Julian Assange is being 'arbritarily detained' by the UK government... Really?
in a conclusion due to be formally released tomorrow the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is expected to find that Julian Assange is being arbitrarily detained by the UK - because he'll be arrested if he comes out of the Ecuadorian embassy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35490108
The government is unlikely to budge since in it's opinion Assange is free to leave the Embassy whenever he chooses to.
A week ago I'd have thought arbitrary detention was a bad thing... if it's definition includes Assange type shenanigans I can start to see the point in it tbh, who wants millionaire libertarians taking the mick? Seems to me to be human rights lawyers going mad and the government making sense in this instance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35490108
The government is unlikely to budge since in it's opinion Assange is free to leave the Embassy whenever he chooses to.
A week ago I'd have thought arbitrary detention was a bad thing... if it's definition includes Assange type shenanigans I can start to see the point in it tbh, who wants millionaire libertarians taking the mick? Seems to me to be human rights lawyers going mad and the government making sense in this instance.
Scroll to see replies
The UN have about as much power as Nick Clegg did in the coalition. They can say whatever they like but what are we supposed to, walk away and let him go free?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It is very interesting how the newspapers etc have been denigrating the UN since the Tories got in. When the UN criticises them Tory ministers respond in a manner reminiscent of North Korea: "the rest of the world is wrong and we are right, despite all evidence - oh and by the way the UN is full of commies"
Original post by Aj12
Given that he is hiding from legitimate arrest, from a legitimate warrant, does not mean someone in prison would also be able to file for arbitrarily detainment?
No because they are on the land of the state which has an (exercised) arrest warrant out for them.
Assange's situation is that he is in an Ecuadorian enclave surrounded by the UK and due to this he cannot have safe passage: given the small size of the embassy he is effectively detained extrajudicially by the UK.
It's like if South Africa decided not to let any Lesothoans out or if the EU decided not to let any Swiss out.
Assange did it to himself and RT are doing the rest.
Like a naughty boy who knows he has caused trouble, he hid in the embassy but was free to walk out at any time. The British government have not 'imprisoned' him there!
Grow up and be a man Assange and face the allegations of rape by the independent Swedish judiciary.
But what else are you afraid of? Oh, I see, the Americans and everyone else who want you to answer for actively promoting anarchy and pitting one government against another. Pity they can all see through this little game which you played for monetary gain and ego not altruism.
Like a naughty boy who knows he has caused trouble, he hid in the embassy but was free to walk out at any time. The British government have not 'imprisoned' him there!
Grow up and be a man Assange and face the allegations of rape by the independent Swedish judiciary.
But what else are you afraid of? Oh, I see, the Americans and everyone else who want you to answer for actively promoting anarchy and pitting one government against another. Pity they can all see through this little game which you played for monetary gain and ego not altruism.
(edited 8 years ago)
Julian Assange is a self-obsessed narcissist who knows how to tweak the media to get himself talked about. End of.
Original post by scrotgrot
No because they are on the land of the state which has an (exercised) arrest warrant out for them.
Assange's situation is that he is in an Ecuadorian enclave surrounded by the UK and due to this he cannot have safe passage: given the small size of the embassy he is effectively detained extrajudicially by the UK.
It's like if South Africa decided not to let any Lesothoans out or if the EU decided not to let any Swiss out.
Assange's situation is that he is in an Ecuadorian enclave surrounded by the UK and due to this he cannot have safe passage: given the small size of the embassy he is effectively detained extrajudicially by the UK.
It's like if South Africa decided not to let any Lesothoans out or if the EU decided not to let any Swiss out.
He can leave any time he likes and face judicial process
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by scrotgrot
No because they are on the land of the state which has an (exercised) arrest warrant out for them.
Assange's situation is that he is in an Ecuadorian enclave surrounded by the UK and due to this he cannot have safe passage: given the small size of the embassy he is effectively detained extrajudicially by the UK.
It's like if South Africa decided not to let any Lesothoans out or if the EU decided not to let any Swiss out.
Assange's situation is that he is in an Ecuadorian enclave surrounded by the UK and due to this he cannot have safe passage: given the small size of the embassy he is effectively detained extrajudicially by the UK.
It's like if South Africa decided not to let any Lesothoans out or if the EU decided not to let any Swiss out.
Except it is nothing like those examples, because those people are not attempting to flee legitimate arrest warrants. Assange is welcome to leave any time he likes, lets not pretend he is fleeing some dictatorship where he will be shot or tortured. He will be extradited to Sweden, where he can expect a free and fair trial. He is trying to make a human rights case out of absolutely nothing, you'd think if he was innocent, he would welcome a trial to clear his name.
Original post by scrotgrot
It is very interesting how the newspapers etc have been denigrating the UN since the Tories got in. When the UN criticises them Tory ministers respond in a manner reminiscent of North Korea: "the rest of the world is wrong and we are right, despite all evidence - oh and by the way the UN is full of commies"
What nonsense. What evidence?
The Ukrainian dissenting opinion best sums up the idiocy of the panel's decision. The UK and Sweden's position has strong legal grounds. Assange himself expected the panel to rule against him and was preparing for surrender.
You can not deny that these UN panels have a strong left-wing political bias to their decisions.
Original post by pol pot noodles
What nonsense. What evidence?
The Ukrainian dissenting opinion best sums up the idiocy of the panel's decision. The UK and Sweden's position has strong legal grounds. Assange himself expected the panel to rule against him and was preparing for surrender.
You can not deny that these UN panels have a strong left-wing political bias to their decisions.
The Ukrainian dissenting opinion best sums up the idiocy of the panel's decision. The UK and Sweden's position has strong legal grounds. Assange himself expected the panel to rule against him and was preparing for surrender.
You can not deny that these UN panels have a strong left-wing political bias to their decisions.
Original post by Underscore__
Why should he? He is in Ecuadorian territory. Since Ecuador will not extradite him he has no obligation to British courts while in Ecuadorian territory.
An accident of geography (that the Ecuadorian territory is an enclave big enough for only one building) makes it an effective detention by the British state of someone over whom it has no jurisdiction. Assange cannot live a free and full life in that enclave like he could if it were the size of, say, London, hence he is considered detained in a way (to refine what I said in my previous post) citizens of Lesotho if South Africa closed the borders would not be.
Original post by Aj12
Except it is nothing like those examples, because those people are not attempting to flee legitimate arrest warrants. Assange is welcome to leave any time he likes, lets not pretend he is fleeing some dictatorship where he will be shot or tortured. He will be extradited to Sweden, where he can expect a free and fair trial. He is trying to make a human rights case out of absolutely nothing, you'd think if he was innocent, he would welcome a trial to clear his name.
The warrant is not valid unless Assange is on British soil or on the soil of a country prepared to extradite him to Britain. Nevertheless an accident of geography (that the Ecuadorian territory is 1. tiny and 2. surrounded by British territory) allows the UK to de facto detain him outside its jurisdiction.
One can see it is a de facto detention because Assange is confined to much the same space he would be if he were in a British prison.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
Why should he? He is in Ecuadorian territory. Since Ecuador will not extradite him he has no obligation to British courts while in Ecuadorian territory.
An accident of geography (that the Ecuadorian territory is an enclave big enough for only one building) makes it an effective detention by the British state of someone over whom it has no jurisdiction. Assange cannot live a free and full life in that enclave like he could if it were the size of, say, London, hence he is considered detained in a way (to refine what I said in my previous post) citizens of Lesotho if South Africa closed the borders would not be.
An accident of geography (that the Ecuadorian territory is an enclave big enough for only one building) makes it an effective detention by the British state of someone over whom it has no jurisdiction. Assange cannot live a free and full life in that enclave like he could if it were the size of, say, London, hence he is considered detained in a way (to refine what I said in my previous post) citizens of Lesotho if South Africa closed the borders would not be.
It's because he's on the run from the police.
If someone skips bail and is hiding out in a secret place they are also constrained from living a free and full life.
It's an important part of justice that countries co-operate with each other and uphold international arrest warrants otherwise people would just hop on a plane after committing a crime and escape punishment.
The UK is honouring an international commitment. It's sad that the Ecuadorians don't honour it.
He should face the justice system.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
It's because he's on the run from the police.
If someone skips bail and is hiding out in a secret place they are also constrained from living a free and full life.
It's an important part of justice that countries co-operate with each other and uphold international arrest warrants otherwise people would just hop on a plane after committing a crime and escape punishment.
The UK is honouring an international commitment. It's sad that the Ecuadorians don't honour it.
He should face the justice system.
If someone skips bail and is hiding out in a secret place they are also constrained from living a free and full life.
It's an important part of justice that countries co-operate with each other and uphold international arrest warrants otherwise people would just hop on a plane after committing a crime and escape punishment.
The UK is honouring an international commitment. It's sad that the Ecuadorians don't honour it.
He should face the justice system.
Why does the British justice system take precedence over Ecuador's?
Assange absconded out of British jurisdiction. Only countries with an extradition treaty systematically extend British jurisdiction elsewhere. Ecuador has sovereignty and can choose to engage with the international community in whatever way it likes.
It's not sad that Ecuador isn't "honouring" what other countries want to do with people. Ecuador didn't sign up to anything in the first place; how can it honour an agreement to which it is not party? What would be sad is if Ecuador felt pressured to give up its sovereign will just because Britain and Sweden are more powerful counrries.
And whatever moral outrage you feel about Assange absconding is even more firmly beside the point.
He is on the run from the BRITISH police. People on conditional bail are under BRITISH jurisdiction at the time. Neither of these things are worth diddly squat outside Britain's borders unless the other country is gracious enough to recognise them - or unless Britain sends in the cavalry.
This is why Assange's confinement is a diplomatic issue. Britain is exerting influence on Assange extrajudicially beyond its borders by virtue of its natural geography. It is essentially a gunboat.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
Why does the British justice system take precedence over Ecuador's?
Assange absconded out of British jurisdiction. Only countries with an extradition treaty systematically extend British jurisdiction elsewhere. Ecuador has sovereignty and can choose to engage with the international community in whatever way it likes.
It's not sad that Ecuador isn't "honouring" what other countries want to do with people. Ecuador didn't sign up to anything in the first place; how can it honour an agreement to which it is not party? What would be sad is if Ecuador felt pressured to give up its sovereign will just because Britain and Sweden are more powerful counrries.
And whatever moral outrage you feel about Assange absconding is even more firmly beside the point.
He is on the run from the BRITISH police. People on conditional bail are under BRITISH jurisdiction at the time. Neither of these things are worth diddly squat outside Britain's borders unless the other country is gracious enough to recognise them - or unless Britain sends in the cavalry.
This is why Assange's confinement is a diplomatic issue. Britain is exerting influence on Assange extrajudicially beyond its borders by virtue of its natural geography. It is essentially a gunboat.
Assange absconded out of British jurisdiction. Only countries with an extradition treaty systematically extend British jurisdiction elsewhere. Ecuador has sovereignty and can choose to engage with the international community in whatever way it likes.
It's not sad that Ecuador isn't "honouring" what other countries want to do with people. Ecuador didn't sign up to anything in the first place; how can it honour an agreement to which it is not party? What would be sad is if Ecuador felt pressured to give up its sovereign will just because Britain and Sweden are more powerful counrries.
And whatever moral outrage you feel about Assange absconding is even more firmly beside the point.
He is on the run from the BRITISH police. People on conditional bail are under BRITISH jurisdiction at the time. Neither of these things are worth diddly squat outside Britain's borders unless the other country is gracious enough to recognise them - or unless Britain sends in the cavalry.
This is why Assange's confinement is a diplomatic issue. Britain is exerting influence on Assange extrajudicially beyond its borders by virtue of its natural geography. It is essentially a gunboat.
Every you say applies equally to the UK. Why does Ecuador's laws on political asylum take precedent over the British criminal justice system?
The UK likewise has no obligation to honour Ecuador's will. It is not party to Assange's asylum agreement.
Britain has every right to enforce it's own law on it's own territory regardless of how that might affect other nations.
The fact that Assange trapped himself into a corner of his own making shouldn't somehow enhance his position. And a UN panel of second rate legal academics doesn't change anything. It's telling Assange didn't appeal his 'detention' to the Supreme Court or ECHR who'd actually be able to give a binding resolution to the situation.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Every you say applies equally to the UK. Why does Ecuador's laws on political asylum take precedent over the British criminal justice system?
Because he is in Ecuador.
The UK likewise has no obligation to honour Ecuador's will. It is not party to Assange's asylum agreement.
Britain has every right to enforce it's own law on it's own territory regardless of how that might affect other nations.
Britain has every right to enforce it's own law on it's own territory regardless of how that might affect other nations.
The problem is that due to the geography by enforcing their law on their territory they are also projecting their law onto Ecuadorian territory in such a way that Assange ends up confined remarkably like if he were detained in a British prison.
This is exactly why when countries get repartitioned after wars they make sure they are not boxed in. Croatia, for example, holds the entire Adriatic coast, except for the port of Neum which gives Bosnia access to the sea. If this arrangement didn't exist, Croatia could blockade Bosnia.
The fact that Assange trapped himself into a corner of his own making shouldn't somehow enhance his position. And a UN panel of second rate legal academics doesn't change anything. It's telling Assange didn't appeal his 'detention' to the Supreme Court or ECHR who'd actually be able to give a binding resolution to the situation.
Of course he didn't:
1. He's not presently in the EU/UK
2. It's the EU/UK that has a warrant out for him so of course they're not going to let him off
And it doesn't matter a jot if Assange got himself into this situation or if he was forced into it.
Original post by scrotgrot
Why does the British justice system take precedence over Ecuador's?
Assange absconded out of British jurisdiction. Only countries with an extradition treaty systematically extend British jurisdiction elsewhere. Ecuador has sovereignty and can choose to engage with the international community in whatever way it likes.
It's not sad that Ecuador isn't "honouring" what other countries want to do with people. Ecuador didn't sign up to anything in the first place; how can it honour an agreement to which it is not party? What would be sad is if Ecuador felt pressured to give up its sovereign will just because Britain and Sweden are more powerful counrries.
And whatever moral outrage you feel about Assange absconding is even more firmly beside the point.
He is on the run from the BRITISH police. People on conditional bail are under BRITISH jurisdiction at the time. Neither of these things are worth diddly squat outside Britain's borders unless the other country is gracious enough to recognise them - or unless Britain sends in the cavalry.
This is why Assange's confinement is a diplomatic issue. Britain is exerting influence on Assange extrajudicially beyond its borders by virtue of its natural geography. It is essentially a gunboat.
Assange absconded out of British jurisdiction. Only countries with an extradition treaty systematically extend British jurisdiction elsewhere. Ecuador has sovereignty and can choose to engage with the international community in whatever way it likes.
It's not sad that Ecuador isn't "honouring" what other countries want to do with people. Ecuador didn't sign up to anything in the first place; how can it honour an agreement to which it is not party? What would be sad is if Ecuador felt pressured to give up its sovereign will just because Britain and Sweden are more powerful counrries.
And whatever moral outrage you feel about Assange absconding is even more firmly beside the point.
He is on the run from the BRITISH police. People on conditional bail are under BRITISH jurisdiction at the time. Neither of these things are worth diddly squat outside Britain's borders unless the other country is gracious enough to recognise them - or unless Britain sends in the cavalry.
This is why Assange's confinement is a diplomatic issue. Britain is exerting influence on Assange extrajudicially beyond its borders by virtue of its natural geography. It is essentially a gunboat.
That is such ********.
He will be arrested as soon as he re-enters British jurisdiction, which is perfectly reasonable and would be the same for any criminal or bail-skipper. The fact that he can't leave the embassy without entering British jurisdiction is very much his problem. He can't expect to just walk free on British streets because he has the support of one single foreign government.
Original post by Rinsed
That is such ********.
He will be arrested as soon as he re-enters British jurisdiction, which is perfectly reasonable and would be the same for any criminal or bail-skipper. The fact that he can't leave the embassy without entering British jurisdiction is very much his problem. He can't expect to just walk free on British streets because he has the support of one single foreign government.
He will be arrested as soon as he re-enters British jurisdiction, which is perfectly reasonable and would be the same for any criminal or bail-skipper. The fact that he can't leave the embassy without entering British jurisdiction is very much his problem. He can't expect to just walk free on British streets because he has the support of one single foreign government.
Yes, I accept this, but by the same token, as long as he is in the embassy he is being confined extrajudicially by Britain beyond its borders.
Therefore there are two possibilities for Assange:
1. Britain continues to exert extrajudicial influence beyond its borders, thanks to the geography, to confine him in the Ecuadorian embassy, similarly to if he had been imprisoned under the rule of law on British territory.
2. Ecuador exerts influence beyond its borders to get Assange out over British land, either under agreed immunity from the arrest warrant (i.e. diplomacy) or sneaking him out (i.e. extrajudicial influence beyond its borders).
Most importantly, you will note the present situation 1 - not the putative situation 2 - is what the UN are commenting on.
And you will note 2, if it were to happen, could be achieved diplomatically, by the UK agreeing with Ecuador dispensation for safe passage; it need not be achieved extrajudicially.
Equally, I concede, 1 could be achieved diplomatically too, by Ecuador acceding to the British arrest warrant and extraditing Assange, whence (subject to trial) he would be confined lawfully in a British prison.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Don't buy Bitcoin...
- Is it time for change - is the status quo about to end challenged?
- Nursing police check.
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
- greta thumber arrested
- KCL Accommodation swap 23/24
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Home Office Customer Services Group - HEO
- Imperial maths 2024
- KCL accomm swap 23/24
- At UWE all have been registered for Term 1?
- King's college london accomodation swap
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
- Michelle O’Neil becomes the first nationalist First Minister in Northern Ireland
- KCL accommodation take over
- Looking for replacement tenant 23/24 Julian Markham (KCL Undergrad)
- Should i vote Labour?
- Rishi Sunak considers curbing social media use for under-16s
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
