- entry 2016/02/05

Arbitrarily detained?

I know I'm a simple person with a very small brain, but how the flippin'hell does a person who was released on bail, who decided to evade a European Arrest Warrant (issued by Sweden) by running into the arms of the Ecuadorian embassy manage to swing it to him being judged as having been "arbitrarily detained"? What...The...F&$%...?

Yup, the The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), has stated that poor little Jules is being kept prisoner by big nasty Britain. I'll say it again: What...The...F&$%...?

As I understand it, he chose to detain himself in that embassy. He was, contrary to the rubbish from the WGAD and Mr. Assange himself, always free to walk out of the embassy at any time. Of course, doing so carries the penalty of being picked up by the plod. You know, there's that little matter of that pesky outstanding Arrest Warrant with Sweden requesting extradition.

What does Mr. Assange expect will happen now? That he can walk out a free man and go wherever he pleases? Wouldn't such a thing make a complete mockery of the entire concept of international justice? There is an Arrest Warrant outstanding. An alleged rape. I write that is bold as that is what he's supposed to be questioned about, in Sweden. The country in Europe that might be the most liberal of all. It's not a minor indiscretion, it's a serious thing. That he ran away from once. Then he broke the conditions of his bail running away from justice a second time. No "alleged" about skipping bail, that happened, he is officially a fugitive criminal for that alone.
Instead of answering the accusations that the European Arrest Warrant was issued for - and remember that he deserves to be considered innocent until he is found guilty - instead of that he ran to an embassy seeking asylum (having already run from Sweden), and that's where he has been living for the past five and a half years.

His evading justice.
Twice.
His decision to be there.
(and, you know, along the way, I can't help but think how utterly and completely Bradley Chelsea Manning got screwed over)

The head of the WGAD panel, Mr. Seong-Phil Hong, said "The Working Group maintains that the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation" (my emphasis).
No, seriously. I'm not making this up. Mr. Hong's group seems to think that a person can evade justice a couple of times, put themselves in self-imposed detention, and then scream and cry and demand compensation. But, then, the UN report - the farce that it is - suggests that the WGAD's opinion is "legally binding". No, it isn't. It is a guidance. Other courts may accept the decision of the WGAD, but the WGAD has no powers to override the rule of law of a sovereign nation. The most they can do is publish this crock of bovine excrement, then glare. A lot. Like in a samurai film. Lots of glaring. Glarey-glarey. But that would be moot and pointless as I'm sure we're going to hear a lot from Mr. Assange, who seems to think that he is above the law. Or beside it. Or maybe that it is optional. I don't know. This stopped making sense at the quote at the top of the page.

Go on, read the bovine excrement yourself.

Therefore...

Please, for the love of God, somebody explain this to me in really simple words that make sense.

Your comments:

Please note that while I check this page every so often, I am not able to control what users write; therefore I disclaim all liability for unpleasant and/or infringing and/or defamatory material. Undesired content will be removed as soon as it is noticed. By leaving a comment, you agree not to post material that is illegal or in bad taste, and you should be aware that the time and your IP address are both recorded, should it be necessary to find out who you are. Oh, and don't bother trying to inline HTML. I'm not that stupid! ☺ ADDING COMMENTS DOES NOT WORK IF READING TRANSLATED VERSIONS.
 
You can now follow comment additions with the comment RSS feed. This is distinct from the b.log RSS feed, so you can subscribe to one or both as you wish.

Anon, 17th February 2016, 22:47

It's really quite simple.    The US couldn't get hold of him to interrogate him. They wanted to take him to Guantanamo Bay. But that wasn't happening under the EHCR (prohibition of torture).    So they very cleverly got someone to fabricate a rape allegation in another European country. Where he could be extradited under an EAW, and the EHCR couldn't be invoked because it was within the EU.    At which point, when the "rape" allegation is dropped, someone in Sweden (who's been "bought" by the Yanks) agrees to allow him to be extradited to the US. Where he'll be sent to Guantanamo Bay and tortured.    All makes sense. Anyway, I'm just off to get my tinfoil hat now.

Add a comment (v0.11) [help?] . . . try the comment feed!
		Your name
		Your email	(optional)
		Validation	Are you real? Please type 74970 backwards.
		Your comment