Julian Assange says he will 'accept arrest' on Friday if UN rules against him
Source: The Guardian
Thursday 4 February 2016 08.33 GMT
The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he will agree to be arrested by British police on Friday if a UN investigation into the legality of his three-and-a-half years enforced stay at Ecuadorian embassy in central London does not rule in his favour.
The Metropolitan Police have said they will make every effort to arrest the WikiLeaks founder should he leave.
<snip>
The United Nations working group on arbitrary detention is set to hand down a determination on Assanges case on Friday morning.
The decision is a last-ditch legal attempt by Assange for a ruling that his detention is arbitrary and unlawful. It rests on a challenge to the European extradition system, his inability to access the benefit of the grant of asylum by Ecuador, and what he argues is his long-term detention.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investiga
inanna
(3,547 posts)6 minutes ago
A UN panel considering the alleged "unlawful detention" of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has ruled in his favour, the BBC understands.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Ecuador granted him asylum. Under any reasonable interpretation of international law, that means he gets to go to Ecuador as a free man. That's what asylum MEANS, and every sovereign nation on earth gets to provide that protection for whomever they decide is deserving of it. Instead, the Brits, acting, as usual, as sycophants for the U.S. intelligence & war profiteer industry, trapped him in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, spitting on international law and spitting on Ecuador's sovereignty, shoving the law aside as not applying to them, and shoving Ecuador's sovereignty aside as of no importance. 'Such a little country. Such a brown country. Heck with you," was their attitude. And they very nearly invaded the Ecuadoran embassy in London--they threatened to, anyway--an act of war.
Sweden's behavior in all this has also been appalling--first of all, getting an Interpol warrant merely to "question" him on sexual allegations that are so flimsy and ridiculous the first Swedish prosecutor dropped the case--AND told Assange he could leave the country. He did. Suddenly, there's a new prosecutor who has more "questions." Just "questions." No charges. No court appearance. QUESTIONS! He was questioned, originally, then he offered repeatedly to be questioned again, in London, then in the Ecuadoran embassy. They refused. What they clearly wanted was just to get him into custody, in any way possible, and he rightfully feared that next he would find himself in some deep dungeon in the USA, like Chelsea Manning. He is not even American. He is Australian, and that is a third government--plus our own--that has played foul in this situation, by not backing up the rights of their own citizen.
Finally, FINALLY, this injustice is being put right. I sincerely hope that the reason it was put right was not only that it is the right legal and moral thing to do, but also that President Obama agreed to it (behind the scenes of course). I don't know if he did. I also don't know if he had the power to agree (given the pervasive power of our secret government agencies and military establishment). But I can hope.
Obama may have okayed the peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC, that have been taking place in Cuba--ending a 50+ year civil war. I doubt that those peace negotiations--which are on the point of success--could have occurred without U.S. approval (because of military, economic "free trade for the rich" and other ties between Colombia and the U.S.). Credit to Obama, if that was his decision. It was quite possibly a decision made by Leon Panetta early in his tenure as CIA Director, early in the Obama administration. Cheney-Rumsfeld had significantly escalated that civil war, with lots of bloodshed and corruption. Panetta took a trip to Colombia, early on, and soon the really bad guy who was in power (Uribe) was out, and the new guy (Santos) started the peace negotiation. But Obama probably agreed to it, and okayed it. (Santos also wants all drugs decriminalized!)
I say this because it points out that the Obama administration has done some wise things in Latin America. The opening to Cuba is another. Cheney-Rumsfeld seriously alienated the entire region. Big Corp is likely okay with these Obama decisions, because, for instance, you can't have nice, high-end tourist facilities with a civil war going on. Also, oil corps, mining corps, big-ag corps, etc., will have to worry less about security as they plunder the resources. But just from a human point of view, no war is better than war, aside from anything else. That's wise, or at least SANE. (Cheney-Rumsfeld were insane, truly.)
So, it's POSSIBLE that the UN panel was clued in (by Obama or his agent) that letting Assange go to Ecuador is okay. We'll see what happens there. I wouldn't put it past the CIA to be planning an abduction (whether Obama approves or not). Ecuador will need to be quite vigilant, not to have their country spit on once again by yet another violation of asylum.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Thanks Peace!
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He's staying at the consulate on his own will...
MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)British police said on Thursday they will arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Assange who took refuge with the Ecuadorians in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden said he will leave the embassy if a UN panel investigating his case rules against him.
"The warrant is still in place. If he leaves the embassy we will make every effort to arrest him," a spokesman for the British police said.
Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning over allegations of rape in 2010 which the Australian denies.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-arrest-idUKKCN0VD0QY
Fearless
(18,421 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Notice how Assange says he will accept arrest if the U.N. rules against him -after knowing that they won't.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
elias49
(4,259 posts)Not a bad 'endorsement'.
But that's water under the bridge now.
christx30
(6,241 posts)the influence of the UN.
If a country, especially one as powerful as Britian, really wants something, the opinion of a panel doesn't mean much.
I mean, Kanye is an influential in rap. But I wouldn't give a crap about any opinion he gave about anything.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)1) "Look! I'm cooperating!"
2) Attaches conditions for cooperation that can't/won't be met.
3) Fan club whips themselves into a high dudgeon about the evil US (that isn't even involved in this situation).
4) Hangs out in the embassy for a few weeks until his name is out of the media.
Repeat
happyslug
(14,779 posts)For you who missed it in History class, BEFORE the Dred Scot Decision was released, President Buchanan said (paraphrased) "How the Court Decide the case is what I will follow" implying he would follow Dred Scot even if Dred Scot WON the case (Dred Scot LOST the case).
One problem with that statement, Chief Justice Taney had already told President Buchanan what the decision would be. It is nice to say you will follow a Court Decision that no one else knew how that case would turn out, when you know the outcome and it is one you support.
I suspect the same thing with this statement, Assange said he would follow whatever the UN panel ruled, knowing the panel had NOT yet released its ruling, but he knew what that decision was going to be. Presidents who supported Slavery are NOT the only people to manipulate public opinion.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Creative Speculation is that way. -------->
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The timing fits someone who has been told what the decision will be. If he made this statement weeks ago, I would believe no connection, but the day before? Sorry, this does not pass the smell test.
Please note I am only commenting on this statement NOT that he did or did not does something illegal in Sweden or that he is subject to a US conspiracy, those are different issues.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Whether someone who had inside information whispered in his ear that things were looking good. His only "crime" by a preemptive announcement would have been to help garner publicity for his case in the media. Which, as someone who is in his position, fighting against world powers and needing every advantage he can get, is understandable.
But ultimately, the end result is the the UN DID rule in his favour. That is the bigger story.