Julian Assange wins ruling , he has been unlawfully detained UN panel rule

News just breaking from the BBC that they have learnt the finding of the panel investigating his claim of unlawful detention due for release tomorrow have found in his favour , Assange has been unlawfully detained.
Assange had earlier said if the ruling went against him he would hand himself over to police tomorrow but now we await to see the official release of the report and the response from his jailers the British government.

A UN panel considering the alleged "unlawful detention" of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has ruled in his favour, the BBC understands.
He took refuge in London's Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims.
In 2014 he complained to the panel he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave without being arrested.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Time to release our prisoner of conscience.

I believe this speaks for my feelings about this news....

a reply to: gortex
Read the fine print of the story, and you will see that the U.N. panel has no legal power to enforce its ruling.
The authorities say that the warrant remains in place.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: gortex
Read the fine print of the story, and you will see that the U.N. panel has no legal power to enforce its ruling.
The authorities say that the warrant remains in place.

Why does the UN even exist anyways? To send angry letters?

a reply to: Ghost147
That's a good question. In any case, it doesn't yet exist as a supreme legal authority with independent powers of enforcement.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It isn't fine print it's fact and clearly stated , it is however support from a body who have previously ruled on unlawful detention cases.
It remains to be seen what if any effect this will have but in my opinion it is an important ruling and much needed support for Julian.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes, it does.

However, this ruling does something else as well. It calls into question the moral high ground from which the British government make their pronouncements against other world leaders, nations, and political structures. It removes their ability to complain from a solid footing, about nations who refuse to comply with UN announcements and rulings in the future.

Basically, the UN just made it very hard for the British government to maintain the facade of legitimacy and pragmatism which they seek to engender as a western power. Of course, around here we are all too aware that no great number of people should ever be ruled by a small number of people, that no small number of persons ought to be able to dictate to a larger one, that the will of the people is more important than the prattle of persons whose honour has been purchased by corporations and industrial interests.

This ruling offers British government a chance to be the upstanding folks that they would like the rest of the world to think they are, one which they will refuse to take, in the most startling display of honesty possible.

a reply to: gortex
I was referring to these words in the original story;

The Met Police said he will still be held if he does leave the embassy. A warrant for his arrest remains in place...
[The panel] does 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.

In any case, the complaint lacks logic (legal experts notwithstanding) because nobody is currently detaining him.
His residence in the embassy is self-chosen, as a way of avoiding arrest.
He would be detained if he came out, and he could logically make his complaint then.

a reply to: gortex

ar·bi·trar·y (är′bĭ-trĕr′ē)
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Law Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

The enigmatic conundrum is that had he left the embassy, he would undoubtedly have been detained (or assassinated) and transferred to the US to face trial (or had his body returned to his family for burial).

This is why I support his stance and motive to release evidence that the US government is a terrorist organization and has virtually gone rogue, he has (with Chelsea (Bradley) Mannings assistance) proven this outfit to be extremely dangerous and it seems that with every passing day, he is proven right.

This ruling, however, will still not stop the US government from eliminating him once he is free.

Sad, but true.

a reply to: gortex

it is very telling that the " panel " does not address any issue of the accusations made against mr assange or the validity of the charges he faces if extradited to sweden .

Asshat...err I mean Assange is just a tool whom has dug a 6ft hole for himself. He's avoiding capture because he is a wanted man internationally. He's avoiding sexual assault charges at the very least. I can't stand the guy, he ain't a hero of truth and liberty or whatever he claims to be. Just an idiot who's in way over his head lol.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

We don't know what the panel has addressed as the report is not released yet , all we know is they have found in favour of Assange in that he has been illegally detained , that for me is a good news story , I eagerly await the release of the full report tomorrow.

Between him and Snowden it might be a long time before anyone has the balls to expose the secrets of the elite.

No one should ever be charged for sharing information they weren't sworn to keep secret. Assange is simply the messenger, he never swore to a 50 year silence contract.

I am truly thankful for his efforts, and for Ecuador providing him diplomatic rights to the embassy.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: gortex
Read the fine print of the story, and you will see that the U.N. panel has no legal power to enforce its ruling.
The authorities say that the warrant remains in place.

Why does the UN even exist anyways? To send angry letters?

It exists to maintain a line of communication between world powers and avert a third world war. That was the reason it came into being.

While it unfortunately cannot change legal matters such as Julian's, it's decisions can wield enormous moral pressure on the parties involved. Some countries have released prisoners in similar circumstances when confronted by the UN, some others have not. I highly doubt Britain and Sweden will seriously consider this ruling by the UN.

originally posted by: weirdguy
Asshat...err I mean Assange is just a tool whom has dug a 6ft hole for himself.

He's a tool insofar as he is a messenger between whistleblowers and the public.

He's avoiding capture because he is a wanted man internationally.

He's wanted in Sweden and the USA currently has an investigation into him and his organisation.

He's avoiding sexual assault charges at the very least.

allegations

There's a difference between charges and allegations. Further still, there is a difference between charges and convictions. Julian hasn't been charged with anything relating to the Swedish situation.

I can't stand the guy, he ain't a hero of truth and liberty or whatever he claims to be.

Has he ever proclaimed himself to be a hero? As far as i know, the guy just takes his job seriously and thinks he is doing the world a service by doing that.

Just an idiot who's in way over his head lol.

Any individual or a small collective is bound to have trouble when facing nation-states, especially superpowers like the USA. Just because he's in this position doesn't necessarily make him an idiot.

This is just farcical. The simple fact is he was wanted on an international arrest warrant by a close, allied nation that we have an extradition treaty with. He chose to seek refuge in the Ecudorian Embassy as he didn't want extraditing.

As such, no detention has taken place so there is no feasible (or logical) explanation to rule that he has been unlawfully detained. He has not been detained full stop. He chose to seek sanctuary instead, as is his choice.

And as Disraeli says, this ruling will not make any difference. If he steps outside, he will be arrested and then extradited to Sweden. What happens from there would be up to the Swedish authorities (to either have a trial or drop charges).

a reply to: Flavian

This is just farcical.

From my reading the allegations against Assange are farcical and little more than an attempt to extradite him to the US by the Swedish government.

As such, no detention has taken place so there is no feasible (or logical) explanation to rule that he has been unlawfully detained.

And yet they have , perhaps we should wait for the report before questioning why they came to their conclusion.

a reply to: daaskapital

Are you kidding? He's facing very serious allegations that's why he's in hiding. They want to extradite him remember? Of course he hasn't been charged, he's avoiding that at all costs. The sexual assault thing is just the being, he's wanted else where too. There isn't too many countries who wouldn't extradite him hey!

Just because he thinks he's doing the right thing doesn't make it so. It looks as the arrest warrants stand and I'm glad.

a reply to: gortex

The charges do seem pretty farcical but Sweden is both an ally and also a nation we have an extradition treaty with - they are not a pariah state so if an extradition request comes in, we are duty bound to honour it.

In this particular case, there is no need to wait for a report before branding it farcical. He has not been detained. Full stop. Therefore it is impossible for him to have been falsely detained. To say otherwise is both illogical and also nonsensical, whatever one's feelings about the case.

I am actually a huge fan and supporter of the UN but i have to say, in recent years, they seem to be making a habit of coming out with completely nonsensical statements ( a bit like the EU do). In both cases, they really aren't helping themselves!