UN rules in favour of Assange

[Snowhobbit]

According to Christophe Peschoux, a senior member of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it is legally binding.

It is unenforceable, but that is another issue.

It is not legally binding, and as far as I know Cristophe Peschoux is not a treaty.

If you lock yourself in a bathroom, can we demand that the Serbian government releases you? He is not being detained.

[Sarmatian]

It is not legally binding, and as far as I know Cristophe Peschoux is not a treaty.

If you lock yourself in a bathroom, can we demand that the Serbian government releases you? He is not being detained.

International human rights treaties are usually signed under auspices of the UN. International treaties take precedence over domestic regulations. If an UN body says it's an arbitrary detention, then it is an arbitrary detention, whether you agree with it or not.

Like most multilateral international treaties, enforcing them is hard and often impossible. In domestic law, when something is declared illegal, it is also specified who decides if it is illegal, what are possible sanctions for the offender, how the sentence is enforced and who enforces it.

Multinational treaties usually only contain who decides if something is illegal, and sometimes not even that.

It would be like if someone committed a theft (or something else illegal), but can't be detained because the police doesn't exist, and can't be tried because there are no courts and judges, and can't be sentenced because there are no prisons.

Of course, I haven't really looked at those treaties, so I can't be 100% sure, but based on how international law works, it is safe to assume that UN are right. So, I'm going with binding but non-enforceable.

[Snowhobbit]

International human rights treaties are usually signed under auspices of the UN. International treaties take precedence over domestic regulations. If an UN body says it's an arbitrary detention, then it is an arbitrary detention, whether you agree with it or not.

Like most multilateral international treaties, enforcing them is hard and often impossible. In domestic law, when something is declared illegal, it is also specified who decides if it is illegal, what are possible sanctions for the offender, how the sentence is enforced and who enforces it.

Multinational treaties usually only contain who decides if something is illegal, and sometimes not even that.

It would be like if someone committed a theft (or something else illegal), but can't be detained because the police doesn't exist, and can't be tried because there are no courts and judges, and can't be sentenced because there are no prisons.

Of course, I haven't really looked at those treaties, so I can't be 100% sure, but based on how international law works, it is safe to assume that UN are right. So, I'm going with binding but non-enforceable.

It is however not a binding treaty. A lot of non-binding things come out of the UN. Most multilateral binding treaties have systems in place to enforce the same, as for example the ECHR does, this does not, for the reason that it is not binding.

If someone commits a crime and then decides to live his life as a fugitive from justice, he is not being imprisoned. He has had a fair hearing all the way through to two Supreme courts. If he had medicated his paranoia he would be a free man today even if found guilty. But this is the same guy who refused to take an HIV test to give the women peace of mind that they did not have HIV.

[Sarmatian]

It is however not a binding treaty. A lot of non-binding things come out of the UN. Most multilateral binding treaties have systems in place to enforce the same, as for example the ECHR does, this does not, for the reason that it is not binding.

I don't think you understand what binding but not enforceable means.

[Snowhobbit]

I don't think you understand what binding but not enforceable means.

And I am certain that you do not grasp the concept of binding.

Now, if you lock yourself in the bathroom, has the Serbian government detained you?

[Sarmatian]

And I am certain that you do not grasp the concept of binding.

Really? Well, if you say so.

Now, if you lock yourself in the bathroom, has the Serbian government detained you?

What has that got do to with anything?

[Snowhobbit]

What has that got do to with anything?

It has everything to do with this. If you voluntarily of your own free will decide to stay in a house for years and years, nobody has detained you.

[Papewaio]

It is however not a binding treaty. A lot of non-binding things come out of the UN. Most multilateral binding treaties have systems in place to enforce the same, as for example the ECHR does, this does not, for the reason that it is not binding.

If someone commits a crime and then decides to live his life as a fugitive from justice, he is not being imprisoned. He has had a fair hearing all the way through to two Supreme courts. If he had medicated his paranoia he would be a free man today even if found guilty. But this is the same guy who refused to take an HIV test to give the women peace of mind that they did not have HIV.

If you are worried about STDs it's a test you have either before having sex or up to 3-6 months afterwards.

I'm pretty sure they don't need him to leave the embassy to know if they are pregnant with his child or have a virus from him either after this length of time.

He should be tried. But after Snowden I wonder where the line of paranoia and sense is anymore.

[Snowhobbit]

If you are worried about STDs it's a test you have either before having sex or up to 3-6 months afterwards.

I'm pretty sure they don't need him to leave the embassy to know if they are pregnant with his child or have a virus from him either after this length of time.

He should be tried. But after Snowden I wonder where the line of paranoia and sense is anymore.

If you are worried about STDs yes you can get tested before, or you can insist on using a condom. Which is the one case which is still active as that is full-blown rape. At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one. He then bails out of the country and refuses to submit to a HIV test, this is long before he is even sitting in the embassy, he has not skipped bail after 6 trials yet. But yes of course he could have given a blood sample from the embassy as well, though by that time this particular aspect of doucheholery was over.

He can't be extradited to the US from Sweden anyway, we have to give him back to the UK. And he was perfectly happy sitting in UK while two different Supreme courts gave him a fair hearing. The UN panel of unpaid "experts" is a joke.

[Gilrandir]

At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

So she claims that immediately before the intercourse, during it and after it before falling asleep she didn't see whether he had put the rubber on/was wearing it/took it off? That's huge!!

[Beskar]

He should be tried. But after Snowden I wonder where the line of paranoia and sense is anymore.

Being honest, after Snowden, the movies make the security forces a lot more scary than reality.

[Snowhobbit]

Being honest, after Snowden, the movies make the security forces a lot more scary than reality.

Yeah, turns out they really are not that bad if you are already in the limelight of the media. Shocker :D

So she claims that immediately before the intercourse, during it and after it before falling asleep she didn't see whether he had put the rubber on/was wearing it/took it off? That's huge!!

I think you need to buy some new glasses buddy.
She was asleep at the time of ehm, insertion, and upon waking up she asked him if he was wearing a condom, to which he lied and siad he was. After "completion" she of course for natural causes quickly discovered that he had in fact lied to her, I can't recall if she threw him out then and there or not.

[Gilrandir]

I think you need to buy some new glasses buddy.
She was asleep at the time of ehm, insertion, and upon waking up she asked him if he was wearing a condom, to which he lied and siad he was. After "completion" she of course for natural causes quickly discovered that he had in fact lied to her, I can't recall if she threw him out then and there or not.

I'm afraid you hadn't made it clear it the post. Let me quote you:

At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

I had presumed that an agreement between two people is reached when, ehm, both of them are awake and sentient.

[Papewaio]

Being honest, after Snowden, the movies make the security forces a lot more scary than reality.

Never seen the movies.

Extraordinary rendition and non consensual water boarding and recording every international call is scary enough to ask are we in a high tech police state with a straight face.

[Beskar]

Never seen the movies.

Extraordinary rendition and non consensual water boarding and recording every international call is scary enough to ask are we in a high tech police state with a straight face.

Watch Enemy of the State, 1998 movie starring Will Smith which has the NSA doing that already and more.