UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35490910

by p01926 • 10 years ago

189 362 10 years ago

bbc.co.uk

It's extremely hard to understand how this could be the case. He has evaded prosecution for rape for years and still has people defending him. It was entirely his own choice to seek refuge inside the embassy and he did so to avoid prosecution. This makes him a gigantic hypocrite in addition to the sexual offences.

Reading the complaint against him, it's very hard to see how anyone could justify his actions. I'm sure there'll be much posted in this thread shortly though calling him a hero.

pizzapill4• 10 years ago

I'm one of those who would defend his actions.

Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. A country where the harshest penalty is the death sentence, a country that imprisons people for life without a due process and a country that tortures its prisoners.

Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", but that could be wrong.

EDIT: Read up on the issue and the accusation is that he had unprotected sex with a woman while she was asleep.

Kristine19755• 10 years ago

Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA.

He spent weeks in UK before going to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why didn't the UK extradit him to the US?

Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom",

...while said woman was sleeping, and when the evening before she had categorically refused to have sex without a condom, AFAIK.

tim333• 10 years ago

Well it's more that with the two women he agreed to use a condom and then did it without it against their wishes which is certainly bad form and which apparently breaks the law in Sweden.

ars3• 10 years ago

Try not to get your information about the USA from reddit threads. It will give you a very skewed view.

cmdkeen3• 10 years ago

"Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA" Now you're the one using absolutes that no-one can be certain of. One of the key points about the whole process is that Sweden can't pre-emptively say what they would do if the US requested extradition because they haven't.

The one extradition case we have seen play out, to a country famed for its liberal criminal justice policy (Sweden) from a country famed for the rule of law (UK) gave him many opportunities to test the process through the courts. That was even through the European Arrest Warrant process which is supposed to streamline extradition processes.

If, and it is an if, Assange were to be subject to an extradition request from the US he would be able to challenge it through the courts. He wouldn't face the death penalty as European countries don't extradite under those circumstances. Similarly prison conditions can be argued and again European courts can require commitments from the US regarding conditions and treatment before they would approve an extradition.

The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US.

Finally it is also worth saying that Assange has probably also shot himself in the foot if he ever did face extradition to the US. He was bailed in the UK (where there is a presumption of bail) and this able to flee to the embassy. If he were arrested again facing extradition to the US he would be much less likely to be granted bail and so unable to claim political asylum on a much more sympathetic case.

notahacker5• 10 years ago

There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden)

Frankly, the probability of the USA torturing or executing a celebrity journalist from a Western country isn't particularly high anyway, especially not when it involves extradition from a European country, but of course asking countries to rewrite their statute book to offer him a special personal guarantee it won't happen is a good way of deflecting a rape charge.

ascorbic19• 10 years ago

Why do you think your ten minutes of Googling makes you better placed to judge what constitutes a crime than the UK Supreme Court?

PlzSnow4• 10 years ago

Welcome to HackerNews, where people actually believe that Sweden would extradite Assange to the USA where he would be executed.

It's so braindead I can't even begin to respond.

junto2• 10 years ago

  He has evaded prosecution for rape for years

Whilst I am no fan of Assange, I think it is fair to point out that Assange is avoiding deportation to Sweden to face questioning concerning accusations of alleged rape. He isn't being prosecuted (yet).

Innocent until proved guilty please, whether you or I like him or not.

ars3• 10 years ago

Innocent until proved guilty please, whether you or I like him or not.

Being prosecuted doesn't mean guilty. Calling being questioned being prosecuted isn't that far off the mark. And neither term implies guilt.

ascorbic19• 10 years ago

He isn't being prosecuted (yet).

Yes, because he has evaded it.

macns2• 10 years ago

Julian Assange is an awarded journalist and one of the most famous hactivists of the 21st century[0]. Wikileaks (founded by him) published documents supplied by Chelsea Manning including the Collateral Murder video[1], the Afghanistan war logs[2], the Iraq war logs[3] and many others.

Who would you call a hero? Have you watched the Manning videos?

[0] Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrik...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

EDIT: s/awarder/awarded

ascorbic19• 10 years ago

Doing good things doesn't give you magic credits to let you off bad behaviour.

PlzSnow4• 10 years ago

You forgot to mention the rape stuff.

gillianseed3• 10 years ago

Here is the actual complaint, translated from swedish to english:

Sexual Assault

They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass.

They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'.

She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night.

She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards.

She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans.

On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian.

Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive.

She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby.

They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills.

His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour.

After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would.

She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills).

After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'.

edit: pdf of the original complaint (in swedish): http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf

ptha• 10 years ago

I'm just flabbergasted at how much the UK has spent on the operation: Last October, Scotland Yard said it would no longer station officers outside the Ecuador embassy following an operation which it said had cost £12.6m. But it said "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him" would still be deployed.

x5n14• 10 years ago

Just shows you how must the State values its secrets. And Assange was right, knowledge is power and with that power you can disrupt the existing power structures. And in the end make the world into a better place.

jgrahamc5• 10 years ago

Why?

He's a high-profile fugitive who is evading arrest for alleged sexual offences against women in a member state in Europe.

realusername• 10 years ago

That's the official version indeed.

x5n14• 10 years ago

One charge was dropped, and it was for molestation and they ran out of time on that one. The rape charge is from a women who continued to sleep with after the alleged rape, according to Assange for a week. Not particularly serious charges, in my opinion.

chippy5• 10 years ago

One would expect that £12.6m would be spent for similar fugitives who are evading arrest for alleged sexual offences against women. Right?

Oh, - it's because he is "high-profile" that makes him special. So it's not about the alleged crime at all? It's due to wikileaks after all!

There is something illogical here, I think.

mrweasel• 10 years ago

He isn't high profile because of his alleged crime though.

The amount of money they spend guarding the embassy is ridicules. A similar spending would have been accepted if it was just some random guy. The British public should furious about wasting £12.6 million trying to catch a guy that many not be guilty, or may only be guilty of something that's only rape in the Swedish sense.

Don't get me wrong, if guilty then I don't care who he is. In that case he should be punished. It's just that I don't think Sweden should be allowed to hand him over to the US afterwards.

Still the amount of money wasted trying to catch him should say something about why the UK police wants him. You simply don't spend that kind of money trying to catch a person, just so you can question him.

philliphaydon• 10 years ago

It only proves that the allegations are false in my opinion. I think he's weird and don't follow him or wiki leaks but the fact the UK is so insistent on arresting him instead of questioning him and deciding to file charges or not only proves his theory that they want to eventually send him to the United States.

IMO

ascorbic19• 10 years ago

He's subject to a European Arrest Warrant. It's not the UK police's job to question him. The procedure in an EAW is that the receiving country checks that the warrant is valid (which is procedural, and doesn't assess the merits of the case). If it is, then they arrest the suspect and hand him over to the requesting country. Julian Assange had every opportunity to argue against this, and was able to take it all the way to the UK Supreme Court. They ruled against him, which is when he skipped bail.

throwaway_jhfj3• 10 years ago

I'm not, the UK is a country with the rule of law. Assange is probably the most high-profile fugitive in the UK.

When those two prisoners escaped from prison in upstate new york,it cost new york 23 million dollars to find them [1] (and they were only fugitives for less than a month).

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/US/ny-prison-escape-manhunt-cost-state...

Kristine19755• 10 years ago

But it doesn't mean that he'll walk free. It's not legally binding. And British officials have made clear that the European arrest warrant against him remains in place.

The panel's ruling will not have any formal influence over the British and Swedish authorities and the UK Foreign Office said it still had an obligation to extradite Mr Assange.

I don't quite understand: Why appeal to the UN in the first place, if their ruling is not legally binding?

dagw2• 10 years ago

Very few things that the UN does is legally binding. The idea is that you can use the ruling to shame national governments into doing the right thing, and it gives politician that support the ruling leverage for trying to oust the sitting government.

jgrahamc5• 10 years ago

It's a political move. He wants to use the UN to put pressure on the UK and Sweden.

Why hasn't Assange appealed to the European Court of Human Rights? Both Sweden and the UK are members and he's subject to a European arrest warrant.

cmdkeen3• 10 years ago

Probably because at every stage where a court has looked into the issue they have crushed him. The UK Supreme Court's ruling was very clear on the matter and did him no favours in terms of public opinion. Taking to the ECHR and losing would be another serious blow.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

Because he has no need to go to ECHR, Swedish supreme court already sided with him.

jamesk_au2• 10 years ago

There is something curious about the conclusion that surrounding a person for the purpose of lawfully detaining them amounts to unlawful detention.

Hasn't that been a traditional method of catching a suspect? "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded!"

Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy. We'll have to wait for the reasons to be published.

junto2• 10 years ago

  Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that    
  Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy

There is no secret in that. It's an embassy and sovereign territory of the Ecuadorians. No government in their right mind would trespass.

jnbiche• 10 years ago

No government in their right mind would trespass.

What about forcing down a presidential plane (of a nearby country)? Would a government in their right mind do that?

Once a hegemonic country's closest-held secrets are involved, all bets seem to be off.

I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't stage some kind of covert snatch from the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US).

rwmj4• 10 years ago

Not in the UK. Under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, diplomatic status can be revoked and the police could enter the embassy. (Doing so would be pretty foolish, since it would make UK embassies around the world unsafe, but the law is there). It is certainly not "sovereign territory" .. that's a myth.

Erikun• 10 years ago

I think you're right about the embassy bit. It wouldn't surprise me if the UN decision doesn't make any noise about the European Arrest Warrant or any of the the charges agains Assange. I'm guessing that they will state that since he has requested and received asylum by the Ecuador government, the UK should let him go there. This makes some sense from a general perspective as well. If someone applies and gets asylum at an embassy somewhere, the UN may not want to set the precedent that the host nation could block it by not allowing the person to leave the country.

I find it a bit humorous though, that Assange said he would honor the UN panels decision just moments before that decision is leaked to the press. Funny how he didn't make that promise when he first applied for the ruling...

diyorgasms3• 10 years ago

Self-preservation is a hell of a drug. I can't bring myself to blame him for hedging his bets.

k-mcgrady5• 10 years ago

I agree. I don't think it's to do with the embassy though. I think it's that they're forcing him to remain in conditions detrimental to his health. In a typical situation like this if the person they were trying to arrest was in danger the police could storm the building.

pif• 10 years ago

they're forcing him to remain in ...

Technically, they are not forcing him at all.

danielweber• 10 years ago

Those Oregon protestors should try that. "We're being illegally detained, because we'll be arrested if we leave!"

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

I think you're missing the whole point.

The Swedish prosecutor has failed to her their duty (as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court) to in refusing to accept Assanges statement from the UK/Ecuadorian embassy.

Had the prosecutor done her job Assanges case would have already gone through the courts, but now he has been unnecessarily detained (essentially in investigative custody, by whom isn't relevant here) for several years.

Edit: I'm not sure why this is getting downvotes, Sweden has already admitted that there's no need to have Assange in Sweden unless he's sentenced. Therefore forcing Assange to stay in the Embassy under the threat of (unnecessary) extradition to Sweden can undoubtedly be considered detainment.

Had the prosecutor done their job Assange would've been charged, got his trial and potentially (very likely, considering the evidence) found not guilty.

Of course, a guilty sentence would completely change the situation.

jamesk_au2• 10 years ago

That isn't the case he ran before the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention though.[1]

Judging from his written submissions, he says that the UK has caused him to face "an impossible dilemma", namely, choosing between confinement in the embassy or giving up his (inalienable) right to non-refoulement as a refugee. Apparently the WGAD has previously held that putting someone in that position involves unlawful detention. So it turns out that is the significance of the fact he is in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

[1] https://justice4assange.com/IMG/pdf/assange-wgad.pdf

chippy5• 10 years ago

The UK police have said they will still arrest him if he leaves, and the UN ruling is not legally binding.

igl• 10 years ago

Ha. Organisations like the UN or EU are pointless if countries can just choose not to ratify decisions. Sad.

mootothemax• 10 years ago

Ha. Organisations like the UN or EU are pointless if countries can just choose not to ratify decisions. Sad.

I thought the point was to get people round the negotiating table in a safe environment, rather than breeding resentment by forcing people to sign things at gunpoint?

masteryupa_• 10 years ago

As mentioned by some people in the comments, Assange may still be arrested due to the lack of jurisdiction of UN panel's such as this.

If that is the case, what is there that we (as supporters of Assange's plight) can do to add pressure to the UK government and forward the effort towards securing his freedom?

PlzSnow4• 10 years ago

Why would "we" want Assange to go free? He's wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault.

1stop2• 10 years ago

Why did we want Aaron Swartz to go free? He was actually charged with a felony crime.

Or maybe some times things aren't what they seem and their are political motivations, and they require politics to fight them, not just blindly following false justice

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

Because the Swedish authorities have actively prevented him from having a chance to defend himself in court.

runarb2• 10 years ago

I do feel for Assange. Hi is in a bad situation, but personally so do I not see how his voluntary attempt to evade a legal arrest order is detention. Hi is accused of a serious crime and the Swedish authorities must investigate it.

danieltillett3• 10 years ago

The whole situation has nothing to do with the alleged crimes - he would be out of jail by now if he was even convicted. It is all about if he is to be extradited to the USA or not. If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today.

alkonaut3• 10 years ago

If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA

So the catch-22 is that he says he is happy to go to Sweden in case he is given guarantees of not being extradited, but no such guarantee is possible under Swedish law.

What swedish authorities could (and should) do in this situation is just make some really broad statements about how even though they have agreements with the USA, no one would ever be extradited from Sweden to any country in case they risked facing the death penalty and/or are whistle blowers.

rmc14• 10 years ago

If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today.

Can the US President give a guarantee that the Supreme Court will decide a case in a certain manner? Because that's what that means.

Sweden is a country with laws, and an independent judiciary. Sweden has extradition treaty with the US (as do many people). If the USA follows a procedure, then the Swedish courts must hand someone over (and vice versa). That's what the (Swedish) law says. You're asking the Swedish government to guarantee that the Swedish courts won't decide a particular case in a particular manner.

tptacek10• 10 years ago

The exact same thing is true of Roman Polanski, who long ago would have been free in the US had he not fled his sentence after being convicted. The only reason Polanski still has detention in the US hanging over his head is that he evaded the sentence.

lmilcin2• 10 years ago

From what I understand he is accused of having sex without a condom. Girl objected to not using condom but not to having sex. Still, she went with it without being forced physically.

The argument is that it is a pretense to have him detained by US-controlled country to get him sent to US without proper judicial procedure.

Basically, both UK and Sweden said it can't rule out that he is sent over to US if he's detained for this unrelated "crime".

alkonaut3• 10 years ago

It was a bit more complicated than that. The allegations were of what would definitely be considered statutory rape under swedish law (and probably the laws of most similar countries including the US).

k-mcgrady5• 10 years ago

You don't have to be forced physically for it to count as rape/sexual assault as far as I am aware. Not objecting is the same as saying no effectively. You need active positive consent to be safe. If I'm wrong please correct me but from what I've read this seems to be the way it works.

ascorbic19• 10 years ago

You can scare quote "crime" all you want, but there is a procedure to establish the accusation would be a crime in the UK, which is required for the EAW. Assange took it all the way to the Supreme Court. He lost every time. I think they know better than you.

rmc14• 10 years ago

He's accused of 4 acts. One is holding someone down and penetrating her. Another is having sex with someone who was asleep.

gadders3• 10 years ago

No, he's accused of rape:

>One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
>This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...

Cthulhu_2• 10 years ago

The problem is that he's also wanted for leaking secret documents (like Snowden), and there's a high chance that the allegations were only intended so he can be arrested in a country that has an extradition policy with the US. He fears for his life, and given the US's "secret" concentration camps (Guantanamo, secret CIA bases, secret planes waiting to move Snowden, etc), I don't blame him.

rwmj4• 10 years ago

Strange comment .. He was already arrested in the UK, which has an extremely liberal extradition policy with the US. He spent a week in Wandsworth prison.

Kristine19755• 10 years ago

and there's a high chance that the allegations were only intended so he can be arrested in a country that has an extradition policy with the US

After leaving Sweden he spent weeks in the UK though. Plenty of time to arrest and extradit him.

Lazare• 10 years ago

So your logic is that this was all contrived in an effort to get Assange to a country with an extradition treaty in the US, when he was already in Britain? Because Britain is well known for its cold relationship with the US and repeated refusal to extradite people to the US, right?

Not buying it. (Also EU law would prevent Sweden from extraditing him to the US without British consent anyhow. So either Britain is okay with his extradition and there's no need to get him to Sweden, or they're not and there's no point. And that's not even touching on the fact that Sweden couldn't extradite him to the US without an assurance that he could not face execution, which is politically very unlikely to happen. I don't doubt the US would love to grab Assange, but the legal extradition question is a complete red herring.)

Edit: Fix dumb typos, too tired.

rmc14• 10 years ago

Why did he flee to the UK? The UK co-founded NATO with the USA. Sweden isn't in NATO.

DominikR2• 10 years ago

If it was just for the alleged rape in Sweden then it wouldn't make any sense to hide in the embassy for almost 4 years now, since it is very likely that he would have spent less time in prison in Sweden for this crime.

It's the Supermax prison treatment including solitary confinement for life that he fears in the US.

You just have to look at how they treated Manning.

In face of that risk it certainly would feel like detention to me. Imagine someone would threaten to lock you up for life in solitary confinement and possibly even torture you on top of that if you ever left the room you are sitting in right now.

Wouldn't that feel like detention? Yes, because it is. That threat alone significantly restricts your freedom.

rurban2• 10 years ago

Serious crime? Are you out of your mind? His "crime" would be no crime at all in every other country. Only in Sweden a prosecutor is allowed to call that a possible rape. The "victims" did not so. It's entirely a political theatre. See e.g. http://assangerape.tumblr.com/ or https://justice4assange.com/Assange-Case-Fact-Checker.html

fastball2• 10 years ago

You might want to find some sources that seem slightly more credible. One is an obviously biased website and the other is a Tumblr...

rmc14• 10 years ago

His "crime" would be no crime at all in every other country.

One of the requirements of extradition treaties is that the person is accused of something that's a crime in both countries. Assanges lawyers argued in the UK High and Supreme Courts that what he wanted for wasn't a crime in the UK. They lost. It's the opinion of the UK courts that what Assange is accused of, would count as a crime in the UK.

rbobby2• 10 years ago

"would be no crime at all in every other country" is completely incorrect. He is accused of initiating sex with a person who was asleep at the time.

This is a crime in the UK & Wales, in fact their legislation specifically mentions sleep (this was specifically cited by the UK Supreme Court when it denied his appeal). This would also have been a crime in Canada (the Canadian Supreme Court ruled on a case a year or two ago in regards to sex and unconsciousness). It is also a crime in Sweden.

Ma8ee• 10 years ago

Who exactly is he detained by?

Cthulhu_2• 10 years ago

Nobody yet, but the UK police / government already indicated they'd arrest him if he stepped out of the embassy (which is why they had a 24/7 watch on the embassy for two years), so that effectively is detainment.

Kristine19755• 10 years ago

Couldn't he have used a diplomatic bag to leave the embassy?

mbreedlove• 10 years ago

Apparently the 24/7 surveillance on the embassy cost £11.1 million ($17.6 million).

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/19...

jfoster• 10 years ago

Technically, he's not detained; he's free to leave the embassy.

Effectively, he is detained; he won't get far if he leaves.

From there, it gets more complicated. Is that effective-but-technically-not detainment lawful, and even if it's not lawful, doesn't he have the option of lawful detainment by choosing to leave the embassy? After that, though, he's likely on the hook for a bit more than just a bit of questioning in Sweden. It's a very complicated situation, which is probably why the UN chose to be involved.

contingencies• 10 years ago

Shame on the UK. Shame on Sweden. Shame on the US.

We're with you Julian.

dhoe• 10 years ago

It may be worth pointing out that this is not a court. It's some working group.

chippy5• 10 years ago

For some frequently asked questions, from Assange's side of things, as it seems as if a few people here haven't heard about Assange before on Hacker News, take a look at the FAQ section halfway down this page (you can skip the top bit if you are somewhat familiar)

https://justice4assange.com/

It's also worth a look at some of the arguments here: https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

(edits: made the above clearer that the FAQs were from Assange's side)

ascorbic19• 10 years ago

I'm not sure Assange's own site is the best source for unbiased facts on the case. Here's the other side:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol...

[Edit: tone]

chippy5• 10 years ago

Right, thanks!

robhu• 10 years ago

Thank you for that link - I haven't come across a well researched analysis of all of the entire legal history up to this point. I'd say this was required reading before commenting here.

macns2• 10 years ago

Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. He is currently a fugitive from UK and Swedish justice, in Ecuador's London embassy after having been granted political asylum by Ecuador in August 2012.

ck2• 10 years ago

Is it still costing UK taxpayers a million per month?

Vaguely remember something like that.

Think of what good all that money could have done instead.

Why don't UK folks do a petition for THAT so your parliment has to argue it, instead of something useless (but impressive) like banning Trump from the UK

SuddsMcDuff• 10 years ago

There was a petition - it got something pitiful like 650 votes. Apparently people care a lot more about Trump.

wmil2• 10 years ago

Because at this point he's wanted by the police for skipping bail.

The courts can't just ignore that because he's been hiding out for too long. The justice system has an obligation to bring him in.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

The justice system has an obligation to bring him in.

Generally there's an expectation of reasonable effort, 24/7 police guard isn't going to magically stop him from leaving.

agd2• 10 years ago

I think the key issue is that the Swedish prosecutor (until recently) made no effort to question him in the embassy.

Given how badly the US wants Assange, and how we know they treat people like him, it is completely understandable that he wouldn't want to leave the embassy. Therefore it is hard to understand why the Swedish prosecutor was content to sit on her backside when it's in everyone's (not least the alleged victims) interest to move the case forward.

rtpg• 10 years ago

Pretty much every "why don't they do this" argument in this case usually forgets the Swedish law aspect.

For example , I think here the questioning was more of a "placing under arrest" (there was something about how the questioning is mandatory before officially declaring someone a suspect). And the questioning needed to happen in Sweden for some constitutional thing?

So I don't remember the Swedish law stuff too sell either but there were legal barriers to questioning in the embassy

Not to mention that the whole "This is to bring him to the US" thing ignores that:

- extradition from the UK to the US requires going through UK courts

-Extradition from the UK to the US through Sweden requires goig through Swedish AND UK courts. Its strictly harder

"But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from?

The whole Swedish side of the story is bizarre but any argument about US influence in the prosecution seems to not make any sense except if to commit character attacks. Because it made US extradition harder, not easier

cia_stooge• 10 years ago

"But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from?

Yes. Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.

vacri3• 10 years ago

Extradition from the UK to the US through Sweden requires goig through Swedish AND UK courts. Its strictly harder

Once he's in Sweden, how does a UK court have any jurisdiction? Anyway, the UK already wants to arrest him and hand him over to Sweden, given that they've been staking out the embassy for several years now.

Imagine if the London police had've spent all those staff-hours chasing domestic rapists. I reckon they would have nabbed at least one that they wouldn't have otherwise, which would bring them up to the same level of arrestees detained as all this effort spent on one guy (who hasn't even been found guilty in any court yet).

The idea that "they wouldn't do it; it's all too politically hard" discounts all the resources they've already spent because of politics.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

Perhaps UK previously unofficially declined to extradite Assange?

So I don't remember the Swedish law stuff too sell either but there were legal barriers to questioning in the embassy

This is absolutely not true and the Swedish supreme court called the prosecutor out for their bullshit.

agd2• 10 years ago

I think here the questioning was more of a "placing under arrest" (there was something about how the questioning is mandatory before officially declaring someone a suspect).

The point is that after questioning, they have to make a decision whether to charge him. Either way, this would have moved the case forward.

And the questioning needed to happen in Sweden for some constitutional thing?

Not true. As shown by the fact that they a) question other suspects abroad and b) have now agreed to have him questioned in the embassy after all.

vidarh13• 10 years ago

"But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from?

It's not that many years ago that Swedish police cooperated in illegally black-bagging two asylum seekers and illegally handed them over to the CIA who shipped them off to Egypt - the regime they'd fleed - where they were promptly tortured by Mubaraks secret police.

If Swedish police was willing to effectively kidnap political asylum seekers and hand them off to a foreign government, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, and not punish anyone for it, why should Assange trust them?

We know that CIA rendition flights continued for years after the above became publicly known and the Swedish government promised rendition flights would end. We know this because of Wikileaks documents. So why should Assange trust the Swedish and US governments not to conspire?

Whether or not there actually is some conspiracy (I don't believe there is), Assange has plenty of reasons to be paranoid about it.

wbhart• 10 years ago

I suspect this is what will come out in the decision tomorrow. It's not about whether Assange is using asylum to dodge being questioned after the case was reopened after political interference (as has been claimed), but whether the countries involved were doing what is required to bring the matter to a legal conclusion or whether they are using the stalemate to effectively keep Assange where he is because it suits political interests.

Moreover, they will have looked into whether his human rights have been violated. I suspect that they will have formally found that Assange's right to enjoy asylum, which was granted by Ecuador, has been violated and whether appropriate accommodations have been made to ensure that Assange's medical and other human rights have been violated.

The UK has consistently said they would arrest Assange even if he came out of the embassy for medical reasons, effectively denying him the right to asylum in the event of a medical emergency.

I can't see how the UN could set any other precedent here. Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the Swedish case, the UK and Sweden have allegedly conspired to violate Assange's rights and there appears to be ample reason to suspect that based on leaked documentation to date.

rmc14• 10 years ago

You gotta wonder why he'd flee from Sweden (not a NATO member) to the UK (NATO co-founder). If I was afraid of the US grabbing me, I wouldn't go to the UK.

peteretep3• 10 years ago

I think if I wanted to throw myself to the mercy of the court, I'd probably choose a British one.

Tepix4• 10 years ago

He didn't flee. In fact, before he left Sweden he askes the authorities if they had any objections of him leaving. They did not.

dsp12342• 10 years ago

Note that the article says the panel will rule on Friday, not that he has already won.

If there is an updated article showing more recent developments, then a link to that would be awesome

TazeTSchnitzel• 10 years ago

I thought this comment in the other thread was insightful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033115

Why did he go to the UN? Probably because they're not a court and have no actual power here.

timwaagh2• 10 years ago

i cannot figure out for the life of me why so many support him given what the women went through.

valarauca1• 10 years ago

For the same reason people still watch Woody Allen movies, listen to the music of Michael Jackson, and why Cosby Show reruns are still on TV.

Talent is more important then morals.

adekok3• 10 years ago

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" seems appropriate here.

ZenoArrow• 10 years ago

What did the women go through? I understand he's been charged with sexual assault, but from what I understand the Swedish laws about sexual assault are quite different from those elsewhere, seems to be somewhat more demanding about what is classed as consent, but I could be wrong on that.

lucozade• 10 years ago

When the extradition request went through the UK courts, it was made very clear that these would have been classed as sexual assault under UK law too (may even be rape, I don't recall exactly).

TimJRobinson• 10 years ago

Translated article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033244

mike_hearn2• 10 years ago

Because if you remember the details of when this case started it's not at all clear the women involved went through anything at all. The initial investigation was dropped by the prosecutor on the grounds that there was no chance of ever getting a conviction (e.g. one of the women tweeted about how she'd slept with Assange afterwards, not something you typically do if you've been raped). Assange hung around in Sweden for about a month, iirc, in case the police wanted to keep talking to him, but they said they were done and he could go.

Then later on the stories started changing and the charges were mysteriously resurrected by a different prosecutor as political pressure on Wikileaks intensified. Suddenly they want to question him again, but by this time he's left Sweden (as they said he could). So not surprisingly he is now suspicious as hell.

timwaagh2• 10 years ago

I read a pdf with the details once. can't find it now but i think it mentioned quite a bit of violence as well as um... inserting during one's sleep. I'm aware it's not a clear cut case because the victims don't hate him. but i'm sure the judges can determine his culpability better than I. I do however find his behavior disgusting.

rbobby2• 10 years ago

"charges were mysteriously resurrected by a different prosecutor" is incorrect. The women appealed the prosecutor's original decision, which is their right under Swedish law. A new prosecutor looked at the case and decided to reverse that decision. Nothing "mysterious"... just the normal workings of a justice system.

One key part of what Assange is accused of is initiating sex with a person who was asleep. This is a crime in many countries (Sweden, Canada, UK) that have specific legislation around consent (the UK laws actually include "sleep" in their language about consent).

realityking• 10 years ago

Could the title be changed to the original? ("WikiLeaks' Assange 'unlawfully detained' in Ecuador embassy, U.N. panel to rule, BBC says")

As the article correctly points out, this is currently a rumor, the panel has not yet ruled.

rogeryu• 10 years ago

I'm still appalled by the fact that Sweden, which seems to be one of the best countries to live in, cannot handle this situation better.

elchief2• 10 years ago

They're America's bitch. Like the UK. That's the problem.

ascorbic19• 10 years ago

Can this be merged into the other post? This article is just quoting the BBC one.

acqq3• 10 years ago

The article that Reuters refers to:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.asp...

Apparently their report is to be published tomorrow.

I personally don't see how is he "detained" when he himself decided to sit in the Embassy. Maybe because the UK by waiting on him to exit the embassy doesn't recognize his status of having political asylum granted by Ecuador? I'd like to read the (as the article says, legally directly non-binding for the UK) report of the UN Working Group myself to adjust my opinion.

Up to then it's just media making noise, still no new information, except that the report is expected to be published.

I believe he's with reasonable probability in danger of being extradited to the US and there having the fate similar to Manning's. As far as I understand there is also some kind of "working group" formed in the US that specially works on his case, and the US really successfully does such things as demanding the extradition of people they want to prosecute and then getting them.

Edit:

If somebody wants to try to guess what the arguments of the Working Group can be, the starting point should be:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pd...

"according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories:

A) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him)(Category I);

B) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II);

C) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (Category III)."

It's not about the "detention" but about the "deprivation of liberty." That has more sense.

fungos2• 10 years ago

I don't see how UK is doing something illegal

Threats of storming into an embassy is not illegal?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-...

Or threats to arrest him inside an diplomatic transport? Or even threats to ignore any diplomatic immunity at all?

Nothing illegal here it seems.

acqq3• 10 years ago

threats to ignore any diplomatic immunity at all?

I agree with you that it is an obvious pressure by the state, the question remains how is that technically illegal and how is he technically "arbitrarily detained."

I'm looking forward to read the details tomorrow, or something more that you know even now.

I also find it good that Ecuador remained firm, because otherwise the claim would be that Ecuador agreed to what was demanded (as in UK saying "we've just made threats but haven't done anything else"), so there would be no chance even to consider if something is legal or not.

peteretep3• 10 years ago

You seem to misunderstand diplomatic immunity. Host countries are well within their rights to evict diplomats.

mrmondo• 10 years ago

Imagine how many people could be educated with the money that governments spend on activities like this, I doubt it will ever happen but until we stop the mostly needless wastage of throwing money at bureaucratic political games we'll never get off this rock. You know who's being punished when that money is being spent? The public, not Assange, not Wikileaks, not any governments - it's the public.

Politics aside, there is no human reason why informed, intelligent people could not speak and asses him within the embassy, then give the same treatment to those making claims and present their findings accordingly, it's only the totalitarian inhuman systems of political practise that have prevented sound, logical reasoning to take place.

If the evidence clearly states that he directly hurt other human beings then he should face punishment for that in the country that he is a citizen of, if it is unclear he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty but still investigated transparently and humanely.

With regards to assisting parts of Wikileaks - he was part of a large community of people (remember, we're humans and we want to get along for the most part) that exposed corruption and wrongdoing by people and governments in positions of power. If you have to break a law to prove that laws have been broken both parties must be treated with the same scrutiny - end of story.

Edit: I'd like to add that if the sexual assault claims were true he should be treated as a mental patient that committed a crime rather than a criminal with malicious intent of direct wrong doing. You can't heal, or change people with punishment - humans are adaptive, complex organisms that need quality education, therapy, social training and reflection and then they need to play a part in the community to help prevent such things from happening again. If you think about the money that's been spent with regards to the alleged sexual crimes alone - with those millions of dollars just think about how many people that could help, not just with education but also improving mental health, support networks and so forth that can make a difference not just to 1-3 people but thousands of people. The value of where our money has been spent on this is clearly very poor.

rogerthis• 10 years ago

If "UN ruling" were binding then it would turn the notion of political asylum irrelevant. Political asylum only makes sense if laws have some sort of limit. And I am not looking into Assange's case specifics, but in a more abstract way, in which a bad "UN ruling" should be considered.

rubberstamp2• 10 years ago

If USA didn't do anything illegal/scandalous/unethical/violate_their_own_constitution, then there wouldn't be incentive for anyone to leak anything if at least there was proper channels to go through to point errors and correct the system.

Instead of correcting the system, those in power are trying to going after whistle blowers. The system is no longer a democracy.

tptacek10• 10 years ago

For those wondering: the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a panel currently consisting of one individual each from South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Benin, and Ukraine.

Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN.

sarciszewski2• 10 years ago

Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN.

This detail is strangely absent from all the existing coverage of this story.

Legal power aside, is there some larger process at play that requires them to side with Assange? Or is this just a play for a Pyrrhic victory?

kafkaesq11• 10 years ago

It is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN.

As comparisons go, this is quite specious.

To wit: it is quite misleading to suggest that an entity specifically chartered by the UN (to present its findings to the UN) is somehow comparable to an independent NGO that happens to share office space in the same building.

tptacek10• 10 years ago

Well then, we disagree.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

There seems to be some ridiculously large misconceptions here regarding these two things:

1. Assange is not violating any Swedish laws or policies by staying in the embassy and avoiding extradition, he has no obligation to return to Sweden and every right not to.

2. Assanges presence in Sweden is not required by Swedish policies or laws, Swedish courts already called out the prosecutor for not accepting his statements from the embassy.

The duty of the prosecutor also seems to need clarifying, some people here seem to think that the prosecutor has no obligation to agree to interview Assange in the embassy. This is absolutely not true.

Do you not think that the victims(although not entirely applicable here) are OK with the prosecutor indefinitely delaying the case until the crimes expire just because she is too arrogant to pick up the phone and ring up Assange or buy a 30 euro plane ticket to London?

Another thing worth noting is that many people seem to think UK is a particularly easy country to extradite people from, this isn't exactly true. See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love.

Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.

rpgmaker• 10 years ago

Also worth noting is that Assange has said repeatedly that he would leave the embassy if he is given written assurance that he won't be extradited to the US.

dopamean• 10 years ago

I don't think anyone could guarantee that. What if he was extradited to Australia and then Australia gave him up?

gsnedders• 10 years ago

Nobody in Sweden can do this. The Swedish government constitutionally cannot do this, despite Assange's requests, given the separation between government and judiciary. The Judiciary cannot provide a guarantee because they are obliged to follow due process for each and every request for extradition they receive, and until they receive one they cannot rule on any extradition.

Ntrails• 10 years ago

He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time[1].

Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years.

[1] it'd be nice if we put some political pressure on Sweden to resolve the issue remotely but that's neither here nor there.

proactivesvcs• 10 years ago

And be on the receiving end of any fees incurred as a result of their bail violation.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time.

He is violating his bail conditions in the UK but I don't see how that's relevant here. Assanges goal isn't avoiding arrest, but extradition.

Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years.

I'm not entirely sure about the UK system on this but in most countries crimes expire.

kafkaesq11• 10 years ago

Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.

I wouldn't doubt this -- but if you can provide a quick recap for those not familiar with this side history, that would be most helpful.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...

notahacker5• 10 years ago

For better or worse I suspect the UN panel ruling would be the same if, instead of being a noted whistleblowing journalist hiding from equivalent allegations in the Ecuadorean embassy it was, say, a former senior diplomat for Gadaffi's Libya, or a prominent US cult leader, or another non-"hero" type that could claim the same fears of extradition and arbitrary detention with the same degree of plausibility.

On the other hand, I suspect that if he had that sort of background there wouldn't be many people here willing to advance the argument that the original prosecution must be politically motivated, or it wasn't a real crime...

Justice is supposed to be blind.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

I don't think there is any argument against the prosecutions behaviour being politically motivated, the Swedish courts have confirmed that the prosecutor acted in breach of her duty by not agreeing to interview Assange in the embassy.

acqq3• 10 years ago

If somebody wants to try to guess what the arguments of the UN Working Group can be, the starting point should be:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pd...

"according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories:

It's about the "arbitrary deprivation of liberty" against his human rights.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

Most likely cause is the fact that (despite Swedish law) the Swedish prosecutor has forced him to stay in the embassy by refusing to interview him there, if she had done so the EAW could be cancelled and the whole extradition mess would be over.

Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden and there's no need for him to do so, so forcing him to stay in the embassy just because the prosecutor wants it is undoubtedly "arbitrary".

jccc4• 10 years ago

AP confirms: https://twitter.com/AP/status/695258621454741505

laveur• 10 years ago

This title is misleading... he has not won anything yet... he is still waiting for their ruling... The ruling I believe from the article suppose to come out tomorrow. So please make sure you read the article. He has also said that if he looses which might still he will freely give himself up for arrest tomorrow at noon.

jccc4• 10 years ago

It's a done deal:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241

UN says Sweden's foreign ministry was informed last month.

tptacek10• 10 years ago

Everyone is reacting to the leaked prediction of the panel's decision; what makes you think Assange's statement isn't also a reaction to that? If he knows how the panel is going to decide, it's not particularly courageous of him to suggest he'd turn himself over if they voted against him.

jccc4• 10 years ago

The statement was made Wednesday night, U.S. time:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856

Do we have reason to believe Assange knew about the decision beforehand?

Moreover, do we have reason to be less interested in the larger context of the UN panel's decision than in the ways in which we can paint the motives of Assange's statement?

vilhelm_s2• 10 years ago

Truly courageous of Assange to to write that "Should the U.N. announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden, I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal," at the same time as the BBC is reporting that they ruled for him.

ryanlol31• 10 years ago

Assange made his statement at 3 AM GMT, when did BBC leak this?

vilhelm_s2• 10 years ago

Did they leak it to the BBC or to Assange first?

jccc4• 10 years ago

AP: "Sweden's foreign ministry says U.N. panel concluded that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's detention is 'arbitrary'"

https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241

A U.N. official says Sweden was informed last month of a U.N. panel's decision on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

While the panel hasn't officially released its decision, Sweden's foreign ministry said Thursday that the advisory group had concluded that Assange has been a victim of "arbitrary" detention at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012.

http://bigstory.ap.org/7bb5647f6042478ab3d56d4bbe73b90b

qrendel• 10 years ago

Considering what a brief and skewed description of the Julian Assange story is reported by the article, this is probably a good time to repost John Pilger's more thorough reporting on the events, for anyone who wasn't following it or doesn't remember clearly:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-i...

youngtaff• 10 years ago

Which is also a biased article!

zekevermillion• 10 years ago

Not an expert on EU or UK law, but it seems odd to me that a ruling by a UN panel would have any effect on Assange's legal status. Perhaps it is just cover for him to live in a non-EU country and fight extradition?

sarciszewski2• 10 years ago

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide...

https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands...

Remember: JTRIG (NSA+GCHQ) is very interested in online propaganda and controlling public opinion through shills.

Note: Both serve their governments, which have decided to treat Assange as an enemy rather than a journalist.

I don't think this is okay. I encourage everyone to be on guard for this sort of behavior on news stories related to Assange.

UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour'

Related Stories