UK brands Assange ruling 'ridiculous'

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
So the UN is on the side of a suspected sexual molester.

The UK Foreign Secretary has branded a UN panel's ruling calling for Julian Assange to be allowed to go free "ridiculous", as the Wikileaks founder demanded the decision be respected.

Mr Assange - who faces extradition to Sweden over a rape claim, which he denies - claimed asylum in London's Ecuadorean embassy in 2012.

The panel said he had been "arbitrarily detained" and should get compensation.

Philip Hammond rejected the decision, accusing Mr Assange of evading justice.

Mr Assange hailed it a "significant victory" and called the decision "binding".

The UN panel ruled Mr Assange was being "arbitrarily detained" in the UK since he was initially arrested in 2010.

A Foreign Office spokesman said Mr Assange "has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK", adding: "He is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy."

"We are deeply frustrated that this unacceptable situation is still being allowed to continue," the spokesman added.

Julian Assange decision by UN panel ridiculous, says Hammond


BBC News
5 February 2016



The Foreign Secretary has branded a UN panel's ruling calling for Julian Assange to be allowed to go free "ridiculous", as the Wikileaks founder demanded the decision be respected.

Mr Assange - who faces extradition to Sweden over a rape claim, which he denies - claimed asylum in London's Ecuadorean embassy in 2012.

The panel said he had been "arbitrarily detained" and should get compensation.

Philip Hammond rejected the decision, accusing Mr Assange of evading justice.

Mr Assange hailed it a "significant victory" and called the decision "binding".

The UN panel ruled Mr Assange was being "arbitrarily detained" in the UK since he was initially arrested in 2010.

A 'significant victory'

Reading a statement via a video link from the embassy, he said the opinion of the panel was "vindication", adding: "The lawfulness of my detention is now a matter of settled law."

Mr Assange said it was a "really significant victory that has brought a smile to my face".

Mr Hammond said Mr Assange was a "fugitive from justice", adding that he can come out "any time he chooses" but will still have to face justice in Sweden.

However, Mr Assange said the comments by Mr Hammond were "beneath" the minister's stature and "insulting" to the UN.

The UK Foreign Office said the report "changes nothing" and it will "formally contest the working group's opinion".

The Met Police said it will make "every effort" to arrest Mr Assange should he leave the embassy.

The government said the panel's ruling was not legally binding in the UK and a European Arrest Warrant remained in place - meaning the UK continued to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange.


Mr Assange read a statement to the media via a video link

The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention insisted Mr Assange's detention "should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected".

The Wikileaks founder had been subjected to "different forms of deprivation of liberty" it said, initially while he was held in isolation at London's Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in 2010.

The deprivation had been "continuous" since he was initially arrested in the UK on 7 December 2010.

"Mr Assange should be afforded the right to compensation," it added.

Three members of the five-person panel found in Mr Assange's favour, while one rejected his claim and another did not take part in the investigation.

A Foreign Office spokesman said Mr Assange "has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK", adding: "He is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy."

"We are deeply frustrated that this unacceptable situation is still being allowed to continue," the spokesman added.

The UK's permanent representative to the UN, Julian Braithwaite, has written to the panel expressing the government's surprise and disappointment with the outcome.

The Swedish government said Mr Assange was free to leave the embassy at any point and said he was not being deprived of his liberty.

In September 2014, Mr Assange - who has been living in the embassy for more than three years - complained to the UN that he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave without being arrested.

The complaint against the UK and Sweden claimed Mr Assange had been deprived of his liberty for an "unacceptable length of time".

In a statement posted on Twitter on Thursday, Mr Assange said his passport should be returned and his arrest warrant dropped if the UN panel ruled in his favour.

The Australian had his passport seized by UK authorities during the investigation.

Mr Assange was originally arrested in London in 2010 under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden over rape and sexual assault claims.

In 2012, while on bail, he claimed asylum inside the Ecuadorean embassy in Knightsbridge after the UK Supreme Court had ruled the extradition against him could go ahead.

Swedish prosecutors dropped two sex assault claims against Mr Assange last year. However, he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.

Analysis


Is Julian Assange leaving the Ecuadorean embassy?

By Caroline Hawley, BBC diplomatic correspondent

Julian Assange and his supporters will see this as a significant moral victory.

The Wikileaks founder, who walked into the Ecuadorean Embassy after losing a series of appeals in British courts, now has an important panel of UN legal experts on his side.

Legally binding or not, a UN official said the decision was based on international law.

Although both Britain and Sweden are firmly sticking to their guns, they are now in an extremely awkward position. The Swedish government has seized on the dissenting voice in the panel - who argued, as Britain does, that Mr Assange fled bail and was using the Ecuadorean embassy to evade arrest.

The call for compensation for Mr Assange is particularly controversial when there is already public anger in the UK over the cost of policing his confinement at the embassy.


What does the UN panel do?

The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is made up of five legal experts from around the world.

Established in 1991, it has made hundreds of rulings on whether imprisonment or detention is lawful.

High profile complainants include Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, who was released in Iran last month.

It also offered an opinion on former pro-democracy President Mohamed Nasheed, released in the Maldives last year, and Myanmar party leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Julian Assange: Key dates

August 2010
- Swedish prosecutors issue an arrest warrant for Mr Assange
May 2012
- UK Supreme Court rules he should be extradited to Sweden to face questioning
June 2012
- Mr Assange claims asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London
September 2014
- Mr Assange submits complaint against Sweden and the UK to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
August 2015
- Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion - but say he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.
October 2015
- Met Police announce officers will no longer be stationed outside the Ecuadorean embassy


Julian Assange decision by UN panel ridiculous, says Hammond - BBC News
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Well of course the UK wouldn't be happy with this decision. They are still America's poodle and have failed........

The Swedes say they want WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange brought to justice on sexual assault charges.

Assange says it's a ruse intended solely to get him in American custody.

Who to believe?

I'd put my money on Assange based on America's history........


US government jet lay in wait for Snowden in Copenhagen | US news | The Guardian
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Who to believe?

The Swedes.

Britain and Sweden will win this. Cowardly little dweeb Assange WILL eventually be arrested and sent to Sweden to face questioning over sexual assault allegations, which is what he deserves.

If he doesn't leave the Ecuadorean embassy of his own accord then either the British police will eventually storm it, under pressure from the British taxpayer who are fed up of having to foot the bill for the policing, or the Ecuadoreans - the REAL ones who's rights are being abused here - having to put up with Assange lodging in their embassy would be like a family having to put up with a mad uncle staying in their home - will eventually kick him out onto the street, staight into the arms of the waiting police.

Either those two things will happen or Assange will live out a miserable existence in his Ecuadorean embassy prison, where he will remain until his dying day. But that I very much doubt.
 
Last edited:

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Britain... America's lapdog.

I suppose that we are, too. The difference is that we stand up to them, periodically.

This is all about the Americans extending their reach beyond legal limits to "get " Assange, good.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
If he doesn't leave the Ecuadorean embassy of his own accord then either the British police will eventually storm it, under pressure from the British taxpayer who are fed up of having to foot the bill for the policing, or the Ecuadoreans - the REAL ones who's rights are being abused here - having to put up with Assange lodging in their embassy would be like a family having to put up with a mad uncle staying in their home - will eventually kick him out onto the street, staight into the arms of the waiting police.

Either those two things will happen or Assange will live out a miserable existence in his Ecuadorean embassy prison, where he will remain until his dying day. But that I very much doubt.

Really? Storming an embassy? You really live in a dreamworld don't you? The Brits couldn't even hold a mass murderer like Pinochet.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Really? Storming an embassy? You really live in a dreamworld don't you? The Brits couldn't even hold a mass murderer like Pinochet.

We've got the SAS who, as we saw in 1980, are quite good at storming embassies in London. What've you got?

I suppose that we are, too. The difference is that we stand up to them, periodically.

So does Britain, like during the time we refused to send troops to Vietnam or refused to end the fight against Argentina in the Falklands War which is what the Americans - who nearly sided with the Argies in the war with a view to giving sovereignty of the islands to them - wanted Britain to do.

The fact of the matter is that Britain and America share very similar outlooks and views and is why the two are often fighting on the same side in the same war.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
We've got the SAS who, as we saw in 1980, are quite good at storming embassies in London. What've you got?

You are really up your bum on this one. The use of the SAS in 1980 was to rescue hostages in a takeover of the embassy by armed gunmen. Unless Assange suddenly pulls a gun and takes embassy personnel hostage there is no way the Brits are going to do anything except whine about the situation.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
That's what a certain general in Buenos Aires said in 1982.

Finally - a reply that makes no sense whatsoever. Please link me to the article showing the British storming of the Argentine embassy during the Falklands War. I think you are running out of straws.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Finally - a reply that makes no sense whatsoever

It actually makes a lot of sense.

Please link me to the article showing the British storming of the Argentine embassy during the Falklands War.
We stormed the Falklands to kick the Argies out after a jumped up little general in Buenos Aires thought we'd sit back and do nothing about it. we also freed Argentina from its dictatorship and led to it becoming a democracy in the process.

And if that cowardly little dweeb, Assange, and his vile supporters think the British, the Swedes and the Ecuadoreans are going to continue putting up with him cowardly hiding away from Swedish law in the Ecuadorean embassy, at great inconvenience to the Ecuadorean embassy staff, British taxpayers and Swedish law, then they've got a nother thing coming. The British government is already threatening to storm the embassy and NOW is the time to do it. They should do it today.