ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Julian Assange

Reply
Old 5th February 2016, 12:01 PM   #121
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,534
Assange made a speech from the balcony of the embassy today. In response to a heckle, he said, "Can someone close that person up?”, which as well as being a very strange choice of words, is rather ironic from someone ostensibly in favour of free speech.

Quote:
Julian Assange has accused Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, of insulting the United Nations in his response to a panel finding that Assange’s circumstances amount to “arbitrary detention”.

Hammond called the panel’s finding “ridiculous” and said the WikiLeaks founder was a “fugitive from justice”. Assange, who fled to the Ecquadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault, said the remarks were “beneath the stature that a foreign minister should express in this situation”.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 03:16 PM   #122
icerat
Philosopher
 
icerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sweden
Posts: 5,532
I'm just really curious about exactly how Sweden or the UK can "release" Assange? Let's say hypothetically they agree to abide by the UN panel decision.

What do they do?
__________________
Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available

Last edited by icerat; 5th February 2016 at 03:18 PM.
icerat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 03:45 PM   #123
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,125
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No you don't. Signing the Act is also not particularly significant, as all it does in indicate that someone acknowledges that they are aware that they are bound by it, even though everyone is already.
I had to sign the official secrets act once. I'll be buggered if I can remember what for, though, so whatever secrets there were are probably safe.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:39 PM   #124
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,429
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
He just doesn't want a SO conviction which would prevent international travel almost completely. That is the whole reason for this charade.
Could you expand on the highlighted part? I agree with the rest of your estimation.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This entire things is over Assange not being able to keep his dick in his pants and instead of behaving like a gentleman, he disregarded a woman's right to choose when and how she has sex by ignore her earlier demands for using a condom, and instead having unprotected sex with her when she was sleeping.

In any western county, and probably most others, that is, by definition, Rape.
This.

And I fully agree that the whole extradition fear is a red herring. Apart from the question whether the US wants him in the first place: in Sweden, he's much safer against extradition to the US than in the 51st state UK.

Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
The full decision can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/298102559/A-HRC-WGAD-2015
I can't make heads or tails of it what their point is.

The only case I could see is that he was granted diplomatic asylum by Ecuador. But that kind of asylum is really only mutually recognized by Latin-American countries. Other countries may grant it sometimes, but that leads to a stand-off. In 1956, a Hungarian cardinal sought refuge in the US embassy and spent 15 years there. In 1985, Dutch anti-apartheid activist Klaas de Jonge was captured by the South-African authorities because of his participation in the armed branch of the ANC. He escaped police detention and sought refuge in the Dutch embassy. When the Dutch embassy moved to another building, the SA authorities refused him free passage and he spent the next two years as the sole occupant of the old building.

But really, if Ecuador is serious about their asylum, don't they have - in the spirit of one of the founders of international law and a real political prisoner - a book chest to ship to Quito?
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:42 PM   #125
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,429
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
I'm just really curious about exactly how Sweden or the UK can "release" Assange? Let's say hypothetically they agree to abide by the UN panel decision.

What do they do?
I guess on Sweden's part to drop the EAW. I guess on the UK's part to grant him free passage to a plane to Quito.

Anyhow, I think that Wikileaks is a worthy cause. But Assange stains it with his narcissistic and dickish behaviour.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:52 PM   #126
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,125
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This entire things is over Assange not being able to keep his dick in his pants and instead of behaving like a gentleman, he disregarded a woman's right to choose when and how she has sex by ignore her earlier demands for using a condom, and instead having unprotected sex with her when she was sleeping.
There is a little dispute over that last point. According to this article, Assange's defence claims that there is a text from the woman in question to a friend in which she says that she was "half-asleep", rather than asleep. If this is true (and I'm not saying it is), of course, then it doesn't exculpate him from anything else, and we can indeed question the morality of someone who has sex with someone they barely know while they are half-asleep, but I would say that there's a big difference between having sex with someone who is half-asleep and therefore capable of reason, and having sex with someone who is not conscious at all.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 04:57 PM   #127
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,600
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
I guess on Sweden's part to drop the EAW. I guess on the UK's part to grant him free passage to a plane to Quito.

Anyhow, I think that Wikileaks is a worthy cause. But Assange stains it with his narcissistic and dickish behaviour.
I don't follow it at all, but I was under the impression that a fair number of the original WikiLeaks staffers had started their own site, because they were fed up with Assange being a publicity Rule 10.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 05:21 PM   #128
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,545
Originally Posted by acementhead View Post
Sabrina: "Fact 1: Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden."

No that is not a fact. It is a falsity, in fact a factoid in the same manner as Bush's claims of Iraq WMD, from which flowed this, and a million dead people. Of course a million dead sand ******* was worth 4000 American lives and a couple of trillion dollars wasted.
Look over there. A Squirrel!
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 05:24 PM   #129
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,545
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
" It would fly contemptuously in the face of international law if they did not comply with the judgment"
International law says the judgement is non-binding. How can one fly in the face of international law to hold oneself not bound by that which international law says is non-binding? Obversely, if "international law" does not matter enough to be binding, then it certainly doesn't matter if governments fly in its face.

Poor John Pilger; backing the weakest horse, then complaining when the thoroughbreds don't hold back and let his nag win the race.\

ETA: To be clear, Sweden and the UK are sovereign nations, with their own duly-constituted judicial systems and a sovereign duty to their own citizens. They should in no way cede any of their sovereign authority to any UN committee.
Despite it being non-binding, they could comply with the judgment and allow Assange to leave the refuge granted to him by the Ecuadorean government
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 05:36 PM   #130
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,606
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
There is a little dispute over that last point. According to this article, Assange's defence claims that there is a text from the woman in question to a friend in which she says that she was "half-asleep", rather than asleep. If this is true (and I'm not saying it is), of course, then it doesn't exculpate him from anything else, and we can indeed question the morality of someone who has sex with someone they barely know while they are half-asleep, but I would say that there's a big difference between having sex with someone who is half-asleep and therefore capable of reason, and having sex with someone who is not conscious at all.
And the place to test that defence is a Swedish court not via a UN panel.

Swedish authorities implemented ciminal charges against Assange, a European Arrest Warrant was issued to have him sent to Sweden as part of that investigation. Assange made all sorts of demands about how he should be interviewed by the Swedish aunthorities that rejected as was their right. Then to avoid being deported Assange hid in a foriegn embassy. If some can explain to me how the British and Swedish have 'arbitrarily detained' him I'd love to hear it.

Edward Snowden had the bare faced cheek to tweet 'that this writes a pass for every dictatorship to reject UN rulings. Dangerous precedent for the UK/Sweden to set.'

The dangerous precedent is a UN panel being willing to give someone a free pass on a criminal investigation because he annoyed the USA.
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:04 PM   #131
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,125
Originally Posted by Garrison 2015 View Post
And the place to test that defence is a Swedish court not via a UN panel.
Absolutely.

I'm rather of the impression that Assange is not allowing himself to be extradited to Sweden because he fears he will go to gaol. Without being in possession of all of the evidence I can't say whether this is because he believes that the way he's been set up is likely to result in a conviction, or whether it's because he knows that he's guilty, or something else entirely. It does, however, seem to me that the best way to see justice served (be that Assange going to gaol or being vindicated in his protestations of innocence) is by him co-operating with the justice system.

I just wanted to correct an assertion that Assange had definitely committed an act that couldn't be interpreted in any way other than rape, when there is alleged to be evidence that disputes that and, at the least, makes it into an act which could be argued in different ways, depending on what the details actually are.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:11 PM   #132
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,399
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Assange made a speech from the balcony of the embassy today. In response to a heckle, he said, "Can someone close that person up?”, which as well as being a very strange choice of words, is rather ironic from someone ostensibly in favour of free speech.
I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone of the hypocrisy of this "champion" of freedom of speech hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy, of all countrys'.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:26 PM   #133
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,082
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Has he been in there longer than the sentence he might expect if he were found guilty of the charges yet?
From what I've read about the allegations it's likely that he would've been sentenced to somewhere between 2 to 3 years imprisonment. In Sweden it's standard that people sentenced to prison serve 2/3 of their sentence in prison and the rest in freedom unless they seriously misbehave. Part of the sentence that's considered served includes pre-trial detention, leave and any-other authorized absence from the prison (i.e. to work, study, etc).

So he would be imprisoned for about 16 to 24 months, a much shorter time period than he has spent in self-imposed exile.

This of course presumes that he wont be imprisoned in the UK.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 5th February 2016 at 06:27 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:35 PM   #134
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
Originally Posted by acementhead View Post
Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you are a US government agent.

No more from me for now as cricket duties call.
I can't say what I would like to say about that statement. But I hope you trip over the wicket.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:46 PM   #135
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Despite it being non-binding, they could comply with the judgment and allow Assange to leave the refuge granted to him by the Ecuadorean government
I'm not sure they could, actually. I suspect the judicial decisions of Sweden and the UK cannot be set aside by the recommendation of a UN committee. The courts have issued a warrant; there are servants of the state whose duty it is to serve those warrants. I doubt they can be told to set aside their duty so easily. I doubt that warrants, once issued, can be so easily ignored.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 06:48 PM   #136
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
I can't say what I would like to say about that statement. But I hope you trip over the wicket.

I don't know what that last part means, but it certainly sounds like a breach of the MA.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 07:15 PM   #137
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Garrison 2015 View Post
And the place to test that defence is a Swedish court not via a UN panel.

Swedish authorities implemented ciminal charges against Assange, a European Arrest Warrant was issued to have him sent to Sweden as part of that investigation. Assange made all sorts of demands about how he should be interviewed by the Swedish aunthorities that rejected as was their right. Then to avoid being deported Assange hid in a foriegn embassy. If some can explain to me how the British and Swedish have 'arbitrarily detained' him I'd love to hear it.
According to Assange's submission in this document: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issue...WGAD.2015.docx

Quote:
In particular, the legal authorities cited in Mr. Assange’s submission showed that an arbitrary deprivation of liberty arises, where a state forces an individual to ‘choose’ between confinement and risking persecution, confinement and the ability to apply for asylum, indefinite confinement and deportation and several other circumstances where an individual feels compelled to ‘choose’ to suffer indefinite confinement.

Quote:
Assange made all sorts of demands about how he should be interviewed by the Swedish aunthorities that rejected as was their right.
Do you have a source for this?
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 07:20 PM   #138
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Wait...so 'arbitrary' isn't an element in 'arbitrary confinement'? What?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 07:21 PM   #139
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,545
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure they could, actually. I suspect the judicial decisions of Sweden and the UK cannot be set aside by the recommendation of a UN committee. The courts have issued a warrant; there are servants of the state whose duty it is to serve those warrants. I doubt they can be told to set aside their duty so easily. I doubt that warrants, once issued, can be so easily ignored.
What part of "leave the refuge" needs to be explained to you?
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:04 PM   #140
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
What part of "leave the refuge" needs to be explained to you?
I'm pretty sure the British authorities have always been willing to let him leave the refuge whenever he wishes.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:26 PM   #141
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
According to Assange's submission in this document: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issue...WGAD.2015.docx
I feel like there's something important missing from this citation.

Arbitrary detention cannot possibly arise whenever an accused criminal must choose whether to surrender to the authorities.

Assange must think we're idiots, to believe that's what's going on.













"This is the police! You're under arrest! Come out with your hands up!"

"Are you making me choose between staying in here and coming out to you?"

"Well, yes!"

"No fair! That's arbitrary detention! You can't do that!"

"Dammit, you're right! Never mind! We're calling off the arrest! You're free to go! Sorry 'bout that!"

Last edited by theprestige; 5th February 2016 at 08:57 PM. Reason: herpaderp
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:40 PM   #142
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,545
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm pretty sure the British authorities have always been willing to let him leave the refuge whenever he wishes.
Exactly. so what's the force of the unpanel unruling?
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:41 PM   #143
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I feel like there's something important missing from this citation.

Arbitrary detention cannot possibly arise whenever an accused criminal must whether to whether to surrender to the authorities.

Assange must think we're idiots, to believe that's what's going on.
Even in the absence of due process?
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:48 PM   #144
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,545
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
I'm just really curious about exactly how Sweden or the UK can "release" Assange? Let's say hypothetically they agree to abide by the UN panel decision.

What do they do?
From tomorrow's headlines

Acting in response to a United Nations panel ruling, British SAS last night extracted a hostage who was being arbitarily detained in the Ecuadorian Embassy
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

Last edited by Noztradamus; 5th February 2016 at 08:49 PM.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:51 PM   #145
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
Even in the absence of due process?
The absence of due process makes no part of the passage you cited. If that was the meat of the claim, you should have cited a passage that includes it.

In any case, due process has been thoroughly and repeatedly shown in this thread, on the parts of both the Swedish and British governments. There is nothing arbitrary at all about Assange's present situation, except perhaps Ecuador's decision to give him asylum.

ETA: To be clear, by "whenever" I meant "in every case where". I do think it's a problem when such a choice arises from a lack of due process. But that's clearly not the case here. So to call this "arbitrary detention" requires either ignoring the due process that did occur; or else defining the term to mean whenever a threat of arrest is made, regardless of the process (which is absurd, and therefore totally plausible for the UN to do).

Last edited by theprestige; 5th February 2016 at 09:02 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 08:52 PM   #146
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Exactly. so what's the force of the unpanel unruling?
None at all. Were you making a joke, and I missed it?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2016, 10:54 PM   #147
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The absence of due process makes no part of the passage you cited. If that was the meat of the claim, you should have cited a passage that includes it.
No, it wasn't involved in the passage I cited, but it is in the decision issued by the UN which is relevant. Your participation in this thread let me to believe that you would have read this document due to it's obvious relevance. My mistake.

Nonetheless:

Quote:
92. The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 35 on Article 9 also stated that “An arrest or detention may be authorized by domestic law and nonetheless be arbitrary. The notion of “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against law”, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality.” (para. 12, as was reiterated in para. 61 of the Deliberation No. 9 of the Working Group).

Quote:
In any case, due process has been thoroughly and repeatedly shown in this thread, on the parts of both the Swedish and British governments. There is nothing arbitrary at all about Assange's present situation, except perhaps Ecuador's decision to give him asylum.

ETA: To be clear, by "whenever" I meant "in every case where". I do think it's a problem when such a choice arises from a lack of due process. But that's clearly not the case here. So to call this "arbitrary detention" requires either ignoring the due process that did occur; or else defining the term to mean whenever a threat of arrest is made, regardless of the process (which is absurd, and therefore totally plausible for the UN to do).
You have to concede that there is contention regarding the lack of due process as this is one of the cases put forward by Assange's legal representatives. Whether it's correct or not is irrelevant; that's not what I'm talking about in this instance. I'm talking about whether the lack of due process is relevant with regards to the definition of "arbitrary", as used by the U.N.

Last edited by alex04; 5th February 2016 at 11:18 PM. Reason: Bad Engrish in first paragraph
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 04:19 AM   #148
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
No, it wasn't involved in the passage I cited, but it is in the decision issued by the UN which is relevant. Your participation in this thread let me to believe that you would have read this document due to it's obvious relevance. My mistake.
I read the document, but I'm not going to guess at your argument. If you cite a passage about detention, I'm going to discuss detention.

If you want to discuss due process, cite a passage about due process.

Quote:
Nonetheless:
And? The Swedish law enforcement and judiciary agencies followed due process. The UK agencies did the same.

This has been covered in the thread repeatedly. Have you read the thread? Are you prepared to defend the due process arguments in this document, in the context of the due process discussion that has already taken place here?

If not, then I don't see how the document is relevant.

Quote:
You have to concede that there is contention regarding the lack of due process as this is one of the cases put forward by Assange's legal representatives.
I don't have to concede something I never disputed in the first place.

I just happen to disagree with Assange's legal representatives on this point, for the reasons belabored in this thread. I note that the judiciaries and governments of at least two sovereign European nations have reached similar conclusions.

Quote:
Whether it's correct or not is irrelevant; that's not what I'm talking about in this instance. I'm talking about whether the lack of due process is relevant with regards to the definition of "arbitrary", as used by the U.N.
It seems to me that a lack of due process is probably an important part of any definition of arbitrary.

But so what? There is no lack of due process in Assange's detention. So why even bring it up?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 04:32 AM   #149
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,429
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
I don't follow it at all, but I was under the impression that a fair number of the original WikiLeaks staffers had started their own site, because they were fed up with Assange being a publicity Rule 10.
You're absolutely right. Do you know the name of the site? No. Neither do I. The name Wikileaks has become synonymous with "whistleblower site" in the public's eye. Every time there's news of Assange about this affair with the inevitable mention that he's the founder of Wikileaks, taints the whole cause of whistleblower sites, IMHO.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 04:51 AM   #150
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,429
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure they could, actually. I suspect the judicial decisions of Sweden and the UK cannot be set aside by the recommendation of a UN committee. The courts have issued a warrant; there are servants of the state whose duty it is to serve those warrants. I doubt they can be told to set aside their duty so easily. I doubt that warrants, once issued, can be so easily ignored.
I don't think so. Political expediency always trumps legal considerations. So if the UK would have the political will to let him go to Ecuador, they would, the Swedish EAW be damned.

Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
From tomorrow's headlines

Acting in response to a United Nations panel ruling, British SAS last night extracted a hostage who was being arbitarily detained in the Ecuadorian Embassy
Nice Orwellian headline!

But I don't think the UK would violate the diplomatic immunity of the embassy. I mentioned before the Dutch ANC armed fighter Klaas de Jonge during the Apartheid era. He fled his police detention into the Dutch embassy, and in the heat of the moment, the SA police chased him into the embassy and extracted him out of there. After firm protest from the Dutch government, the SA police brought him back to the embassy and they respected the immunity of the building.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 05:00 AM   #151
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,429
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Absolutely.

I'm rather of the impression that Assange is not allowing himself to be extradited to Sweden because he fears he will go to gaol. Without being in possession of all of the evidence I can't say whether this is because he believes that the way he's been set up is likely to result in a conviction, or whether it's because he knows that he's guilty, or something else entirely. It does, however, seem to me that the best way to see justice served (be that Assange going to gaol or being vindicated in his protestations of innocence) is by him co-operating with the justice system.

I just wanted to correct an assertion that Assange had definitely committed an act that couldn't be interpreted in any way other than rape, when there is alleged to be evidence that disputes that and, at the least, makes it into an act which could be argued in different ways, depending on what the details actually are.
You're absolutely right, he's just a suspect at this point, but the place to test that is a Swedish court.

Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
From what I've read about the allegations it's likely that he would've been sentenced to somewhere between 2 to 3 years imprisonment. In Sweden it's standard that people sentenced to prison serve 2/3 of their sentence in prison and the rest in freedom unless they seriously misbehave. Part of the sentence that's considered served includes pre-trial detention, leave and any-other authorized absence from the prison (i.e. to work, study, etc).

So he would be imprisoned for about 16 to 24 months, a much shorter time period than he has spent in self-imposed exile.

This of course presumes that he wont be imprisoned in the UK.
It's quite ironic that he's spent now more time holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy than he would in a Swedish gaol if convicted, and arguably even under less favourable circumstances; an embassy is not fitted out as a residence.

Would the time he spent in London under house arrest while legally fighting his extradition, or the time spent in the embassy also be considered under "time served"?
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 05:06 AM   #152
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Would the time he spent in London under house arrest while legally fighting his extradition, or the time spent in the embassy also be considered under "time served"?
I can't speak for the Swedish government, but personally? House arrest, sure. Embassy, absolutely not. Time spent on the run should be *added* to the sentence.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 05:17 AM   #153
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,534
There was a piece on the radio this morning discussing the situation. I was only half-listening, but there was a woman from, I think, a rape-related charity and she was, I believe, defending Assange. Her logic seemed to be that since several million pounds had been spent on the operation so far that it couldn't simply be about a rape charge since there were plenty of those in this country that didn't get appropriate attention, and therefore there must be some ulterior motive such as wanting to deport him to the USA. (She too was impervious to the arguments about EAWs and it being easier to extradite from the UK than Sweden.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 05:31 AM   #154
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,429
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I can't speak for the Swedish government, but personally? House arrest, sure. Embassy, absolutely not.
My feeling of what's right is the same. I hope Arcade22, being a Swedish citizen, can shed some light on what the practice of Swedish courts is (courts, not the government).

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Time spent on the run should be *added* to the sentence.
I don't think that's a practice anywhere. Even jail breaking is not an offence in itself in most countries.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 05:51 AM   #155
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,534
In case anyone thinks I was hallucinating (I did think I might have misheard, but checked on twitter, where I saw confirmation), here's a piece from 2012 from the same organisation making the same point. It seems they have not changed their minds in the light of reason.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 05:56 AM   #156
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
In case anyone thinks I was hallucinating (I did think I might have misheard, but checked on twitter, where I saw confirmation), here's a piece from 2012 from the same organisation making the same point. It seems they have not changed their minds in the light of reason.
An easy and reliable method for predicting the conclusions reached by any UN organization (other than the Security Council) is to determine which conclusion can most reasonably be interpreted as a middle finger to the US.

The UK and Sweden are just innocent bystanders, here.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 06:00 AM   #157
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,534
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
An easy and reliable method for predicting the conclusions reached by any UN organization (other than the Security Council) is to determine which conclusion can most reasonably be interpreted as a middle finger to the US.

The UK and Sweden are just innocent bystanders, here.
Just for clarity, I was talking about the spokesperson from Women Against Rape, I was not referring to the UN decision at all.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 06:12 AM   #158
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Just for clarity, I was talking about the spokesperson from Women Against Rape, I was not referring to the UN decision at all.
My apologies, I misunderstood.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 06:22 AM   #159
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,731
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
In case anyone thinks I was hallucinating (I did think I might have misheard, but checked on twitter, where I saw confirmation), here's a piece from 2012 from the same organisation making the same point. It seems they have not changed their minds in the light of reason.
Their grasp of the case can be deduced from
Quote:
he has not even been charged
. Anyone who paid any attention to the case would know that Sweden is trying to charge him.

The Washington Post link covers the dissenting opinion. Apparently I did read the full text of the judgement correctly
Quote:
"It is assumed in the Opinion that Mr. Assange has been detained in the Embassy of Ecuador in London by the authorities of the United Kingdom. In particular, it is stated that his stay in the Embassy constitutes “a state of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.”
The whole Opinion seemed to have assumed what it should have set out to prove.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2016, 07:46 AM   #160
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,082
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
It's quite ironic that he's spent now more time holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy than he would in a Swedish gaol if convicted, and arguably even under less favourable circumstances; an embassy is not fitted out as a residence.

Would the time he spent in London under house arrest while legally fighting his extradition, or the time spent in the embassy also be considered under "time served"?
No i don't think so although this case is exceptional. The basic idea is that the time people have already spent "deprived of their freedom" is supposed to be deducted from the time they are supposed to serve in prison as being imprisoned is a form of freedom deprivation. Thus it hinges on whether or not he can be considered to be freedom deprived.

Although he would no doubt claim that he has been deprived of his freedom during his self-imposed "imprisonment" at the embassy I find that assertion highly questionable since unlike typical cases he is free to leave at any moment. The British police aren't keeping him imprisoned in there by locking the front door and stationing guards around the perimeter to catch and escort him back in there if he tries to run away.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.