BREAKING: UN to Free Assange, Final Ruling Says ‘Arbitrary Detention’ Must End

Is Assange actually being detained at all? Has he not holed up in the embassy and not under arrest? I realize the Bobbies are outside the door, but technically speaking, he is not in "custody" at all.

a reply to: dreamingawake


Smells like a deal, his insurance would bury them all. But how long can a body stay cooped up.

In the scheme of legal process, no country is going to pay much attention to a UN opinion. Assange has pissed off powerful people in many countries, not just the US. He is probably much safer in the Embassy than he would be if he chose to take his chances outside those walls.

Even if Trump were to pardon him publicly, his contract has been written....it would only be a matter of time. I'm sure Assange knows this as well.

Just as if we were discussing Snowden or Manning, you will never get a consensus on whether he is a hero or a traitor. Regardless of which side you believe, you can't argue that the man has changed the world.

a reply to: residentofearth

Well during this last debacle it was said that they did try to engage the dead man's switch...however there was a targeted DDoS which prevented it. Now I don't know how much of that is true suffice to say NSA is pretty powerful when it comes to the world wide network.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: jellyrev

I worry about this trend towards acceptance of Marxists being a trait of the cool crowd. They have not a clue what they are talking about IMO. When they wake up, it could well be to late to reverse the mistaken thinking.

It's sad how many ignore history and the fact our cultures around the world are nowhere near to being compatible yet. Cultural evolution can't be forced upon we humans, it has to evolve slowly.

The UN does serve a purpose and it's good it is evolving, but to give the UN any real power at this point would be a fools move.

Assange is also far from being a hero in my estimation. Releasing ill gotten information to the world can do a lot of unintended harm. I doubt he truly gives a damn though. He's an attention whore IMO.

Let's me guess, you voted for Hillary right?

Calling assange an attention whore just shows how butt-hurt and deluded you really are.

If the media did it's job then we wouldn't have any need for wikileaks. End of story.

a reply to: schuyler

Is Assange actually being detained at all? Has he not holed up in the embassy and not under arrest? I realize the Bobbies are outside the door, but technically speaking, he is not in "custody" at all.

Yes he is being detained. If he leaves the embasy he will be arrested and send to Sweeden. Sweeden have said they will make so promise that he wont be extradited to the USA

a reply to: DISRAELI

However, entering the embassy was a voluntary action, and deciding to stay there is a voluntary action.

He is infact a politcal prisoner in the UK seeking asylum in another country. No he is not free.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Not really following you. There have been no dumps after his internets was cut off. That is what you would expect if he was using a dead mans switch.

Dude, yes there has been dumps, consistently. He kept leaking documents all the way up to the election and just the other day he leaked over half a million cables dating all the way back to 1979.

There has been tons of ATS coverage on this. Where have you been?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Not really following you. There have been no dumps after his internets was cut off. That is what you would expect if he was using a dead mans switch.

Dude, yes there has been dumps, consistently. He kept leaking documents all the way up to the election and just the other day he leaked over half a million cables dating all the way back to 1979.

There has been tons of ATS coverage on this. Where have you been?

Yes but it is have done in sets.. If there was a dead mans switch I would have thought is all would haall been released..ve been dumped along with codes for the insurance files.. nothing

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: schuyler

Is Assange actually being detained at all? Has he not holed up in the embassy and not under arrest? I realize the Bobbies are outside the door, but technically speaking, he is not in "custody" at all.

Yes he is being detained. If he leaves the embasy he will be arrested and send to Sweeden. Sweeden have said they will make so promise that he wont be extradited to the USA

Who is detaining him? Is he in custody? Sweden wants him why, again? Because one of his girlfriends has accused him of sexual inproprieties. The claim is he had sex with her when she was asleep. And the UN thinks it can intercede in this? not likely, nor should it.

a reply to: schuyler

Who is detaining him? Is he in custody? Sweden wants him why, again? Because one of his girlfriends has accused him of sexual inproprieties. The claim is he had sex with her when she was asleep. And the UN thinks it can intercede in this? not likely, nor should it.

Get a grip.. No such claim was ever made. It was over unprotected sex and under sweedish law the man can be forced to go for an STD test.. In all this time he has never been charged and up until this point sweedish prosocuters never went to the embassy to do so. It such cases they normally do..

Go do some homework and see the amount of whistleblowers that get sexual smears and allegations. Its very common practise and well documented.

Truth has no agenda and information is free..

The sole purpose of freeing him is to have him end up dead. It's a shame but his best best is to hunker down where he is. He's a dead man walking if/when he becomes "free"

a reply to: Blaine91555

Care to share an example of information which should not have been released and lead to the death of an agent?

Because I have to say, most everything I read from Wikileaks has revealed that most National Security related blocking of information release has far more to do with covering the asses of people who have never taken a risk with their personal safety at all, than it ever does protecting assets of the US government.

originally posted by: purplemer
He is infact a politcal prisoner in the UK seeking asylum in another country. No he is not free.

The UK did not force him to enter the building and are not forcing him to stay there.
If he walks out of the building, they will not force him to stay inside.
So his present location is voluntary.

originally posted by: Naturallywired
Trump will pardon him

What exact crime will Trump pardon him for?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes they did, and yes they are.

Is a man free if he cannot leave a location without risking arrest on trumped up, politically motivated charges? Of course he is not! His liberty was under threat the entire time he has been in that Embassy building, it is the entire reason he was there in the first place!

A wanted man is no freer than one already imprisoned!

a reply to: TrueBrit
I have not been talking about whether he is "free". As Monty Python observed, even Jean-Paul Sartre could not be sure of that.
The question was whether he was being "detained".
My point is that a threatened detention is not a detention. If he had escaped to the mountains to avoid being arrested, nobody could say that he was being "detained" in the mountains by force. His present situation is more claustrophobic, but does not differ philosophically from being exiled in the mountains.

The point is illustrated by the fact that the governments cannot "back off" by stopping the use of force, because they are not using any force. The only thing they can remove is the threat of force implied in the legal procedure. He is not under detention in the UK- he is just under the threat of detention in Sweden.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

b) It is absurd nonsense to say that these governments are "detaining" him. He is in that embassy of his own free will, and he will not be prevented from leaving it if he makes that decision. There is a threat of detention involved, if he leaves, but what he does of his own volition to avoid that detention is none of their doing.

Actually, not absurd nonsense. If someone doesn't exercise their freedom to leave because they are threatened with detention if they do, this can still constitute detention depending on the circumstances. It actually comes up quite often in mental health cases where patients are coerced into staying rather than the hospital using their legal power to detain ("Yes, you're a voluntary patient so you're legally free to walk out the door, but if you try to leave we'll detain you anyway under the Mental Health Act").

originally posted by: EvillerBob
It actually comes up quite often in mental health cases where patients are coerced into staying rather than the hospital using their legal power to detain ("Yes, you're a voluntary patient so you're legally free to walk out the door, but if you try to leave we'll detain you anyway under the Mental Health Act").

The cases do not match, because nobody is threatening to detain him within the building. They will allow him to leave the building at any time and arrest him outside.
So his presence in the building is voluntary, the choice he has made to avoid being arrested.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: EvillerBob
It actually comes up quite often in mental health cases where patients are coerced into staying rather than the hospital using their legal power to detain ("Yes, you're a voluntary patient so you're legally free to walk out the door, but if you try to leave we'll detain you anyway under the Mental Health Act").

The cases do not match, because nobody is threatening to detain him within the building. They will allow him to leave the building at any time and arrest him outside.
So his presence in the building is voluntary, the choice he has made to avoid being arrested.

The principles match just fine. His freedom to leave is being curtailed by threat of legal power. Splitting hairs is a fine legal tradition, but this isn't the hair worth splitting.