There seems to be some ridiculously large misconceptions here regarding these two things:
1. Assange is not violating any Swedish laws or policies by staying in the embassy and avoiding extradition, he has no obligation to return to Sweden and every right not to.
2. Assanges presence in Sweden is not required by Swedish policies or laws, Swedish courts already called out the prosecutor for not accepting his statements from the embassy.
The duty of the prosecutor also seems to need clarifying, some people here seem to think that the prosecutor has no obligation to agree to interview Assange in the embassy. This is absolutely not true.
Do you not think that the victims(although not entirely applicable here) are OK with the prosecutor indefinitely delaying the case until the crimes expire just because she is too arrogant to pick up the phone and ring up Assange or buy a 30 euro plane ticket to London?
Another thing worth noting is that many people seem to think UK is a particularly easy country to extradite people from, this isn't exactly true. See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love.
Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.
He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time[1].
Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years.
[1] it'd be nice if we put some political pressure on Sweden to resolve the issue remotely but that's neither here nor there.
Also worth noting is that Assange has said repeatedly that he would leave the embassy if he is given written assurance that he won't be extradited to the US.
I think the key issue is that the Swedish prosecutor (until recently) made no effort to question him in the embassy.
Given how badly the US wants Assange, and how we know they treat people like him, it is completely understandable that he wouldn't want to leave the embassy. Therefore it is hard to understand why the Swedish prosecutor was content to sit on her backside when it's in everyone's (not least the alleged victims) interest to move the case forward.
I'm just flabbergasted at how much the UK has spent on the operation: Last October, Scotland Yard said it would no longer station officers outside the Ecuador embassy following an operation which it said had cost £12.6m. But it said "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him" would still be deployed.
It only proves that the allegations are false in my opinion. I think he's weird and don't follow him or wiki leaks but the fact the UK is so insistent on arresting him instead of questioning him and deciding to file charges or not only proves his theory that they want to eventually send him to the United States.
I'm not, the UK is a country with the rule of law. Assange is probably the most high-profile fugitive in the UK.
When those two prisoners escaped from prison in upstate new york,it cost new york 23 million dollars to find them [1] (and they were only fugitives for less than a month).
Just shows you how must the State values its secrets. And Assange was right, knowledge is power and with that power you can disrupt the existing power structures. And in the end make the world into a better place.
For those wondering: the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a panel currently consisting of one individual each from South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Benin, and Ukraine.
Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN.
The Swedish prosecutor has failed to her their duty (as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court) to in refusing to accept Assanges statement from the UK/Ecuadorian embassy.
Had the prosecutor done her job Assanges case would have already gone through the courts, but now he has been unnecessarily detained (essentially in investigative custody, by whom isn't relevant here) for several years.
Edit: I'm not sure why this is getting downvotes, Sweden has already admitted that there's no need to have Assange in Sweden unless he's sentenced. Therefore forcing Assange to stay in the Embassy under the threat of (unnecessary) extradition to Sweden can undoubtedly be considered detainment.
Had the prosecutor done their job Assange would've been charged, got his trial and potentially (very likely, considering the evidence) found not guilty.
Of course, a guilty sentence would completely change the situation.
I think you're right about the embassy bit. It wouldn't surprise me if the UN decision doesn't make any noise about the European Arrest Warrant or any of the the charges agains Assange. I'm guessing that they will state that since he has requested and received asylum by the Ecuador government, the UK should let him go there.
This makes some sense from a general perspective as well. If someone applies and gets asylum at an embassy somewhere, the UN may not want to set the precedent that the host nation could block it by not allowing the person to leave the country.
I find it a bit humorous though, that Assange said he would honor the UN panels decision just moments before that decision is leaked to the press. Funny how he didn't make that promise when he first applied for the ruling...
I agree. I don't think it's to do with the embassy though. I think it's that they're forcing him to remain in conditions detrimental to his health. In a typical situation like this if the person they were trying to arrest was in danger the police could storm the building.
Imagine how many people could be educated with the money that governments spend on activities like this, I doubt it will ever happen but until we stop the mostly needless wastage of throwing money at bureaucratic political games we'll never get off this rock. You know who's being punished when that money is being spent? The public, not Assange, not Wikileaks, not any governments - it's the public.
Politics aside, there is no human reason why informed, intelligent people could not speak and asses him within the embassy, then give the same treatment to those making claims and present their findings accordingly, it's only the totalitarian inhuman systems of political practise that have prevented sound, logical reasoning to take place.
If the evidence clearly states that he directly hurt other human beings then he should face punishment for that in the country that he is a citizen of, if it is unclear he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty but still investigated transparently and humanely.
With regards to assisting parts of Wikileaks - he was part of a large community of people (remember, we're humans and we want to get along for the most part) that exposed corruption and wrongdoing by people and governments in positions of power. If you have to break a law to prove that laws have been broken both parties must be treated with the same scrutiny - end of story.
Edit: I'd like to add that if the sexual assault claims were true he should be treated as a mental patient that committed a crime rather than a criminal with malicious intent of direct wrong doing. You can't heal, or change people with punishment - humans are adaptive, complex organisms that need quality education, therapy, social training and reflection and then they need to play a part in the community to help prevent such things from happening again. If you think about the money that's been spent with regards to the alleged sexual crimes alone - with those millions of dollars just think about how many people that could help, not just with education but also improving mental health, support networks and so forth that can make a difference not just to 1-3 people but thousands of people. The value of where our money has been spent on this is clearly very poor.
I do feel for Assange. Hi is in a bad situation, but personally so do I not see how his voluntary attempt to evade a legal arrest order is detention. Hi is accused of a serious crime and the Swedish authorities must investigate it.
The whole situation has nothing to do with the alleged crimes - he would be out of jail by now if he was even convicted. It is all about if he is to be extradited to the USA or not. If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today.
The problem is that he's also wanted for leaking secret documents (like Snowden), and there's a high chance that the allegations were only intended so he can be arrested in a country that has an extradition policy with the US. He fears for his life, and given the US's "secret" concentration camps (Guantanamo, secret CIA bases, secret planes waiting to move Snowden, etc), I don't blame him.
From what I understand he is accused of having sex without a condom. Girl objected to not using condom but not to having sex. Still, she went with it without being forced physically.
The argument is that it is a pretense to have him detained by US-controlled country to get him sent to US without proper judicial procedure.
Basically, both UK and Sweden said it can't rule out that he is sent over to US if he's detained for this unrelated "crime".
If it was just for the alleged rape in Sweden then it wouldn't make any sense to hide in the embassy for almost 4 years now, since it is very likely that he would have spent less time in prison in Sweden for this crime.
It's the Supermax prison treatment including solitary confinement for life that he fears in the US.
You just have to look at how they treated Manning.
In face of that risk it certainly would feel like detention to me. Imagine someone would threaten to lock you up for life in solitary confinement and possibly even torture you on top of that if you ever left the room you are sitting in right now.
Wouldn't that feel like detention? Yes, because it is. That threat alone significantly restricts your freedom.
But it doesn't mean that he'll walk free. It's not legally binding. And British officials have made clear that the European arrest warrant against him remains in place.
The panel's ruling will not have any formal influence over the British and Swedish authorities and the UK Foreign Office said it still had an obligation to extradite Mr Assange.
I don't quite understand: Why appeal to the UN in the first place, if their ruling is not legally binding?
A U.N. official says Sweden was informed last month of a U.N. panel's decision on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
While the panel hasn't officially released its decision, Sweden's foreign ministry said Thursday that the advisory group had concluded that Assange has been a victim of "arbitrary" detention at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012.
As mentioned by some people in the comments, Assange may still be arrested due to the lack of jurisdiction of UN panel's such as this.
If that is the case, what is there that we (as supporters of Assange's plight) can do to add pressure to the UK government and forward the effort towards securing his freedom?
Considering what a brief and skewed description of the Julian Assange story is reported by the article, this is probably a good time to repost John Pilger's more thorough reporting on the events, for anyone who wasn't following it or doesn't remember clearly:
For some frequently asked questions, from Assange's side of things, as it seems as if a few people here haven't heard about Assange before on Hacker News, take a look at the FAQ section halfway down this page (you can skip the top bit if you are somewhat familiar)
Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. He is currently a fugitive from UK and Swedish justice, in Ecuador's London embassy after having been granted political asylum by Ecuador in August 2012.
If USA didn't do anything illegal/scandalous/unethical/violate_their_own_constitution, then there wouldn't be incentive for anyone to leak anything if at least there was proper channels to go through to point errors and correct the system.
Instead of correcting the system, those in power are trying to going after whistle blowers. The system is no longer a democracy.
This title is misleading... he has not won anything yet... he is still waiting for their ruling... The ruling I believe from the article suppose to come out tomorrow. So please make sure you read the article. He has also said that if he looses which might still he will freely give himself up for arrest tomorrow at noon.
Everyone is reacting to the leaked prediction of the panel's decision; what makes you think Assange's statement isn't also a reaction to that? If he knows how the panel is going to decide, it's not particularly courageous of him to suggest he'd turn himself over if they voted against him.
"according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories:
A) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him)(Category I);
B) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II);
C) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (Category III)."
It's about the "arbitrary deprivation of liberty" against his human rights.
Most likely cause is the fact that (despite Swedish law) the Swedish prosecutor has forced him to stay in the embassy by refusing to interview him there, if she had done so the EAW could be cancelled and the whole extradition mess would be over.
Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden and there's no need for him to do so, so forcing him to stay in the embassy just because the prosecutor wants it is undoubtedly "arbitrary".
[+] [-] ryanlol|10 years ago|reply
1. Assange is not violating any Swedish laws or policies by staying in the embassy and avoiding extradition, he has no obligation to return to Sweden and every right not to.
2. Assanges presence in Sweden is not required by Swedish policies or laws, Swedish courts already called out the prosecutor for not accepting his statements from the embassy.
The duty of the prosecutor also seems to need clarifying, some people here seem to think that the prosecutor has no obligation to agree to interview Assange in the embassy. This is absolutely not true.
Do you not think that the victims(although not entirely applicable here) are OK with the prosecutor indefinitely delaying the case until the crimes expire just because she is too arrogant to pick up the phone and ring up Assange or buy a 30 euro plane ticket to London?
Another thing worth noting is that many people seem to think UK is a particularly easy country to extradite people from, this isn't exactly true. See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love.
Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.
[+] [-] Ntrails|10 years ago|reply
Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years.
[1] it'd be nice if we put some political pressure on Sweden to resolve the issue remotely but that's neither here nor there.
[+] [-] rpgmaker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kafkaesq|10 years ago|reply
I wouldn't doubt this -- but if you can provide a quick recap for those not familiar with this side history, that would be most helpful.
[+] [-] agd|10 years ago|reply
Given how badly the US wants Assange, and how we know they treat people like him, it is completely understandable that he wouldn't want to leave the embassy. Therefore it is hard to understand why the Swedish prosecutor was content to sit on her backside when it's in everyone's (not least the alleged victims) interest to move the case forward.
[+] [-] ptha|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philliphaydon|10 years ago|reply
IMO
[+] [-] throwaway_jhfj3|10 years ago|reply
When those two prisoners escaped from prison in upstate new york,it cost new york 23 million dollars to find them [1] (and they were only fugitives for less than a month).
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/US/ny-prison-escape-manhunt-cost-state...
[+] [-] x5n1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgrahamc|10 years ago|reply
He's a high-profile fugitive who is evading arrest for alleged sexual offences against women in a member state in Europe.
[+] [-] tptacek|10 years ago|reply
Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN.
[+] [-] jamesk_au|10 years ago|reply
Hasn't that been a traditional method of catching a suspect? "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded!"
Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy. We'll have to wait for the reasons to be published.
[+] [-] ryanlol|10 years ago|reply
The Swedish prosecutor has failed to her their duty (as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court) to in refusing to accept Assanges statement from the UK/Ecuadorian embassy.
Had the prosecutor done her job Assanges case would have already gone through the courts, but now he has been unnecessarily detained (essentially in investigative custody, by whom isn't relevant here) for several years.
Edit: I'm not sure why this is getting downvotes, Sweden has already admitted that there's no need to have Assange in Sweden unless he's sentenced. Therefore forcing Assange to stay in the Embassy under the threat of (unnecessary) extradition to Sweden can undoubtedly be considered detainment.
Had the prosecutor done their job Assange would've been charged, got his trial and potentially (very likely, considering the evidence) found not guilty.
Of course, a guilty sentence would completely change the situation.
[+] [-] junto|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Erikun|10 years ago|reply
I find it a bit humorous though, that Assange said he would honor the UN panels decision just moments before that decision is leaked to the press. Funny how he didn't make that promise when he first applied for the ruling...
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmondo|10 years ago|reply
Politics aside, there is no human reason why informed, intelligent people could not speak and asses him within the embassy, then give the same treatment to those making claims and present their findings accordingly, it's only the totalitarian inhuman systems of political practise that have prevented sound, logical reasoning to take place.
If the evidence clearly states that he directly hurt other human beings then he should face punishment for that in the country that he is a citizen of, if it is unclear he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty but still investigated transparently and humanely.
With regards to assisting parts of Wikileaks - he was part of a large community of people (remember, we're humans and we want to get along for the most part) that exposed corruption and wrongdoing by people and governments in positions of power. If you have to break a law to prove that laws have been broken both parties must be treated with the same scrutiny - end of story.
Edit: I'd like to add that if the sexual assault claims were true he should be treated as a mental patient that committed a crime rather than a criminal with malicious intent of direct wrong doing. You can't heal, or change people with punishment - humans are adaptive, complex organisms that need quality education, therapy, social training and reflection and then they need to play a part in the community to help prevent such things from happening again. If you think about the money that's been spent with regards to the alleged sexual crimes alone - with those millions of dollars just think about how many people that could help, not just with education but also improving mental health, support networks and so forth that can make a difference not just to 1-3 people but thousands of people. The value of where our money has been spent on this is clearly very poor.
[+] [-] runarb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danieltillett|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmilcin|10 years ago|reply
The argument is that it is a pretense to have him detained by US-controlled country to get him sent to US without proper judicial procedure.
Basically, both UK and Sweden said it can't rule out that he is sent over to US if he's detained for this unrelated "crime".
[+] [-] DominikR|10 years ago|reply
It's the Supermax prison treatment including solitary confinement for life that he fears in the US.
You just have to look at how they treated Manning.
In face of that risk it certainly would feel like detention to me. Imagine someone would threaten to lock you up for life in solitary confinement and possibly even torture you on top of that if you ever left the room you are sitting in right now.
Wouldn't that feel like detention? Yes, because it is. That threat alone significantly restricts your freedom.
[+] [-] rurban|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|10 years ago|reply
Why did he go to the UN? Probably because they're not a court and have no actual power here.
[+] [-] Kristine1975|10 years ago|reply
The panel's ruling will not have any formal influence over the British and Swedish authorities and the UK Foreign Office said it still had an obligation to extradite Mr Assange.
I don't quite understand: Why appeal to the UN in the first place, if their ruling is not legally binding?
[+] [-] chippy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] igl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jccc|10 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241
A U.N. official says Sweden was informed last month of a U.N. panel's decision on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
While the panel hasn't officially released its decision, Sweden's foreign ministry said Thursday that the advisory group had concluded that Assange has been a victim of "arbitrary" detention at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012.
http://bigstory.ap.org/7bb5647f6042478ab3d56d4bbe73b90b
[+] [-] masteryupa_|10 years ago|reply
If that is the case, what is there that we (as supporters of Assange's plight) can do to add pressure to the UK government and forward the effort towards securing his freedom?
[+] [-] PlzSnow|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qrendel|10 years ago|reply
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-i...
[+] [-] youngtaff|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chippy|10 years ago|reply
https://justice4assange.com/
It's also worth a look at some of the arguments here: https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html
(edits: made the above clearer that the FAQs were from Assange's side)
[+] [-] ascorbic|10 years ago|reply
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol...
[Edit: tone]
[+] [-] macns|10 years ago|reply
Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. He is currently a fugitive from UK and Swedish justice, in Ecuador's London embassy after having been granted political asylum by Ecuador in August 2012.
[+] [-] rubberstamp|10 years ago|reply
Instead of correcting the system, those in power are trying to going after whistle blowers. The system is no longer a democracy.
[+] [-] dsp1234|10 years ago|reply
If there is an updated article showing more recent developments, then a link to that would be awesome
[+] [-] contingencies|10 years ago|reply
We're with you Julian.
[+] [-] PlzSnow|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] laveur|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jccc|10 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241
UN says Sweden's foreign ministry was informed last month.
[+] [-] acqq|10 years ago|reply
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pd...
"according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories:
A) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him)(Category I);
B) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II);
C) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (Category III)."
It's about the "arbitrary deprivation of liberty" against his human rights.
[+] [-] ryanlol|10 years ago|reply
Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden and there's no need for him to do so, so forcing him to stay in the embassy just because the prosecutor wants it is undoubtedly "arbitrary".
[+] [-] realityking|10 years ago|reply
As the article correctly points out, this is currently a rumor, the panel has not yet ruled.