Posted: Feb 05, 2016 2:53 pm
GrahamH wrote:Assange’s lawyers had appealed to the UN panel claiming that his stay in the embassy was arbitrary because he had been unable to exercise his right to asylum, arguing: “The only way for Mr Assange to enjoy is right to asylum is to be in detention. This is not a legally acceptable choice.”
They also argued that UK law had changed since 2012, which meant that if arrested today he would no longer be liable to extradition under the European arrest warrant.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/f ... estigation
Does Assange have a right to asylum? Can the Swedish warrant be shown to be an act of political persecution? Maybe statements today will make it clearer.
The logic gets ever more baffling. He isn't in detention. He is hiding in a foreign embassy avoiding arrest. Had he managed to skip the country and get to Ecuador he would he enjoying more liberal asylum perhaps but he didn't manage to do that. He is still in breach of his bail conditions as set by UK law, not being detained by the UK. As for compensation for going into hiding and avoiding surrender to bail. Really? What in the blue blazes of fuck?
If this had been some challenge of the charges to European courts etc and this was their ruling? What sort of precedent does that set. Be arrested, jump bail, go hide out somewhere then bitching about being persecuted because you aren't wandering about freely and claim compensation for your own actions. It's mental.