UN rules in favour of Assange

Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained, according to UN panel.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-investigation

The decision should be binding, as both Sweden and UK have signed the charters, but in practice it means little so neither country appears willing to drop the issue.

What's next, do you agree with UN, is he guilty or just a political prisoner?

3, 2, 1... GO!

The arrest warrant is valid, he's using his political cover to avoid a rape accusation - if he were truly afraid of being extradited to the US he would never have entered the UK, our extradition treaty is far less likely to protect him than Sweden's.

I've seen nothing in the British press to say the ruling is binding, but the European Arrest Warrant certainly IS.

Assange is waiting out the Statute of Limitations - he only has to wait another year and the charges will have to be dropped, then he'll walk out of the Embassy to applause from his Sycophants, get on a blame to the Caribbean or somewhere and in a few decades a confidante will come forward confirming it was all true and he was a nasty sex pest.

Or that these women were on the US governments payroll.

Or that Julian Assange is on the US government's payroll.

Or some combo of all three.

I have no idea, how could I

It will be fun to read the report, I hear the dissenting opinion is truly something.

A little by the by, the charges won't be dropped until 2020, so he is about halfway through his waiting inside an embassy. And indeed we could not extradite him to the US, we have to return him to the UK when we are done with him. He is trapped by his own sense of paranoia. @Sarmatian I don't think you understand what it takes for something to be legally binding.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

@Sarmatian I don't think you understand what it takes for something to be legally binding.

No? Why don't you explain it to me.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No? Why don't you explain it to me.

Well for one that charter is not binding. And that tribunal is not binding either. As opposed to say signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is legally binding and has a court connected with it which can make legally binding verdicts.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Well for one that charter is not binding. And that tribunal is not binding either. As opposed to say signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is legally binding and has a court connected with it which can make legally binding verdicts.

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.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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?

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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?

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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.

If I have reason to believe that my personal safety and human rights are threatened, that I won't be given a fair trial, I have every right to run away or lock myself in a safe place.

That was the standard for many political activists and western nations, UK and Sweden included, accepted that when it happened in the rest of the world. When it happened in their own country, with their own citizens, well... It again shows that democracy and human rights never had anything to do with anything, but you go on.

Noone cares what the UN says unless it aligns with their interests.

And indeed we could not extradite him to the US, we have to return him to the UK when we are done with him.

If my memory serves hes not scared that the swedes will give him up hes scared the americans will grab him in transit.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

If I have reason to believe that my personal safety and human rights are threatened, that I won't be given a fair trial, I have every right to run away or lock myself in a safe place.

That was the standard for many political activists and western nations, UK and Sweden included, accepted that when it happened in the rest of the world. When it happened in their own country, with their own citizens, well... It again shows that democracy and human rights never had anything to do with anything, but you go on.

Like I said, he needs treatment for his mental illness that he is clearly suffering from. He has already been given 6 fair trials, there is no reason to believe the other ones would not be fair. He has no reason to believe his safety is under threat. No fair trial, really? Puhlease.
As far as I know he is neither a citizen of Sweden or the UK, but I'm sure you know better, claiming that treaties you have not read are binding.

The claimed reason is that the State of Sweden has not given the individual Assange a guarantee that we will interfere in a legal process to make illegal decisions violating actual binding international law.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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!!

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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:

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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


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

And instead of asking for clarification you jump to the most extreme conclusion you could imagine? I can see why Ukraine is in the state it is in...

An agreement had been reached prior to the night in question, when they had previously had consensual sex. People can agree to things and time can pass after said agreement was initially made.

So... if a woman states she is taking the Pill and is in fact lying and gets pregnant she is in breach of agreement and should be prosecuted rather than demanding child support from the father?

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... if a woman states she is taking the Pill and is in fact lying and gets pregnant she is in breach of agreement and should be prosecuted rather than demanding child support from the father?

Well, if that is what the law said, and disregarding that child support is for the child rather than the mother, sure. Though you might get a case of Pactum Turpe at which point the courts would not touch it. Do you prosecute people for breach of contract in the UK? Or maybe rape is legalized?

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Well, if that is what the law said, and disregarding that child support is for the child rather than the mother, sure. Though you might get a case of Pactum Turpe at which point the courts would not touch it. Do you prosecute people for breach of contract in the UK? Or maybe rape is legalized?

Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.

Oh yes, of course the money is for the child... but that misses the whole point: in this situation the man is closer to a sperm doner who did not consent and there is no contract in place so as such the mother should take responsibility for her actions given in the example the agreement was for sex not procreation.