the exception of the
current situation he never really attempted to hide in non-extradition
countries and considering that both the UK and Australia are part of the
5-eye's a "less than transparent" extradition or rendition from those
countries would've been considerably easier than from Sweden and the US had
every chance to try that before which they never have attempted.

I know attacking the US is in fashion but people really don't understand just
how different it is in places that actually utterly ignore every human right
possible, where every institution is built to ignore them and when these
rights are not something that is imprinted on the population from birth.

Democracy doesn't come through a piece of paper or a few institutions
democracy comes from the spirit of the people, the US is simply an easy target
you never hear about the 1000's gitmo's in Indonesia and you only hear about a
blogger being put to death in Saudi Arabia when he got some hook up with the
US or a European country, you maybe will hear about some reporter Iran has
imprisoned for espionage but you don't hear about the 1000's gay men they hang
from construction cranes at the town square each year.

People really need to shift their focus on what actually is wrong with this
world but as always the tiny smudge of dog shit on the sole of your shoe is an
easier target than the huge crap pile down the street.

~~~
kafkaesq
_Assange was placed under curfew he had to surrender his passport while
awaiting a decision on extradition to Sweden, that process could also have
resulted in Sweden deposing him in a UK court._

Wait -- _was he_ charged, or wasn't he?

Your response doesn't tell us anything.

~~~
dogma1138
He was charged in Sweden which issued a European Arrest warrant which he
attempted to appeal unsuccessfully in the UK up to and including the supreme
court.

He was released on bail within the UK and had to surrender his passport until
the time in which the matter would be settled.

Assange was notified of the European arrest warrant by the UK authorities in
late 2010, the whole case dragged out for another 2 years before he sought
refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

The fact of the matter that Assange lost 2 full appeal processes which
resulted in the Swedish Supreme court upholding the arrest warrant, and the UK
supreme court upholding the extradition under a lawful European arrest
warrants. These are 2 European western democracies with a functional legal
system which unlike what some people might think here isn't exactly the PR
department or a henchman of the US government.

Assange has refused to surrender under a lawful arrest warrant and violated
the conditions of his bail these are 2 offenses which will on their own will
land you in prison regardless of any other charges. A normal person can't say
well fuck it I don't think you should arrest me so screw you after losing an
appeal in front of the supreme court, a normal person can't say well fuck it I
don't think you should extradite me and I'll just skip bail if you don't mind
after losing another appeal process in front of the supreme court.

It doesn't matter what you think about this case, what you think about Assange
or WikiLeaks the matter of fact here is that Assange believes he is above the
law, and he acted upon his belief by violating laws and seeking refuge in a
foreign country without an extradition treaty.

Normal people aren't afforded these luxuries, and if it was some banker or
politician who acted in the same manner everyone would been up in arms
shouting to get them out of that embassy by force if necessary. And the claims
that the Swedish authorities refusing to depose him in that embassy are some
how a sign that the case was manufactured are also insane, the authorities
should not humor people who piss on the law, it's not up to some one to decide
where they will be deposed especially not after they've broken the law again
and are now in a position to say what they want without being touchable.

Say Sweden can depose him, try him in absentia and find him guilty what good
would it do? he's still tucked away in a place when they can't touch him, and
if they do the same and acquit him it it will show that if you have enough
money, power or political capital you can do what ever the fuck you want
(which is sadly true probably far too many places) and get preferential
treatment just because you are a special snowflake.

At this point even if he goes back to Sweden, tried, and acquitted he should
face jail he has spat on the entire legal process in 2 fairly respected
western democracies and made a mockery of their legal system, the crimes he
committed by hiding in the embassy have nothing to do with the crimes he
allegedly committed to prior to that, they didn't lead to this situation, his
own actions did.

This isn't a Hollywood movie ala the "Fugitive", you can't just decide that
the law doesn't apply to you and run away even if it is to prove your so
called innocence while committing other crimes in the process, if you think
it's fine then we might as well go back to the wild west with a high noon
court or even further in time with trial by combat.

~~~
kafkaesq
I know about the arrest warrant -- but my information is that he Swedish
system is somewhat different from ours, and that technically speaking, he
still hasn't been charged yet:

 _This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before
charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not
yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he
is arrested._

[http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-...](http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition)

------
qrendel
Tangentially related: I'm not sure if anyone else gets this, but I honestly
have trouble reading some of these comments without viewing any argument I
disagree with as a potential JTRIG operation. (And yes I know someone was
criticized yesterday[1] for making similar accusations in the other thread.)

Which is certainly uncharitable towards others' alternative opinions, but how
can you honestly not be suspicious at this point? That's why the tactics are
so insidious and destructive to civil society: there's really no way to
innoculate yourself. Either you potentially let yourself be swayed by a NatSec
astroturfing campaign, or let the same sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to
where you can't even participate in a political discussion with people of
opposing viewpoints.

Would be curious how many others have the same reaction and how they deal with
it. Though there's a certain amusing irony that one would have cause for
paranoid suspicion of _those_ comments as well.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249)

~~~
kafkaesq
I'd love to think that HN was interesting enough to JTRIG attract it's
attention.

Sadly, I tend to doubt that's the case.

~~~
qrendel
Why not? Judging from the number of submissions and comments per day, and
assuming the 1%/10%/89% approximation for how many people are content creators
(submitters) vs contributors (commenters) vs lurkers, I'd estimate the site
has tens of thousands of daily visitors. The demographic would also tend to be
better educated, politically informed, career tech industry people, rather
than your typical "low-information voter" who has no influence or authority in
the world whatsoever. That plus the smaller number of users who are actually
influential people in infosec or other relevant industries.

I assumed the government spying apparatus must be keeping at least some amount
of eyes on this and similar places, even if it's just an intern or two.

~~~
kafkaesq
They're almost certainly monitoring HN (at least algorithmically) to sniff for
leaks (inadvertent disclosures from people who might know the various leakers
or journalists of interest, or their supporters). And yes, high-signal threads
(like this one) might get passed off to a human analyst somewhere.

As to whether they're trying to poison (or otherwise influence) this community
in some way? It's certainly possible. But there's also the famous advice from
a former government agent (who was once involved with infiltrating domestic
radical communities) -- which goes about like this (someone out there might
have a better quote):

"My advice? Stop worrying about infiltrators. That is, just _assume_ you're
being infiltrated and monitored, and that there's nothing you can do about it.
You'll waste an infinite amount of time and energy speculating who the source
might be, who to point fingers at -- to the point where you end up poisoning
your own community form within. Which is precisely what these monitoring
agencies want you to do."

My own view is basically existentialist: if I were ever to get deeply involved
in resistance politics -- or even if I'm not, and just casually hanging out
with people who are -- sure, almost inevitably I'm going to end up monitored,
perhaps even "cased" (i.e. someone might slither up to me at a bar or meeting
somewhere, to find out what I know or what I'm about).

But at the end of the day... really, just _fuck all those people_. If they're
playing that game, as far as I'm concerned, they've already given up, and are
already dead inside, on some level.

And I'm not going to let that stop me for a minute from speaking freely,
calling things as I see them, or hanging out with people I consider to be to
be basically ethical and well-meaning (though I may sometimes question their
approaches), just because of what some agency flack somewhere might be doing
with me to pad his quota and make himself look good for his bosses.

But that's just me. You can make your own choices.

~~~
progressive_dad
Well there's an argument to be made that a mistaken analysis as to your
"threat level" curtails your personal freedom and has a detrimental impact on
your ability to accomplish your goals. Just as the existence of your credit
score doesn't impinge upon your fundamental rights as a human, its existence
means it can be used to discriminate and that by bringing it into existence
you've created opportunities for abuse.

Once it exists and you assume it exists you have to change your behavior in a
way that maximizes outcomes for yourself. Its subtle psychological coercion.

At the very least decisions made by non-elected officials in the name of
national security need oversight. So even if you yourself are not political,
just by surveilling you they have forced you to become political in the sense
that now you MUST participate in an issue and debate regarding the value of
national security vs. your personal security.

~~~
kafkaesq
Sure, it's nasty and unfair. And we're all being involuntarily politicized.

But we don't have to let it get to us, and upset our inner equilibrium.

------
mtgx
If I were Assange I would stay there until David Cameron or even the Tories
are out. But maybe he is tired of staying there and wants to take his chances
on the outside.

~~~
ck2
His rape charges expire in 2020 so he'll leave in 4 years.

Did you know he has 4 children? I didn't know that.

~~~
pakled_engineer
The complaints in Sweden were originally due to him refusing to use a condom
which would explain the 4 kids from 4 different women. There is somewhere
truth in these allegations that Assange plays games with birth control without
obtaining consent to not use it, problem is he is almost certainly to be
renditioned to the US on a CIA gulf stream if he ends up in Sweden so can't
own up to these charges.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> There is somewhere truth in these allegations that Assange plays games with
> birth control without obtaining consent to not use it

Citation for such a claim?

~~~
pakled_engineer
This was the complaint of the two girls in Sweden

~~~
strathmeyer
Perhaps you should read up more on what happened before falsely accusing
someone of being a serial rapist?

~~~
pakled_engineer
Like the actual police reports I guess
[http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-
assange-...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-
sweden)

I realize this is a highly politically charged issue and Assange is a hero to
most people (and me) but there is merit to these charges, which will never get
cleared up in a court room because of US shenanigans with backdoor rendition
hanging like a dark cloud over the whole thing. I can appreciate his work and
not his character, just like I can appreciate the Unabomber manifesto argument
without endorsing his personal actions.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I have personally met one of the Unabomber victims. I saw him before and
after. I can't appreciate the Unabomber manifesto at all. When someone's
opinions lead them to deliberately maim and kill people, I can't read their
opinions without remembering their actions.

------
lowmagnet
I love how article titles obfuscate the "is" of equation in that statement. By
saying "decision = ridiculous" the only argument someone could have is "is
not" to counter it.

The article's first line states it more as a matter of Hammond's opinion:

> The UK foreign secretary _has branded as "ridiculous"_ a UN panel's ruling
> that Julian Assange be allowed to go free

~~~
talideon
First up, dropping copulas is pretty common practice in new headlines. There's
no loss in information or any obfuscation.

Hammond made a statement, thus the 'says' in the headline. 'Branding' is
attaching a label or description (such as 'ridiculous') to something. If
somebody were to make the statement 'that car is fantastic', then they would
be branding it as fantastic. Both the sentences 'X branded the car as
fantastic' and '"the car is fantastic", said X', would be equally valid
statement.

I think you're reading into all this far, far too much.

------
DyslexicAtheist
Also the feeling you get when reading the BBC article is that he is a guilty
rapist wanted for much larger crimes (than rape). The video has a ticker
showing the cost to the UK by putting up with him.

Anyone reading this should really notice the bias of this article. It has
smear-campaign written all over. One would expect that of course from a FVEY
country.

