[cryptome] Fwd: UN Definition of Arbitrary Detention: The Case of Julian Assange

  • From: douglas rankine <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:35:20 +0000

It must be the lawyer and the belief in human rights in me, but I can't see how the UN committee on Human Rights' definition of "arbitrary detention" and its decision that he should be freed, fits in with the case of Julian Assange. What about the rights of the alleged rape victims and the admissions he made in his depositions? He most certainly has a case to answer, in my view.

The facts are: He is not being detained. An international arrest warrant in the UK was issued under due process of English, European and Swedish Law. He appealed it to the highest appeal court and it was found to be a valid warrant. In order to avoid being detained under it, Julian decided that his best option was to go to the Ecaudorian Embassy and seek political asylum, which was granted. By doing so, he stepped outside of the the legal jurisdiction of the arrest warrant which then could not be executed due to international diplomatic law, he has therefore avoided granting the human rights of his victims to gain their day in court, as well as his own. He is free to leave the territory of Ecaudor at any time.

Yes, he will be arrested and he will be deported to face charges and further investigations and a trial in Sweden. And no, his fear of being extradited to the USA are no worse than anyone elses, for other alleged crimes, and no worse here in the UK or in Sweden. I have yet to discover that the opportunities for extradition from Sweden to the USA are somehow easier...but I stand to be corrected.

It is OK to be involved in human rights and exposing the secrets of the state as part of the brief to making sure that a state bureaucracy conducts its business legally and with respect to the human rights, security and privacy of the individual, and that classified information is being classifed not for the purpose of law, but to cover up the misdeeds of the state bureaucrats and civil servants; but this OK does not extend to granting immunity to the citizen involved in protecting human rights against those whose human rights have been violated, because they themselves wish to be seen as protecting human rights.

It should be an easy decision for Julian Assange to remove himself from the Ecaudorian Embassy, and return voluntarily to Sweden so that he can take the opportunity not only to be found not guilty of any crimes alleged, but to gaurantee the rights of the victims to a hearing of their case, the two women who have made a complaint to the authorities. By doing so, Julian would not only be standing up for international human rights but setting an example, which the state authorities in the US would find hard to follow.

Other related posts:

  • » [cryptome] Fwd: UN Definition of Arbitrary Detention: The Case of Julian Assange - douglas rankine