WikiLeaks' Assange says to leave Ecuador embassy, accept arrest if loses UN case

[charrob]

WikiLeaks' Assange says to leave Ecuador embassy, accept arrest if loses UN case: (http://in.reuters.com/article/ecuador-sweden-assange-idINKCN0VD0B9)




WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he took refuge in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, and accept arrest on Friday if a UN panel investigating his case rules against him, he said in a statement.

Assange, 44, is wanted in Sweden for questioning over allegations of rape in 2010 which the Australian denies.

"Should the U.N. announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden, I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal," Assange said in the statement posted on the Wikileaks Twitter account.

"However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me."

Assange fears Sweden will extradite him to the United States, where he could be put on trial over WikiLeaks' publication of classified military and diplomatic documents, one of the largest information leaks in U.S. history.

The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is currently considering a request for relief by Assange, who argued in a submission that his time in the embassy constituted arbitrary detention.

Assange argued that he had been deprived of his fundamental liberties, including lack of access to sunlight or fresh air, adequate medical facilities, as well as legal and procedural insecurity.

A spokesman for Assange could not immediately be reached for comment.

[kcchiefs6465]

Donald Trump would probably seek to imprison for eternity, no?

Or assassination?

Do you know?

[charrob]

Donald Trump would probably seek to imprison for eternity, no?

Or assassination?

Do you know?


This child's picture is in today's news:

http://i1374.photobucket.com/albums/ag411/carol_green2/starving%20child_zpsgfefuln9.jpg (http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/carol_green2/media/starving%20child_zpsgfefuln9.jpg.html)


millions of people have died since 9/11.
millions more people will assuredly die in the next 8 years if any of the other D's or R's take the helm.
a D or an R will win in November.
Rand is no longer running.
there is a slight possibility one person may stop the inevitable carnage if he gets elected.
I've repeatedly stated that person is awful on civil liberties.
But if it's not him, it can be stated with full confidence the carnage overseas will continue unabated.
I am willing to take a chance on someone I do not know but that might live up to his statements and could stop the deaths of millions of people. It's not perfect. But it's better than not doing anything.

You can sit all warm and confident you stood on principle and voted third party or stayed home. But doing so isn't helping Assange and it's definitely not stopping the carnage that that one candidate might possibly put a stop to.

[kcchiefs6465]

Donald Trump is the only candidate calling for a preemptive strike on North Korea.

How do you reconcile the want of invading North Korea, causing the deaths of thousands of US troops stationed in South Korea, provoking a conflict with China, and leading to the deaths of a few millions, probably, with peace?

Is Trump good on the conflict in Yemen? I seem to recall him speaking of what? A military coup and 'taking their oil'?

Or do you think installing dictatorships and pillaging resources promotes peace in Yemen?

Well at least Trump is good on Iran, China, and Russia. Oh wait, he's godawful with regards to policy towards those countries, too.

Honestly, do you think Trump could find Yemen on an unlabeled map? No worries, though. I'm sure JSOC could.

[kcchiefs6465]

Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Who else is enough of a complete fucking retard to call for a preemptive strike on North Korea? Well, he's got a point. Even John McCain understands there are about thirty thousand US troops in South Korea.

Even Hillary Clinton, a war criminal, isn't calling for that.

Donald Trump, 2016--- The peace candidate?

That's hilarious.

[DamianTV]

http://www.hangthebankers.com/un-rules-in-favour-julian-assange/


A United Nations panel which was considering a case by Julian Assange that he had been unlawfully detained by the UK and Sweden has ruled in his favour, the BBC has reported.

The founder of Wikileaks — who has been living in London’s Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over a rape allegation — had earlier stated he would “accept arrest” if the independent tribunal ruled he had not been unlawfully detained.

The UN Panel on Arbitrary Detention, which decides whether people have been unlawfully detained according to international legal instruments, has been considering a complaint made by Assange in September 2014. He argued he was being unlawfully detained as he could not leave the embassy of Ecuador — which has granted him political asylum — without being arrested by British police.

The UK Foreign Office says Assange is free to walk out of the embassy at any time, but it has a legal duty to extradite him. It argues that Assange voluntarily avoided lawful detention by taking refuge in the embassy.

...

Full article on link.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation


A United Nations panel has decided that Julian Assange’s three-and-a-half years in the Ecuadorian embassy amount to “arbitrary detention”, leading his lawyers to call for the Swedish extradition request to be dropped immediately.

A Swedish foreign ministry spokeswoman confirmed that the UN panel, due to publish its findings on Friday, had concluded that Assange was “arbitrarily detained”.

The WikiLeaks founder sought asylum from Ecuador in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations, which he denies.

The panel’s findings were disclosed to the Swedish and British governments on 22 January, and will be published on Friday morning. Their judgment is not legally binding but can be used to apply pressure on states in human rights cases.


Melinda Taylor, an Assange legal spokeswoman, said the Australian had not yet been formally informed by the panel of its findings, but “if it finds that the standard for arbitrary detention is met, we would expect his release and compensation”.

In addition to Sweden dropping the extradition request, she called for the UK to return Assange’s passport and give him assurances that he would not be subject to arrest for a potential further extradition request by the US.

Assange and WikiLeaks have been the subject of a secret grand jury investigation in Virginia that has been looking into whether to prosecute them over the US cable disclosures, and the Australian fears that he could become immediately subject to a second extradition process even if Sweden drops its inquiry.

“If one of the orders is that he should be released and his liberty should be assured, we would obviously look to the UK to make sure that it is effective and not illusory, that it’s not just liberty for five seconds, but liberty that is meaningful,” Taylor said.


Last August Sweden dropped part of its investigation into Assange after the statute of limitations on allegations of sexual assault expired. It is still seeking to interview him on one outstanding allegation of rape. The accusations were made by two women in Sweden in 2010, but no charges have been brought.

[goldenequity]

Julian is getting tired of the embassy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZBsplsRjVM

[charrob]

Donald Trump is the only candidate calling for a preemptive strike on North Korea.

How do you reconcile the want of invading North Korea, causing the deaths of thousands of US troops stationed in South Korea, provoking a conflict with China, and leading to the deaths of a few millions, probably, with peace?

Is Trump good on the conflict in Yemen? I seem to recall him speaking of what? A military coup and 'taking their oil'?

Or do you think installing dictatorships and pillaging resources promotes peace in Yemen?

Well at least Trump is good on Iran, China, and Russia. Oh wait, he's godawful with regards to policy towards those countries, too.

Honestly, do you think Trump could find Yemen on an unlabeled map? No worries, though. I'm sure JSOC could.




Kcchief,

I do not own a television and get news off the net when I get home at night. So I may miss things that others see. I have not heard of any of what you have said above. And if Donald Trump wants to do these things I will absolutely not vote for him. But first I’ve got to hear him saying it. I’ve carefully watched every single debate: and there is .not. .one. .single. instance in any of these debates where he took the role as warmonger. When questioned about foreign policy and war, he was quick to say very noninterventionist stuff and then quickly changed the conversation before he could get booed from the ravenous republican base.

I will owe you a lot of gratitude if Trump says these things. The only reason I wanted to vote for him was because, unlike all others except RP in the debates, he seemed to speak the language of a noninterventionist. At least in the debates.

There have been many things said about Trump: when I read them I went to youtube to find out if he actually stated the things that were written in numerous news articles. And sure enough, these news articles twisted what he actually said. For example his supposed statement that “he wants to keep all Muslims out of the country”: however, if you listen to his statements in a video he said TEMPORARILY until we figure out what is going on. Another news article stated he wanted to put all Muslims on “lists” in this country: again, that wasn’t true when hearing him on video: on video he said only new immigrants to the country NOT Muslim-American citizens.

Your statements above may be absolutely correct, but before I believe the statements in news stories online, I’d like to find online videos of him actually saying these things. If you could help find the following issues that you mentioned above in video format I’d be most obliged:

• Preemptive strike on North Korea.
• A military coup of Yemen and taking the Yemeni’s oil.
• Awful policies on Russia.
• Awful policies on Iran.
• Awful policies on China.


I’ll look also when I get some time. If we can find these things than I only have you to thank for setting me straight.

[surf]

good luck to Mr. Assange
UN panel concludes that Assange's detention is `arbitrary'

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?489793-UN-Rules-In-Favor-of-Julian-Assange

[charrob]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?489793-UN-Rules-In-Favor-of-Julian-Assange

Thanks Zippy. I'll flag this and ask the moderator to please combine these threads.

[charrob]

good luck to Mr. Assange

+1 rep. Really praying for him. A wonderful human being with a strong moral compass (unlike our government). We'll know soon enough...

[charrob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5yRoehYjsc





TRANSCRIPT

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The BBC is reporting that the United Nations panel investigating the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has ruled he has been, quote, "arbitrarily detained." The U.N. says it will not confirm the report until Friday at 11:00 a.m. Geneva time. Assange first complained to the U.N. in 2014 that he was being arbitrarily detained since he could not leave the Ecuadorean Embassy in London without being arrested. Assange took refuge in the embassy in 2012. Assange wants to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex assault claims, which he has repeatedly denied. He says he fears Sweden will extradite him to the United States, where he could face trial for publishing classified information.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange had called for his arrest warrant to be dropped if the panel ruled in his favor. Earlier on Twitter, he announced, quote, "I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal. However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me," he said. Police say a warrant for Assange’s arrest remains in place. The BBC reports the panel’s ruling will not have any formal influence over the British and Swedish authorities.

For more, we go directly to London. We’re joined by Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, also director of legal advocacy for the Bertha Foundation.

Jen, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you explain what you understand the U.N. panel has found and what that means for your client, Julian Assange?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Good morning, Amy. We have received reports from the BBC that the U.N. has found in favor of Julian’s application, which would mean that he has been found arbitrarily detained. We have not yet received formal confirmation of this. We expect to receive the decision at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, and I’ll be with Julian in the embassy to understand the implications of that decision. So, at this point we’re unable to give comment until then. But we understand, as the reports have said, that this is what we expected. We expected and hoped this outcome.

The conditions of his detention over the past five years have been incredibly difficult. He meets the international legal definition of being arbitrarily detained, because he’s been granted the right to asylum by the Ecuadorean government in recognition of the risk of cruel and unusual punishment should he be returned to the United States. And that is an important international legal right. Should he have to leave the embassy, the U.K. and Sweden have refused, which is in breach of international law, to recognize that right to asylum, which means that he is arbitrarily detained.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Jennifer Robinson, what do you make of the fact that this news was released by the BBC?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: The procedure for the U.N. working group is that the states in question who the complaint is about—in this case, the U.K. and Sweden—receive two weeks’ notification before we do, as the complainants, of the decision, in order to consider the decision and correct any inconsistencies if there were any problems with that decision. So they’ve had advance notice that we have not had. It seems to me that it must have been leaked by one of those—one of the states involved or sources within one of those governments, because we don’t have the decision yet.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask about the British government’s response to the BBC report. Speaking earlier today, a British government spokesperson said, quote, "We have been consistently clear that Mr. Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the U.K. but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean Embassy. An allegation of rape is still outstanding and a European Arrest Warrant in place, so the U.K. continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden," they said. Your response to this, Jennifer Robinson?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a body of eminent international law experts, who are charged—which was created by the U.N. Human Rights Commission to consider the international legal obligations of states, like the United Kingdom and Sweden, in reference to potential detainees. If the U.N. working group comes down and finds that this detention is arbitrary and unlawful, this clarifies for the United Kingdom and Sweden their obligations with respect to Mr. Assange’s case. If this is inconsistent with the way in which the United Kingdom has been acting, they will be found in breach of their international obligations and have an obligation to implement this report. So we hope and expect that if this decision is in Julian’s favor, that the U.K. and Sweden will take immediate action to implement the recommendations in the decision of this eminent working group within the U.N.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But, Jennifer Robinson, the decision by the U.N., if it is, in fact, in favor of Julian Assange, is not legally binding. Is that correct?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: The U.K. and Sweden are both parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ought to welcome this decision from an eminent U.N. panel on the content and the method of implementation with respect to Julian Assange’s case. They are bound to implement that decision as a matter of international law, but it doesn’t have—it doesn’t have enforcement value within the U.K. domestic legal system.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Julian Assange tweeted out, quote, "I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal. However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me." This is our last question, Jennifer Robinson: What will happen tomorrow?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: We will be hosting a press conference around noon tomorrow to discuss the implementation—the implications of the decision. It will be a—we have already written to the Australian government, and we’ll be seeking conversations with them about requesting the immediate return of Julian’s passport or, in fact, the immediate issue of a new passport, so that his—the implementation of this decision, if in his favor, can be—can take place immediately. We hope and expect that if this is in our favor, the U.K. and Sweden will act accordingly.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you very much for being with us, Jen Robinson, legal adviser to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

[charrob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tx28_Jmy3w





TRANSCRIPT

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A United Nations panel has officially concluded WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been "arbitrarily detained" and should be allowed to walk free. Assange has been holed up in Ecuadorean Embassy in London for more than three years. He wants to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex crimes allegations, which he has repeatedly denied and for which he has never been charged. He fears Sweden would extradite him to the United States, where he could face trial for WikiLeaks’ revelations.

AMY GOODMAN: Seong-Phil Hong, the rapporteur of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, spoke this morning.


SEONG-PHIL HONG: The working group maintains the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should be brought to an end. And his physical integrity and his freedom of movement should be respected. And finally, if necessary, he should be entitled to an enforceable right to remedy—for example, compensation.

AMY GOODMAN: The U.N. panel’s judgment is not legally binding. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond dismissed it as "ridiculous."


PHILIP HAMMOND: Well, I reject the finding of this working group. It’s a group made up of laypeople, not lawyers, and they are—their conclusion is flawed in law. Julian Assange is a fugitive from justice. He’s hiding from justice in the Ecuadorean Embassy. He can come out onto the pavement any time he chooses. He’s not being detained by us. But he will have to face justice in Sweden, if he chooses to do so. And it’s right that he should not be able to escape justice. This is a—frankly, a ridiculous finding by the working group, and we reject it.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: At a press conference at the Frontline Club in London this morning, Julian Assange’s attorney, Melinda Taylor, discussed the significance of the ruling.


MELINDA TAYLOR: So, finally, we have the verdict of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. And they issued a very detailed opinion, which considers all arguments from Sweden and the United Kingdom. And this decision dispels the myth that Mr. Assange is either a fugitive from justice or that he could just walk out of the embassy. It is a damning indictment of the manner in which this case has been handled. It further affirms that Mr. Assange is a victim of a significant miscarriage of justice that is attributable to the action and inaction of both Sweden and the United Kingdom. It further emphasized Julian’s continued willingness to cooperate with the investigations in this case at all stages of the procedure.


Now, today I’m going to first address why we brought a complaint before the United Nations working group and, secondly, what are the findings of this working group. In terms of why we brought the complaint, there are two main reasons. First, he is and has been detained now for five years, one month and 29 days. And to put it bluntly, that’s a hell of a long time to detain someone, someone who has never been charged and has never even been questioned by the Swedish authorities.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange also responded to the ruling just before our broadcast today. He spoke at that news conference at the Frontline Club in London via video stream from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.


JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I’ve been detained now without charge in this country, the United Kingdom, for five-and-a-half years. That’s five-and-a-half years where I’ve had great difficulty seeing my family and seeing my children. Today that detention without charge has been found by the highest organization in the United Nations—that is, has the jurisdiction for considering the rights of detained persons—to be unlawful.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Julian Assange speaking just minutes before we went to broadcast through a video stream at the Frontline Club. He’s been holed up at the embassy in—the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for three-and-a-half years, where he got political asylum.

Joining us now is Mads Andenæs. He is the former U.N. special rapporteur on arbitrary detention and the chair of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. He’s a professor at the University of Oslo and a visiting professor at All Souls College in Oxford. And that’s where we’re speaking to him right now.

Mads Andenæs, thanks so much for joining us. Can you explain the ruling of the U.N. committee?

MADS ANDENÆS: So, the U.N. committee holds that this is a violation of the prohibition against arbitrary detention. Mr. Assange has been deprived of his liberty for a five-year—more than a five-year period. He was initially arrested and detained in isolation. The isolation was completely groundless. He was afterwards in house arrest under, again, very strict restrictions. He was then threatened with actually being extradited to Sweden. And you’ve spoken about the consequences of that. And that would negate his basic human rights. He had no other choice than to go and seek refuge, and he did that in the Ecuadorean Embassy. That was not his choice. That was not his volition. It was the only way he could uphold his own rights in this situation.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Mads Andenæs, I wanted to ask you—The Guardian newspaper had an editorial basically not backing—not backing Julian Assange, and saying that the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, that this latest opinion, is simply wrong. It says, "He is not being detained arbitrarily. Three-and-a-half years ago, he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex offences. ... 'Arbitrary' detention," The Guardian says, "means that due legal process has not been observed. It has. This is a publicity stunt." What do you say to that?

MADS ANDENÆS: Well, first of all, due process has not been upheld, and that’s what the U.N. working group very clearly shows—a series of procedural mistakes on the Swedish side, no proportionality review on the U.K. side. And the alternatives here—there were alternatives. Under the European Arrest Warrant system, he could have been interviewed, interrogated in England, in London. That’s how we normally do these things in Europe. In these kind of cases, Swedish officers could have traveled to the U.K. He would—Mr. Assange would have been interviewed in an English police station. That’s how we usually do it, and it wasn’t done here. It was a highly irregular procedure. This was nothing like due process. And it is obvious to the U.N. group and, after this ruling, obvious that this did not serve the purposes of the case, the way it was explained. This was to achieve other aims and illegitimate aims. And it was clearly not a part of a due process.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to Julian Assange speaking this morning after the U.N. ruling became public.


JULIAN ASSANGE: It is now the task of the states of Sweden and the United Kingdom, as a whole, to implement the verdict. Now, while there can be attempts for the media, for the popular press, to look tough and attempt to undermine that, a serious attempt, not just for show, would have the effect of undermining the U.N. system. And there are consequences of doing that. And Sweden and the U.K. know full well that there are consequences. Those consequences include not merely weakening a human rights and international law instrument to which both countries have signed binding treaties, but rather it will have the diplomatic effect—and diplomats know it. The diplomatic effect will be to make life difficult for Sweden and the United Kingdom to be treated seriously as international players that obey their international legal obligations.


Their attempts, if they proceed to undermine the U.N. system, will see various enforcement measures that can be taken by the U.N. Those, initially, of course, can include their removal from U.N. committees, the movement against those states in various voting processes, and, ultimately, up to and including sanctions. Now that’s, of course, a matter for the U.N. to decide about how it’s going to enforce its decisions, and a matter for Sweden and the U.K. to think, do they really want to go down that path?

AMY GOODMAN: So, that is Julian Assange speaking at the news conference today, albeit by video stream because he is in the Ecuadorean Embassy. If he steps foot outside, he’ll be arrested by British authorities. We’re talking to the former U.N. rapporteur on arbitrary detention, Mads Andenæs. I was watching CNN this morning, and a reporter was standing outside the Ecuadorean Embassy and saying, "Despite Sweden’s efforts to question Julian Assange in the embassy, Ecuador has prevented them from doing this." This was exactly the opposite. This was not true, what the reporter said. Ecuador has said that the Swedish authorities could come in. Even a court in Sweden has reprimanded the prosecutor for not questioning Julian Assange. Mads Andenæs, can you say what happens from here?

MADS ANDENÆS: Well, it’s now for the U.K. and the Swedish authorities to find some way of abiding by this opinion. This U.N. body is the only body or the one U.N. body dealing with arbitrary detention. And they come with this very clear ruling. Sweden and the U.K. are bound by the U.N. Convention on Civil and Political Rights. And it’s now for them to find a way of complying.

And what you mentioned there is part of the substance of the case. There are, of course, lesser—much lesser measures, less intrusive measures that could have been chosen. For instance, they could have interviewed him in the U.K. And it’s not true that Assange has not offered that, as far as I—well, I think it’s absolutely clear, although you have this reporter that you just mentioned. To the contrary, it’s absolutely clear that Assange and his team has offered to answer—that he should offer—he had offered to answer questions by Swedish police in the U.K. That’s beyond dispute. And that offer has not been taken up. And as you mentioned, Swedish courts have been very critical of the prosecutor, of the Swedish prosecutor, for this. And if you read those judgments closely—they’re in Swedish, of course—you will see that it is as strong a criticism as you can expect possible from a Swedish court against the way that the prosecutors have proceeded here.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Mads Andenæs, we only have about 30 seconds or so, but your sense of how public opinion, both in Britain and in Sweden, is in respect to how their governments are dealing with the Julian Assange case?

MADS ANDENÆS: Well, it’s split. It’s split. But no country likes to get a ruling for arbitrary detention, to be censured by the U.N. like this. But if you don’t abide by it, you fall into the category of countries we don’t like to compare ourselves with, who do not abide by these rulings. And it’s very important for the international human rights systems that countries like the U.K. and Sweden do actually go for—show a good example and do follow these rulings, because, in the end, they are bound by the conventions. And there’s no more authority body to interpret and apply the Convention on Arbitrary Detention than this working group, which is established by the U.N. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Mads Andenæs, we’re going to have to leave it there, but I thank you so much for being with us. He is the former U.N. special rapporteur on arbitrary detention and chair of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, now professor at University of Oslo, a visiting professor at All Souls College in Oxford, where we just spoke to him.

[charrob]

Julian Assange Remains “Deprived of Liberty” After U.K. Rejects U.N. Ruling: (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/05/julian-assange-remains-deprived-of-liberty-after-u-k-rejects-u-n-ruling/)



A United Nations panel ruled on Friday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily detained,” but British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond rejected what he called “a ridiculous finding.”

Although he claimed “sweet” vindication, Assange nevertheless remains confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has lived since 2012.

Assange has been fighting extradition by British authorities to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning concerning accusations of rape and molestation. He has never been charged with a crime.

The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention called on the U.K. and Sweden “to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation.”

The working group, which was established in 1991, has previously demanded the release of prominent political prisoners. In 2015, it demanded the release of Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, who was released last month by the government of Iran. It also ruled in favor of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who was released in 2010, and Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who is still held in Cairo after a military coup.

Assange’s legal trouble began in 2010, several weeks after WikiLeaks released 90,000 U.S. intelligence reports on the Afghanistan War. Swedish prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for Assange, demanding that he be extradited to Stockholm to face questioning on accusations of sexual assault. Assange was arrested in London, but fought his extradition, claiming that he was at risk of being extradited again to the Untied States, where he was facing detention and a potential indictment under draconian espionage laws.

In 2012, after exhausting his appeals, Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. But the British government refused to allow him to board a plane, resulting in three years of confinement and legal limbo inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

The Swedish government repeatedly declined to send investigators to question Assange in London. In 2014, a Swedish appeals court scolded prosecutors for failing “to examine alternative avenues … to move the preliminary investigation forward.”

Until October 2015, Scotland Yard kept the embassy under 24-hour surveillance, spending nearly £11.1 million of taxpayer money. Surveillance was scaled back after a local radio station obtained the financial records under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Chester Copperpot]

Julian Assange Remains “Deprived of Liberty” After U.K. Rejects U.N. Ruling: (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/05/julian-assange-remains-deprived-of-liberty-after-u-k-rejects-u-n-ruling/)


How come these fuckwads are so into "international law" except when they disagree with it?

I think at this point, Ecuador needs to make him a citizen and an official diplomat with immunity from arrest so he can go to wherever he needs to go.

[alucard13mm]

How come these fuckwads are so into "international law" except when they disagree with it?

I think at this point, Ecuador needs to make him a citizen and an official diplomat with immunity from arrest so he can go to wherever he needs to go.

I would imagine Assange has some secret stash of information he can give to the Ecuadorians for protection. Information that the Ecuadorians might want to blackmail the West with lol.

[liveandletlive]

being holed up in some embassy is basically no different than being in prison.

[Zippyjuan]

How come these fuckwads are so into "international law" except when they disagree with it?

I think at this point, Ecuador needs to make him a citizen and an official diplomat with immunity from arrest so he can go to wherever he needs to go.

Does this mean you think the UN should have more power to tell countries what they can and can't do?

[Spikender]

Does this mean you think the UN should have more power to tell countries what they can and can't do?

I don't see a hint of him thinking that anywhere in that post.

[CaptainAmerica]

the UN...the world government does not allow people to escape. Assange should go to russia.