UN: Julian Assange Was 'Unlawfully Detained'

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The next time there is a warrant for your arrest, jump bail and seek asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy. Don't worry, you can totally claim that you are being unlawfully detained. :rolleyes:

"We have been consistently clear that Mr Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy," he added. "The UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden."
 
Basis or no, Assange is doing the absolute best thing he could do for his supposed persecutors. If he surrenders and goes to prison he becomes a martyr, a symbol. If he cowers in some shitty embassy to avoid arrest, he's a joke.

That, and the guy is about as likeable as a bag of snakes.
 
Steve said:
...and then immediately posts a link to a "Justice 4 Assange" website. :(
Click to expand...

Everything in that link is cited. Not sure what you are getting at. You know every piece of news is biased and not close to being objective right?
 
Assange just needs to face the music, hire a good lawyer and go from there.
 
Quix said:
Assange just needs to face the music, hire a good lawyer and go from there.
Click to expand...

*whistles* same could be said about a certain coward/traitor hiding out in Russia right now *whistles*
 
I mean I don't keep track of who says what in this forum but I know there's a fair share of strong 'small' government types... I hope they are not the same persons that think assange or snowden are some kind of traitors... I mean if that is so, you are not for 'small' government, just wrong government.
 
I heard this announcement from the UN, and I thought it was the biggest load of crap I ever heard.

He is VOLUNTARILY in the Ecuadorian embassy. he can leave any time he wants (of course, upon leaving, he'll be arrested and extradited to Sweden) but staying in the embassy is still his choice.

Just because of personally feel you are being politically persecuted, does not mean you can use that as a reason to duck rape charges.

Furthermore, there is no no indication that Sweden would be any more likely to extradite Assange to the U.S. than the U.K was before he started hiding to avoid rape charges.

I am torn on whether he should face charges in the U.S. I am generally in favor of whistle-blower information coming to light when governments are doing things they shouldn't. SOME of the wikieaks information should ahve been leaked, and should ahve been given protected whistleblower status.

The indiscriminate way in which Wikileaks released information - however - was very harmful.

ir0nw0lf said:
*whistles* same could be said about a certain coward/traitor hiding out in Russia right now *whistles*
Click to expand...

Bull. Snowden is a fucking hero for exposing the unconstitutional and illegal CIA/NSA wiretapping bullshit. Not only should he be given a full pardon, but he should also be given a fucking medal for his bravery.
 
Uvaman2 said:
I mean I don't keep track of who says what in this forum but I know there's a fair share of strong 'small' government types... I hope they are not the same persons that think assange or snowden are some kind of traitors... I mean if that is so, you are not for 'small' government, just wrong government.
Click to expand...

Assange isn't accused of treason so I am not sure what that has to do with his case, it is supposition that the USA would request Sweden to extradite him as there is no open warrant for his arrest for a USA crime

As to Snowden, I am not sure what small government vs big government has to do with treason. He took information to which he shouldn't normally have had access and provided it to a foreign national who published it with the intention of damaging the USA, that would seem to be the definition of treason (regardless of how big your government is)
 
Uvaman2 said:
I mean I don't keep track of who says what in this forum but I know there's a fair share of strong 'small' government types... I hope they are not the same persons that think assange or snowden are some kind of traitors... I mean if that is so, you are not for 'small' government, just wrong government.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, don't be too hard of 'em. They are already suffering the mental stress of cognitive dissonance. For most of them, the only cure is to keep throwing out facts until their contradictory beliefs are no longer paradoxical.

How would your feel if the only cure for your ailment was to willfully lower your IQ?

:p
 
ir0nw0lf said:
*whistles* same could be said about a certain coward/traitor hiding out in Russia right now *whistles*
Click to expand...

You mean a hero for the whole rest of the world - except the bought people in western governments?
 
I don't believe that it is cognitive dissonance, I believe you are wrong on that point. Just because someone doesn't share the same opinion as you doesn't mean that they are sheeple, have dissonance, or are just stupid. It means they have a different viewpoint and opinion than you do (and its just as valid).

I am grateful that these items where brought forward. A discussion needs to be had, one that the public should be involved in.

The state department is correct when they say these matters are ones of national security. All the more reason the discussion needs to be had, because its important.

A nation needs to balance its surveillance in the modern era, every person (good, bad and the ugly) has access to a huge amount of technological power today, nations can launch sweeping cyber attacks, hackers can take down some of the worlds largest servers and corporations, and individuals can cause all sorts of chaos. On the flip side, the ability to collect, control and process data by the government is enormous, and without checks can easily result in an outright dictatorship, or something more sinister along the lines of eugenics.

All this data is already being collected, your privacy is already an illusion. We need to talk about how this data is managed, protected and used. Before it is abused, not after.
 
Aireoth said:
All this data is already being collected, your privacy is already an illusion. We need to talk about how this data is managed, protected and used. Before it is abused, not after.
Click to expand...

The only acceptable solution is a complete and total end to any and all warrant-less surveillance in non-public spaces.

Ignoring for a moment that the government has not been able to show that any of these efforts have been effective, it does not matter how big of a threat we face, or how many people might die. Our rights and liberties are of much greater importance.
 
Zarathustra[H];1042121559 said:
The only acceptable solution is a complete and total end to any and all warrant-less surveillance in non-public spaces.

Ignoring for a moment that the government has not been able to show that any of these efforts have been effective, it does not matter how big of a threat we face, or how many people might die. Our rights and liberties are of much greater importance.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the existential threat posed by our (humanities) vast power, but I respect your position on rights and liberties.
 
Except... He isn't detained...

He is choosing to stay in the embassy
If he chooses to leave he will be immediately arrested and extradited as there is still an active warrant for his arrest

The UK would be in violation of some EU treaties if they didn't
 
Zarathustra[H];1042121559 said:
The only acceptable solution is a complete and total end to any and all warrant-less surveillance in non-public spaces.
Click to expand...

...and then there's the real world. Idealism isn't practical.
 
potency said:
...and then there's the real world. Idealism isn't practical.
Click to expand...

Screw it then. The founding fathers had no idea what they were talking about. Lets set the constitution on fire.

Nothing, not life, not freedom from harm is worth more than the preservation of our essential liberties.

The risk of harm from those who don't share our values is part of the risk we take of living in a free society. This is the true meaning of "freedom not being free", not some silly military reference.
 
naib said:
Except... He isn't detained...

He is choosing to stay in the embassy
If he chooses to leave he will be immediately arrested and extradited as there is still an active warrant for his arrest

The UK would be in violation of some EU treaties if they didn't
Click to expand...

The UK stormed the embassy. They only stopped because people were streaming it all.

The right wing is strong in these threads.
 
Zarathustra[H];1042121559 said:
The only acceptable solution is a complete and total end to any and all warrant-less surveillance in non-public spaces.

Ignoring for a moment that the government has not been able to show that any of these efforts have been effective, it does not matter how big of a threat we face, or how many people might die. Our rights and liberties are of much greater importance.
Click to expand...

Z, Didn't I explain this to you before? Perhaps you just don't like the answer to my question.

Asking the government if a Surveillance Program has been responsible for preventing a terror attack is at it's base an unrealistic question because surveillance alone can't stop an act of terror. It can help identify where you should be focusing your effort, but alone it can't do anything so the question is itself, stupid. It's a question designed to harness the ire of people just like you. People who will not question it's validity as long as the answer supports what you want to believe.

I'll ask something along the same lines to support my argument.

How many lives have been saved because of the Clean Air Act of 1970, and/or it's Amendments in 1990?

This legislation set the stage and promoted change, but if asked, how many people can you specifically say their lives were saved by this act. At best you can ballpark a trend in fewer deaths. I doubt anyone would say that it hasn't had a huge effect, but can you answer my question and say, these people were specifically saved by this legislation?

Perhaps you'll see my point.
 
dgz said:
The UK stormed the embassy. They only stopped because people were streaming it all.

The right wing is strong in these threads.
Click to expand...

When did the UK storm the embassy ... I don't remember the UK declaring war on Ecuador (maybe I wasn't watching the news that day) ... all Embassies are considered sovereign territory of the country that is based there ... storming an Embassy is considered an act of warfare against the country to whom the Embassy belongs
 
dgz said:
The UK stormed the embassy. They only stopped because people were streaming it all.

The right wing is strong in these threads.
Click to expand...

Silly, they can't do that. Embassies have protection.

They can stand outside and look tough as muh as they want, but if they entered embassy grounds, that's a treaty violation that threatens all of modern diplomacy, and they wouldn't do that.

Terrorist groups do that. Not liberal democracies.

And saying that it has anything to do with the US leak on wikileaks is absurd. If that were the case, the UK would have arrested and extradited Assange to the U.S. long before there were rape allegations from Sweden.

Add to that fact that there are no warrants or pending charges against him in the U.S. they could charge Bradley Manning because he is a U.S. citizen and was a member of the military who knowingly disclosed confidential information he had access to. I don't think they'd have a case against Assange.

Make no mistake this has nothing to do about the leaks or state secrets, and all about aleazy Assange evading rape charges.
 
lcpiper said:
Asking the government if a Surveillance Program has been responsible for preventing a terror attack is at it's base an unrealistic question because surveillance alone can't stop an act of terror. It can help identify where you should be focusing your effort, but alone it can't do anything so the question is itself, stupid. It's a question designed to harness the ire of people just like you. People who will not question it's validity as long as the answer supports what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

People seem awfully worried about terrorism considering we are happy to take life-and-death risks on a daily basis (driving a car, having guns everywhere, eating tons of unhealthy foods, drinking alcohol, using drugs [both illegal and prescription], etc). Why are we willing to give up our rights to save us from terrorism but none of that other stuff?

Of course surveillance alone doesn't stop a terror attack but that's a pedantic deflection. That's like saying the police dispatchers never stopped or solved any crimes. Technically true, but they sent information to officers in the field to act on who did. Shouldn't there be similar examples of surveillance intelligence being used by various agencies to prevent terrorism?

The problem is as much as we would like it to be true I don't think we can ever completely eliminate terrorism. If we just keep becoming more and more of a police state until terrorism is eradicated we will end up with no rights AND still have terrorism. I'm not saying we should do nothing about terrorism, but we shouldn't just throw out all of our values, rights, and freedom any time we feel threatened or in danger. There is plenty that can be done that doesn't go against everything this country is supposed to stand for.
 
kbrickley said:
Assange isn't accused of treason so I am not sure what that has to do with his case, it is supposition that the USA would request Sweden to extradite him as there is no open warrant for his arrest for a USA crime

As to Snowden, I am not sure what small government vs big government has to do with treason. He took information to which he shouldn't normally have had access and provided it to a foreign national who published it with the intention of damaging the USA, that would seem to be the definition of treason (regardless of how big your government is)
Click to expand...

What about Killiary and Obummer
 
I don't get this and some people responses here...

He has been accused of RAPE in sweden & an EU wide arrest warrant was issued so that he can be questioned.

He span this into some attempt to deport him to the US due to his leaks when there has never been a call from the US to arrest him LET alone deport him.

He chooses to stay in the Ecuadorean embassy because he does not want to be arrested and deported to Sweden YET it is sweden and the UK that have, and I quote "Mr Assange's detention "should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected"

What about the rights of the woman he is accused of raping? what about sovereign counties rights with respect to domestic laws against rape? what about sovereign nations laws with respect to treaties.


There is only 4 outcomes
1) Assange leaves, gets arrested, gets deported, gets questioned...
2) Sweden drops the charge
3) UK breaks the associated treaties
4) Assange stays
 
naib said:
I don't get this and some people responses here...

He has been accused of RAPE in sweden & an EU wide arrest warrant was issued so that he can be questioned.

He span this into some attempt to deport him to the US due to his leaks when there has never been a call from the US to arrest him LET alone deport him.

He chooses to stay in the Ecuadorean embassy because he does not want to be arrested and deported to Sweden YET it is sweden and the UK that have, and I quote "Mr Assange's detention "should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected"

What about the rights of the woman he is accused of raping? what about sovereign counties rights with respect to domestic laws against rape? what about sovereign nations laws with respect to treaties.


There is only 4 outcomes
1) Assange leaves, gets arrested, gets deported, gets questioned...
2) Sweden drops the charge
3) UK breaks the associated treaties
4) Assange stays
Click to expand...

"On August 25 2010, Assange was cleared of the suspicion of ’rape’ by Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne, who stated she "made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape (against [the woman])". On 25 of August, the prosecutor said there was no case to answer, stating that "The conduct alleged by [the woman] disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed". The case was only resurrected after a politician, Claes Borgstrom, intervened in the case. Evidence retrieved by Swedish police from text messages from the woman concerned’s phone; which she sent while she was at the police station state that she "did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on grabbing him" (14:26); and that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a [HIV] test” (17:06). The police report states that she felt “railroaded by police and others around her”, that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”; and an SMS from 22:25 said that “it was the police who made up the charges”."


Those rape charges? What about the fact that Sweden won't say they are not going to extradite him to the US, which is not a crazy request? Hmmmm, talking out of the ass maybe?
 
charold said:
"On August 25 2010, Assange was cleared of the suspicion of ’rape’ by Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne, who stated she "made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape (against [the woman])". On 25 of August, the prosecutor said there was no case to answer, stating that "The conduct alleged by [the woman] disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed". The case was only resurrected after a politician, Claes Borgstrom, intervened in the case. Evidence retrieved by Swedish police from text messages from the woman concerned’s phone; which she sent while she was at the police station state that she "did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on grabbing him" (14:26); and that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a [HIV] test” (17:06). The police report states that she felt “railroaded by police and others around her”, that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”; and an SMS from 22:25 said that “it was the police who made up the charges”."


Those rape charges? What about the fact that Sweden won't say they are not going to extradite him to the US, which is not a crazy request? Hmmmm, talking out of the ass maybe?
Click to expand...

Incorrect...
August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion because they have run out of time to question him. But he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.
Click to expand...
The arrest warrant for the accusations of rape is still valid and thus the UK has a legal obligation to arrest and deport him.

The UK could extradite Assange to the US and could have when they had him in custody IF the US asked ... but they didn't
So why get hung up on Sweden could extradite.... but hey... anything to run interference with regards to him being a pervert...

If he wasn't guilty of rape then he has nothing to fear but carry on defending him.
 
Likewise he broke UK law when he skipped bail & that isn't open for debate..

So how about you explain why a criminal in the eyes of the UK legal system (bail skipping) and a suspect in the eyes of the Swedish legal system (rape allegations) with an EU wide arrest and extradition order should just be allowed to walk free just because he is making claims against the US?
 
Fuck Assange. He is a narcissist who feeds off media attention and doesn't give two shits if the information he exposes puts our service members or fellow citizens in harms way.

The piece of garbage should be in a cell deep below the earth.

Is that right-wing enough for you pansies?
 
So you have other governments telling the UK and Sweden that their laws don't count and are actually unlawful...yeah right. The UN should stick to over all human rights and genocide issues. Such a waste even talking about this albino anymore.
 
naib said:
He span this into some attempt to deport him to the US due to his leaks when there has never been a call from the US to arrest him LET alone deport him.
Click to expand...

No, it's pretty much a given that Sweden will hand him right over to the US on espionage charges, as there's a nice solid extradition treaty with Sweden and the US.

Granted, actually getting the case through the courts would likely watch them, eventually, drop it.

However, this isn't about lawful punishment for crime. This is about punitive measures to discourage behavior like his in the future.

Sure, Assange will, EVENTUALLY, go free. In the mean time, he'd be held in prison, without bail. And the US would drag the process out as long as it possibly could. Leaving him to rot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big NON-fan of Assange. I think the guy's a self-important douchebag.

But the US government has showed in the past that it can be INCREDIBLY petulant in dealing with people who openly challenge them and embarrass them on the world stage.
 
Chas said:
No, it's pretty much a given that Sweden will hand him right over to the US on espionage charges, as there's a nice solid extradition treaty with Sweden and the US.

Granted, actually getting the case through the courts would likely watch them, eventually, drop it.

However, this isn't about lawful punishment for crime. This is about punitive measures to discourage behavior like his in the future.

Sure, Assange will, EVENTUALLY, go free. In the mean time, he'd be held in prison, without bail. And the US would drag the process out as long as it possibly could. Leaving him to rot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big NON-fan of Assange. I think the guy's a self-important douchebag.

But the US government has showed in the past that it can be INCREDIBLY petulant in dealing with people who openly challenge them and embarrass them on the world stage.
Click to expand...

This is still supposition. To my knowledge there is no current espionage charge by the USA against Assange. Although they might not like what he did I suspect they much prefer him locked in the embassy or embroiled in a battle against rape charges in Sweden. To bring Assange to the USA to face espionage charges would incur a lot of press coverage and require the USA to discuss much of the data released. Having already convicted Manning and allowed the media coverage around him to die down I doubt they are that anxious to reopen those discussions.
 
Chas said:
No, it's pretty much a given that Sweden will hand him right over to the US on espionage charges, as there's a nice solid extradition treaty with Sweden and the US.

Granted, actually getting the case through the courts would likely watch them, eventually, drop it.

However, this isn't about lawful punishment for crime. This is about punitive measures to discourage behavior like his in the future.

Sure, Assange will, EVENTUALLY, go free. In the mean time, he'd be held in prison, without bail. And the US would drag the process out as long as it possibly could. Leaving him to rot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big NON-fan of Assange. I think the guy's a self-important douchebag.

But the US government has showed in the past that it can be INCREDIBLY petulant in dealing with people who openly challenge them and embarrass them on the world stage.
Click to expand...
The same type of extradition treaty the UK has with the US...
Seriously this is the biggest flaw in this ongoing conspiracy/distraction....

Why would he have to be extradited to Sweden just for the USA to request an extradition when he was arrested in the UK and the USA could have just requested one of their closest allies...

Smoke and mirrors

He just does not want to deal with questions with respect to the rape allegation or deal with breaking UK law w.r.t. skipping bail
 
This forum seems extremely one sided, for a tech forum, with supposedly technical people. Anyone who exposes my governments dirty little secrets is doing a favor.

Sure go and attack the people who are desperately trying to pull your head from under the sand.
 
naib said:
The same type of extradition treaty the UK has with the US...
Seriously this is the biggest flaw in this ongoing conspiracy/distraction....

Why would he have to be extradited to Sweden just for the USA to request an extradition when he was arrested in the UK and the USA could have just requested one of their closest allies...

Smoke and mirrors

He just does not want to deal with questions with respect to the rape allegation or deal with breaking UK law w.r.t. skipping bail
Click to expand...

Bingo!

(Also, The U.S. and Ecuador also have a signed extradition treaty. There are no current U.S. charges against Assange, but if there were, the Ecuadorians would be treaty bound to turn him over as well, just like the UK and Sweden...

This is entirely and universally about Assange trying to duck rape charges by spinning it into some international conspiracy.
 
M76 said:
This forum seems extremely one sided, for a tech forum, with supposedly technical people. Anyone who exposes my governments dirty little secrets is doing a favor.

Sure go and attack the people who are desperately trying to pull your head from under the sand.
Click to expand...

What he does for wikileaks is a good thing.
What he does w.r.t. violating nations laws are different, don't mix them up as one does not provide clemacy for the other
 
M76 said:
This forum seems extremely one sided, for a tech forum, with supposedly technical people. Anyone who exposes my governments dirty little secrets is doing a favor.

Sure go and attack the people who are desperately trying to pull your head from under the sand.
Click to expand...

It is known that people are paid to extol the virtues of our great nation on the internet.
 
M76 said:
This forum seems extremely one sided, for a tech forum, with supposedly technical people. Anyone who exposes my governments dirty little secrets is doing a favor.

Sure go and attack the people who are desperately trying to pull your head from under the sand.
Click to expand...

I generally support whistleblowers.

I consider Edward Snowden a hero for blowing the whistle about the NSA bulk data collection program.

Assange is a little different. There was some valuable information in his leaks that U.S. citizens have the right to know about their government, and that was whistleblower worthy.

The problem with Assange was the indiscriminate nature of the release, with no assessment at all as to whether peoples lives would be put at risk or if there were legitimate reasons for the information to not be released. This - IMHO - makes a HUGE difference.
 
M76 said:
This forum seems extremely one sided, for a tech forum, with supposedly technical people. Anyone who exposes my governments dirty little secrets is doing a favor.

Sure go and attack the people who are desperately trying to pull your head from under the sand.
Click to expand...

So technical people are supposed to be naïve and live in a fairy-tale world where there are no nation-states or terrorists that oppose their own country and way of life?

The real world is not all rainbows and tweets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top