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

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yes there is!

Wikileaks have shown the US military mowing down innocent civilians from a helicopter, countless incidents of basically criminal behaviour on the part of powerful leaders and political entities, and these things are as bad, because of their scale, as murder. The hackers themselves are not the problem.

The problem is that things are being hidden because it is expedient to do so, not because they ought to be, and Wikileaks prevents that from always being the case, prevents the hidden things which ought to be public knowledge, from remaining hidden.

There is absolutely equivalency there.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: goou111
a) If the United Nations made this "ruling", they have no legal power to enforce it. The declaration has no meaning.
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.

A is right, B is not.

There is functionally no difference in the level of your freedom between being forced into an embassy or a jail cell. The embassy is just a nicer jail cell. He IS being detained. There is no choice, it's jail or embassy, and that's imparted by those threatening his detainment.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

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.

Again, no it's not. There is a safe zone, and then there is jail. If not jail -> safe zone. If not safe zone -> jail. The decision is not a decision. He's being forced into the embassy by those waiting on the outside for him. He has done nothing wrong, and no official charges are filed. Why do you assume he's in the embassy to begin with? Maybe because they want to detain him?

Oh right, so he's forced into building A, to avoid going to Building B. So much freedom he has right now... yeah -- that's the definition of freedom to a T.

It's detainment. He clearly WANTS to leave the embassy, but cannot, because if he does, he will be instantly picked up. That's not a choice, that's not freewill. COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY even though he's actively trying to leave the embassy.

Your logic is the same as the following analogy;

You, trapped inside your house. Outside, a crowd of people who want to murder you. You don't wish to be contained to your house, but if you go outside you'll be murdered. Staying inside is not voluntary at this junction. It's forced under threat of murder. You cannot leave.

Now sub out you for Julian, sub out house for embassy, sub out murderous mob with kidnapping mob and it's Assange's current situation.

That's not voluntary, it's forced/coerced under threat.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
This is far more akin to a person who fences stolen goods, except he does it for attention. If he got no attention he would go away on his own. He's no hero.

Do you think the same of all other investigative journalists who put out stories based on the intel of whistle blowers? At least in the case of Wikileaks, they generally don't go wrapping the data up in a biased narrative in order to further embellish the story towards their agenda - as we see far too much with MSM these days.

You say he's in it for the "attention" - as if risking your life and sacrificing much of your own freedom is worth a little bit of attention.

At the end of the day your thoughts on Assange's motives is based on nothing but your own, obviously biased, point of view.

If hacking and whistle blowing is all the tools we have in order to hold our governments accountable for corruption - then absolutely these resources should be used - and we should be thankful that there's an outlet such as Wikileaks that can be trusted to keep the source anonymous and the foresight to deal with the information responsibly - as they have proven to do over and over.

a reply to: SRPrime

Spot on.

This is fundamental stuff we are talking about. If freedom is simply the ability to place ones wrists together and be cuffed, rather than have them forced behind your back, then what use is it to anyone? If liberty means that one can occupy a room in someone else's house, or go out from their building and be placed in jail, then things have truly become bleak.

I refuse to accept any definition of liberty or freedom, which suggests that Assange has had either one for several years.

a reply to: TrueBrit

We are never going to agree. The way it is done matters.

a reply to: SRPrime
He was not "forced into". Nobody picked him up and bodily threw him into the building. He made a decision to walk in. That's what makes it voluntary.

As I suggested to someone else, there is no philosophical difference between going into a building to escape arrest, and going into the mountains to escape arrest. If he was living in the Rocky Mountains to evade an arrest warrant, would you have said that the authorities were "detaining" him there?

He is not being detained. He is only under threat of being detained. As illustrated by the point that if the UN body was asked "What do you want us to do to implement your ruling?", the only response possible would be "Remove the threat".

"BREAKING: UN to Free Assange"

So why did the UN have Assange locked up?

That is what the thread claims!

a reply to: Blaine91555

So truth takes a back seat to some dubious "national interest". Time and again we see how a corporate fascist oligarchy rules the USA, waging war's causing suffering to million's and yet to you the status quo is all that matter's. Who speak's out for the innocent's then?

a reply to: Blaine91555

"Congress Approves Measure for Crusade Against “Fake News” — Using DoD Funding"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the National Interest that you approve of? The people be damned as long as we keep up pretences.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


I came across this which is disturbing to say the least.www.reddit.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


I came across this which is disturbing to say the least.www.reddit.com...

For once I agree with a conspiracy theory.....(insert astonished gasps of ATS'ers here).

Julian Assange is either dead or removed to a black site.

ETA - unfortunately, that creates all sorts of problems for me. *sigh*

originally posted by: CIAGypsy

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


I came across this which is disturbing to say the least.www.reddit.com...

For once I agree with a conspiracy theory.....(insert astonished gasps of ATS'ers here).

Julian Assange is either dead or removed to a black site.

ETA - unfortunately, that creates all sorts of problems for me. *sigh*

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but since the internet outage, haven't his "appearances" been phone calls? I'm sure the CIA has the resources to convincingly mimic his voice. I haven't heard of anything that actually proves life, such as Assange appearing at the window to show he's still there.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Yes, no visual confirmation for 2 months. Plus the entire tone of his releases and tweets has changed. But there's even more to it than that which I can't post.

a reply to: CIAGypsy


Julian Assange seems alive and well.. He was on Hannity, doing a good radio interview.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: CIAGypsy


Julian Assange seems alive and well.. He was on Hannity, doing a good radio interview.

A radio interview does nothing to dispel the rumors that something has happened to Assange. Guess you didn't read the links above?

Below is the alleged theory (not necessarily mine....to be clear)

Where Is Julian Assange Now: Is WikiLeaks Founder Alive Or Dead, Hero Or Russian Spy?

Is Julian Assange Alive Or Dead?

Since Assange disappeared from public view, rumors have been circulating suggesting that he has been assassinated or renditioned to the U.S. by the CIA. There have been some odd occurrences at the Ecuadorian embassy. Firstly, British police officers were withdrawn from their 24-hour presence outside the embassy. Shortly afterward, the Mirror reported that an intruder had been disturbed at the embassy in what they say may have been an attempt on Assange’s life.

In October, WikiLeaks expressed concern that “heavily armed police” had surrounded the Ecuadorian embassy where Assange has been granted political asylum.

The same day, London City airport was closed and evacuated after a “chemical incident.” Rumors claim that these two events added up to Assange being illegally renditioned from London into U.S. custody, possibly at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

After these events, Assange and WikiLeaks were inundated with requests demanding that Assange give “proof of life.” WikiLeaks responded by telling people to stop asking Assange to prove he was alive. Many people saw it as very odd when Assange did not make a balcony appearance either on the day the UN made its illegal detention finding or on the anniversary of his detention.

The release of a statement by Assange would seem to indicate that he is alive and well, but the statement was released on a Justice for Assange website rather than directly through WikiLeaks. The statement is still not available on the WikiLeaks website, where the last statement from Assange was published on November 8.

...


People are asking why Assange doesn’t simply make an appearance on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy to prove that he is alive and well. This simple act would stop the rumors in an instant.

The information that I alluded to in my previous posts is not related to the theory above. It comes from two places. One is an intelligence analysis of the posts and tweets changing tone from "traditional Julian" as I mentioned previously. This is not the same individual posting. And yes, I do realize there is a GROUP of individuals who post and tweet on behalf of Wikileaks. This analysis was done by individuals who monitor those things and understand those variances.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


The reality as opposed to what we would like to be the truth, is that all we have is a "Virtual Assange"

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: 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.

He's not in custody, hasn't been for years. If he leaves the embassy then the UK has an obligation to detain him as he is wanted by another country (Sweden) regarding crimes he is alleged to have committed. So far he has refused to come out of hiding and yet he classes himself as imprisoned and his groupies love to suggest he is an assassination target. The UK is upholding international law if it detains him and arranges extradition to Sweden while the charges against him remain.

How is he not an assassination target when Hillary Clinton openly and casually says "Can't we just drone strike Julian?"

I mean.......

Dude isn't even wanted for an offense, there are no official charges filed against him in Sweden, so the UK does NOT have an obligation to detain him.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: 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.

He's not in custody, hasn't been for years. If he leaves the embassy then the UK has an obligation to detain him as he is wanted by another country (Sweden) regarding crimes he is alleged to have committed. So far he has refused to come out of hiding and yet he classes himself as imprisoned and his groupies love to suggest he is an assassination target. The UK is upholding international law if it detains him and arranges extradition to Sweden while the charges against him remain.

How is he not an assassination target when Hillary Clinton openly and casually says "Can't we just drone strike Julian?"

I mean.......

Dude isn't even wanted for an offense, there are no official charges filed against him in Sweden, so the UK does NOT have an obligation to detain him.

HRC is alleged to have made the drone comment in a meeting, and unless you are a total idiot would be able to see that it's 99.9% likely to have been made in jest.

If the UK doesn't have an obligation to detain him then he could walk out of the embassy whenever he wants - but no, he can't can he because the second he does he will be killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would it ruin your day when he isn't actually killed?

a reply to: goou111

He could still be droned.

You didn't see this coming but perhaps others did and that's why his Internet was cut off in the embassy?

Coming back to my original point, has the UK done anything to carry out this alleged ruling? No? As I thought, it has no legal value or importance.