[jamesk_au]

There is something curious about the conclusion that surrounding a person for the purpose of lawfully detaining them amounts to unlawful detention.

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]

I think you're missing the whole point.

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.

[jamesk_au]

That isn't the case he ran before the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention though.[1]

Judging from his written submissions, he says that the UK has caused him to face "an impossible dilemma", namely, choosing between confinement in the embassy or giving up his (inalienable) right to non-refoulement as a refugee. Apparently the WGAD has previously held that putting someone in that position involves unlawful detention. So it turns out that is the significance of the fact he is in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

[1] https://justice4assange.com/IMG/pdf/assange-wgad.pdf

[ryanlol]

It was one of the main points of the UN working group.

[junto]

  Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that    
  Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy

There is no secret in that. It's an embassy and sovereign territory of the Ecuadorians. No government in their right mind would trespass.

[jnbiche]

> No government in their right mind would trespass.

What about forcing down a presidential plane (of a nearby country)? Would a government in their right mind do that?

Once a hegemonic country's closest-held secrets are involved, all bets seem to be off.

I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't stage some kind of covert snatch from the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US).

[diyorgasms]

If the US weren't the global hegemon then our actions would resemble those of a rogue state. However, if we weren't a global hegemon, it would be unlikely that the US would be in a position to take these same actions.

[Kristine1975]

I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't raid the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US).

While we're speculating: Could this mean that the US doesn't want Assange anymore?

[lmm]

It's not a binary thing. The US will put a certain value on getting Assange and that will determine the extent to which they'd be willing to expend resources (including diplomatic capital) on doing so.

I think the value of catching Assange probably dropped a lot post-Snowden though. He's probably more famous, and more importantly he proves that Assange isn't a one-off.

[developer2]

Don't be fooled. Both Assange and Snowden would endure the worst treatment a human being can endure if the US had their way. Just because they don't appear to be willing to do everything to get at them does not mean that if these people fell in their lap that they wouldn't commit unspeakable atrocities.

[vidarh]

Having Assange holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and letting the Swedish thing stew and continue to tarnish his reputation is probably just as good for them.

[rwmj]

Not in the UK. Under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, diplomatic status can be revoked and the police could enter the embassy. (Doing so would be pretty foolish, since it would make UK embassies around the world unsafe, but the law is there). It is certainly not "sovereign territory" .. that's a myth.

[dsp1234]

Under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

Note that Part 1(1)(4) states[0]:

"The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law."

So it's not like they can do this willy-nilly. Under that act, there has to be a reason permissible under international law to revoke the consulate land, and it's a complete revocation of the land rights, requiring a new application by the foreign state to re-establish the consulate.

[0] - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46

[rwmj]

Very true, but the UK wrote a letter to Ecuador claiming (maybe not correctly) that keeping Assange was not in the spirit of the Vienna Convention. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/aug/15/uk-arrest-julia...

[zorked]

Diplomatic status can be revoked in probably every country.

[ryanlol]

Generally that involves declaring them a persona non grata and expelling them.

[Erikun]

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...

[diyorgasms]

Self-preservation is a hell of a drug. I can't bring myself to blame him for hedging his bets.

[k-mcgrady]

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.

[pif]

> they're forcing him to remain in ...

Technically, they are not forcing him at all.

[ryanlol]

But practically they are, there's nothing preventing the .se prosecutor from interviewing Assange in the embassy.

Edit: I wouldn't mind if the downvoter explained why they did so, I can't fathom that anyone familiar with the case would think I am wrong. Even the Swedish supreme court agrees with me.

[k-mcgrady]

Maybe not but when you believe you're facing extradition to a country that supports the death penalty you don't really have much choice.

[ryanlol]

Assange would not face the death penalty, unless he voluntarily travelled to the US. Most extradition agreements prevent that.

[speeder]

You know that US had in the past kidnapped people multiple times right? And sometimes they ended in torture chambers.

Also, Chelsea Manning stupidly believed that there would be fair treatment in the US, and ended in solitary confinement for life.

Also, Denmark admitted that the US planes parked there are CIA planes that are waiting to kidnap Edward Snowden in case he go Denmark, Sweden or Norway.

What makes you think, that Assange is immune from that treatment? The CIA planes are already there! If Assange go to Sweden, the US can kidnap him very easily, Denmark+Sweden authorizing it or not, and historically they have authorized quite frequently (maybe every single time).

[ryanlol]

I have no doubt Assange would end up in similar conditions as Manning, but I don't believe there is any chance he'd be executed.

[kafkaesq]

Chelsea Manning stupidly believed ...

This is a pretty nasty (and inaccurate) thing to say about what motivated Chelsea to make the decisions she did that eventually led to her arrest.

[danielweber]

Those Oregon protestors should try that. "We're being illegally detained, because we'll be arrested if we leave!"