Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Feb 5th 2016, 7:48 am
#1
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
.
Leaving aside his problem with the US authorities, I am struggling to understand the decision reached on his "detention".
The UK is obligated to aid Sweden in apprehending Assange. Assange voluntarily stashed himself away in the embassy. Neither the embassy nor the UK authorities are preventing him from leaving. He does not have diplomatic immunity, nor is he eligible for it.
To argue that he is being detained against his will is, to me, infantile. It implies that anyone with an arrest warrant in his name is somehow immune from arrest if he walks the streets.
Or am I missing something?
.
Leaving aside his problem with the US authorities, I am struggling to understand the decision reached on his "detention".
The UK is obligated to aid Sweden in apprehending Assange. Assange voluntarily stashed himself away in the embassy. Neither the embassy nor the UK authorities are preventing him from leaving. He does not have diplomatic immunity, nor is he eligible for it.
To argue that he is being detained against his will is, to me, infantile. It implies that anyone with an arrest warrant in his name is somehow immune from arrest if he walks the streets.
Or am I missing something?
.
Feb 5th 2016, 8:10 am
#2
Dunroaming back in UK
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Expat in Yorkshire now
Posts: 11,290
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
.
Leaving aside his problem with the US authorities, I am struggling to understand the decision reached on his "detention".
The UK is obligated to aid Sweden in apprehending Assange. Assange voluntarily stashed himself away in the embassy. Neither the embassy nor the UK authorities are preventing him from leaving. He does not have diplomatic immunity, nor is he eligible for it.
To argue that he is being detained against his will is, to me, infantile. It implies that anyone with an arrest warrant in his name is somehow immune from arrest if he walks the streets.
Or am I missing something?
.
Leaving aside his problem with the US authorities, I am struggling to understand the decision reached on his "detention".
The UK is obligated to aid Sweden in apprehending Assange. Assange voluntarily stashed himself away in the embassy. Neither the embassy nor the UK authorities are preventing him from leaving. He does not have diplomatic immunity, nor is he eligible for it.
To argue that he is being detained against his will is, to me, infantile. It implies that anyone with an arrest warrant in his name is somehow immune from arrest if he walks the streets.
Or am I missing something?
.
Edit: Swedish government just rejected it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...19_story.html?
Last edited by Garbatellamike; Feb 5th 2016 at 8:13 am.
Feb 5th 2016, 8:34 am
#3
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
It's also worth noting that the yanks particularly tend to say "pah, UN" - but it's a bunch of senior lawyers that came to the verdict, not a bunch of politicians.
If it had been anyone else, they wouldn't have been stationing cops outside, for years. And as much as they might not like it, stationing cops outside the embassy is effectively enforcing house arrest - eg detention.
Feb 5th 2016, 8:45 am
#4
Dunroaming back in UK
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Expat in Yorkshire now
Posts: 11,290
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Well, for one, that arrest warrant wouldn't be accepted today. They also didn't have much good to say about the quality of the swedish case in the first place.
It's also worth noting that the yanks particularly tend to say "pah, UN" - but it's a bunch of senior lawyers that came to the verdict, not a bunch of politicians.
If it had been anyone else, they wouldn't have been stationing cops outside, for years. And as much as they might not like it, stationing cops outside the embassy is effectively enforcing house arrest - eg detention.
It's also worth noting that the yanks particularly tend to say "pah, UN" - but it's a bunch of senior lawyers that came to the verdict, not a bunch of politicians.
If it had been anyone else, they wouldn't have been stationing cops outside, for years. And as much as they might not like it, stationing cops outside the embassy is effectively enforcing house arrest - eg detention.
The arrest warrant is still valid - end of...
It was a panel of "human rights lawyers" not "senior lawyers" - nice attempt to spin but probably better keeping the debate factual
He seems to be fleeing justice (if he had nothing to hide why run away?) the authorities are correctly pursuing a fugitive from justice whilst also respecting the legitimate Diplomatic status of the Embassy. All entirely legal and clearly the right thing to do. His innocence or guilt is a matter for the court to decide and he should not have done a "brave Sir Robin" but stayed to prove his innocence in court (assuming he is innocent!).
Feb 5th 2016, 9:03 am
#5
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
the authorities are correctly pursuing a fugitive from justice whilst also respecting the legitimate Diplomatic status of the Embassy. All entirely legal and clearly the right thing to do. His innocence or guilt is a matter for the court to decide and he should not have done a "brave Sir Robin" but stayed to prove his innocence in court (assuming he is innocent!).
See, thing is they were after his hide, to shut him up. That much is obvious. They pretty much succeeded too - and that was the point.
The whole swedish thing was a means to an end, and pretty obviously dodgy as hell - particularly when you consider there are MPs with more dodgy evidence against them of kiddy fiddling, that aren't considered worth chasing...
Feb 5th 2016, 9:15 am
#6
Dunroaming back in UK
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Expat in Yorkshire now
Posts: 11,290
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
And what I said is true - if it were issued today, it wouldn't be. That tells you something.
They ain't doing divorces, and they ain't politicians - ergo, they are senior lawyers.
Because he did trust government not to railroad and not to kidnap. You can hardly blame him - given the previous form.
Riggggggghhhhhhtttttttt.
See, thing is they were after his hide, to shut him up. That much is obvious. They pretty much succeeded too - and that was the point.
The whole swedish thing was a means to an end, and pretty obviously dodgy as hell - particularly when you consider there are MPs with more dodgy evidence against them of kiddy fiddling, that aren't considered worth chasing...
They ain't doing divorces, and they ain't politicians - ergo, they are senior lawyers.
Because he did trust government not to railroad and not to kidnap. You can hardly blame him - given the previous form.
Riggggggghhhhhhtttttttt.
See, thing is they were after his hide, to shut him up. That much is obvious. They pretty much succeeded too - and that was the point.
The whole swedish thing was a means to an end, and pretty obviously dodgy as hell - particularly when you consider there are MPs with more dodgy evidence against them of kiddy fiddling, that aren't considered worth chasing...
Senior lawyers - ha ha ha = spin
I think you ahave been watching too many movies - kidnap him - ha ha ha ha = you are having a laugh
Agree with you on 100% on those MPs but irrelevant to the point in question isn't it - bit of smoke and mirrors to cloud the issue methinks.
Feb 5th 2016, 9:28 am
#7
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Yeah, it does, doesn't it....
You might not like it, but yep, they classify as senior lawyers.
You may know it by its other name - rendition.
Again, we agree, but not in the way you think. How do you get rid of an irritant to the body politic? You surround it with legal red tape and turn it into an ossified pearl.
You might not like it, but yep, they classify as senior lawyers.
Again, we agree, but not in the way you think. How do you get rid of an irritant to the body politic? You surround it with legal red tape and turn it into an ossified pearl.
Feb 5th 2016, 9:35 am
#8
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,993
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Sweden has promised the USA that they will forward him to the US for torture: that's what it's all about. Assange is in roughly the same position as Snowden, and doesn't want to end up in the same position as Manning. Britain is doing only what the US wants it to do. I don't think of Britain as an independent nation any more; it's just a satrapy of the Empire.
Which side of the argument you come down on depends entirely on whether you believe the US is capable of torturing dissidents. The CIA's rendition program is a pointer to what they are capable of; so is Guantanamo; so is the targeting of civilians in the Middle East. It's impossible to regard them (the US authorities) as The Good Guys, these days.
Which side of the argument you come down on depends entirely on whether you believe the US is capable of torturing dissidents. The CIA's rendition program is a pointer to what they are capable of; so is Guantanamo; so is the targeting of civilians in the Middle East. It's impossible to regard them (the US authorities) as The Good Guys, these days.
Feb 5th 2016, 9:39 am
#9
Dunroaming back in UK
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Expat in Yorkshire now
Posts: 11,290
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Yeah, it does, doesn't it....
You might not like it, but yep, they classify as senior lawyers.
You may know it by its other name - rendition.
Again, we agree, but not in the way you think. How do you get rid of an irritant to the body politic? You surround it with legal red tape and turn it into an ossified pearl.
You might not like it, but yep, they classify as senior lawyers.
You may know it by its other name - rendition.
Again, we agree, but not in the way you think. How do you get rid of an irritant to the body politic? You surround it with legal red tape and turn it into an ossified pearl.
Senior lawyers - a good but vain attempt to try and give them more legitimacy but no one will buy it - sorry.
Rendition - ha ha - nice use of emotive language but roger irrelevant. He has a legitimate warrant served on him and did a Brave Sir Robin.
You have been reading to many conspiracy theories methinks - kidnap, rendition
Do get serious
Feb 5th 2016, 9:49 am
#10
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Legitimate means little when he's an irritant to the body politic - they have a habit of arranging 'legitimate' to match what they want to happen.
Of course, the US could have simplified matters massively by accepting they had no possible case against him and defending his rights. They kind of obviously didn't do that.
Tell you what. Look back on this from 50 years hence. How do you think things will be reported by historians?
Feb 5th 2016, 9:56 am
#11
Dunroaming back in UK
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Expat in Yorkshire now
Posts: 11,290
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Not irrelevant, kind of obviously the opposite. That's the 'why' of what you're missing.
Legitimate means little when he's an irritant to the body politic - they have a habit of arranging 'legitimate' to match what they want to happen.
Of course, the US could have simplified matters massively by accepting they had no possible case against him and defending his rights. They kind of obviously didn't do that.
Tell you what. Look back on this from 50 years hence. How do you think things will be reported by historians?
Legitimate means little when he's an irritant to the body politic - they have a habit of arranging 'legitimate' to match what they want to happen.
Of course, the US could have simplified matters massively by accepting they had no possible case against him and defending his rights. They kind of obviously didn't do that.
Tell you what. Look back on this from 50 years hence. How do you think things will be reported by historians?
Tell you what, in 50 years no one will even remember a man who did "a brave Sir Robin" to evade court proceedings - he won't even be a footnote in history
If he had the courage, integrity and conviction to face his accusers in a court of law - that would be something else...... But his actions indicate he is Brave Sir Robin
Feb 5th 2016, 10:08 am
#12
MODERATOR
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Redneck Wonderland
Posts: 9,932
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Well, for one, that arrest warrant wouldn't be accepted today. They also didn't have much good to say about the quality of the swedish case in the first place.
It's also worth noting that the yanks particularly tend to say "pah, UN" - but it's a bunch of senior lawyers that came to the verdict, not a bunch of politicians.
If it had been anyone else, they wouldn't have been stationing cops outside, for years. And as much as they might not like it, stationing cops outside the embassy is effectively enforcing house arrest - eg detention.
It's also worth noting that the yanks particularly tend to say "pah, UN" - but it's a bunch of senior lawyers that came to the verdict, not a bunch of politicians.
If it had been anyone else, they wouldn't have been stationing cops outside, for years. And as much as they might not like it, stationing cops outside the embassy is effectively enforcing house arrest - eg detention.
The whole situation is farcical & feeding Assange's egotistical need to be in the media spotlight.
Feb 5th 2016, 10:08 am
#13
Last resort... format c:/
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Singapore to Surfers Paradise to... Tenerife... to Gran Canaria!
Posts: 1,626
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
Like go up against govt's he's pissed off in a court? Good luck doing that, especially looking at the US and how the law simply serves the best interest of those creating it.
Feb 5th 2016, 10:11 am
#14
Dunroaming back in UK
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Expat in Yorkshire now
Posts: 11,290
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
You might call it house arrest, I might call it a siege situation where a wanted suspect has barricaded [via diplomatic means] himself inside a building to evade being taken into custody.
The whole situation is farcical & feeding Assange's egotistical need to be in the media spotlight.
The whole situation is farcical & feeding Assange's egotistical need to be in the media spotlight.
Feb 5th 2016, 10:15 am
#15
On the road again.
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Re: Julian Assange: what am I missing here?
.
Leaving aside his problem with the US authorities, I am struggling to understand the decision reached on his "detention".
The UK is obligated to aid Sweden in apprehending Assange. Assange voluntarily stashed himself away in the embassy. Neither the embassy nor the UK authorities are preventing him from leaving. He does not have diplomatic immunity, nor is he eligible for it.
To argue that he is being detained against his will is, to me, infantile. It implies that anyone with an arrest warrant in his name is somehow immune from arrest if he walks the streets.
Or am I missing something?
.
Leaving aside his problem with the US authorities, I am struggling to understand the decision reached on his "detention".
The UK is obligated to aid Sweden in apprehending Assange. Assange voluntarily stashed himself away in the embassy. Neither the embassy nor the UK authorities are preventing him from leaving. He does not have diplomatic immunity, nor is he eligible for it.
To argue that he is being detained against his will is, to me, infantile. It implies that anyone with an arrest warrant in his name is somehow immune from arrest if he walks the streets.
Or am I missing something?
.
He can stay in there till he rots as far as I'm concerned,if he hasn't got the bottle to come out of his hole and face justice, same as everybody else has to.