BREAKING: UN to Free Assange, Final Ruling Says ‘Arbitrary Detention’ Must End

originally posted by: Naturallywired
Trump will pardon him and appoint him for some position. Watch!

ETA: I know trump wanted his head on a platter, but watch!

Probably not going to happen with the panel he is appointing.

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: DISRAELI

b) rumor is he was detained to one room and internet connection was severed.

I read there is no longer a policeman gaurding the embasy. He may well be gone or possibly in protective custody.

a reply to: residentofearth

No dead mans switch. Considering his internets has been cut for sometime. Unless it was deactivated in the huge ddos attack a little while ago.

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Naturallywired
Trump will pardon him and appoint him for some position. Watch!

ETA: I know trump wanted his head on a platter, but watch!

Probably not going to happen with the panel he is appointing.

What panel? Panel?

Erm...the video posted on YouTube by the OP is from February 2016...he's still in the Embassy.
Given recent cut off of his Internet etc, I'd say UK and Sweden have totally ignored their 'ruling'.

Rainbows
Jane

PS...My bad sorry...I see now it was appealed and rejected by the UN

When the UN can tell a sovereign nation what to do, that will be the start of a one world dictatorship of appointed, not elected, rulers.

People should be careful what they wish for or who's actions they defend.

The UK and Sweden need to ignore the demands of council's made up of despots.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: goou111
...
b) It is absurd nonsense to say that these governments are "detaining" him. He is in that embassy of his own free will, and he will not be prevented from leaving it if he makes that decision. There is a threat of detention involved, if he leaves, but what he does of his own volition to avoid that detention is none of their doing.

Why is Mr. Assange still in the embassy?

The UK has encircled the embassy with police since he entered it and refuses to let him take up his asylum in Ecuador.

source

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: goou111
...
b) It is absurd nonsense to say that these governments are "detaining" him. He is in that embassy of his own free will, and he will not be prevented from leaving it if he makes that decision. There is a threat of detention involved, if he leaves, but what he does of his own volition to avoid that detention is none of their doing.

Why is Mr. Assange still in the embassy?

The UK has encircled the embassy with police since he entered it and refuses to let him take up his asylum in Ecuador.

source

Yeah that does not sound like his own free will.

The UN makes a whole lot of declarative statements that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Sweden and the UK can tell the UN to go pound sand.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The UK has encircled the embassy with police since he entered it and refuses to let him take up his asylum in Ecuador.

That is in line with what I said.
There is a threat of detention if he leaves.
However, entering the embassy was a voluntary action, and deciding to stay there is a voluntary action.

originally posted by: schuyler
The UN makes a whole lot of declarative statements that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Sweden and the UK can tell the UN to go pound sand.

They can. But will they? I think they will just back off.

a reply to: Blaine91555

If globalist want to listen to the UN for our favor then so be it. Globalist love the UN so they may listen. This is not to say the UN is law of any land. It's an organization that legitimizes dictators, the anti-thesis of your run of the mill eco-globalist hipster..

originally posted by: goou111
They can. But will they? I think they will just back off.

A declaration from the UK saying "We will not execute the Swedish extradition request" is unlikely. That's the only form that "backing off" could take, in their case.
Whether Sweden choose to drop the request is up to them.

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: schuyler
The UN makes a whole lot of declarative statements that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Sweden and the UK can tell the UN to go pound sand.

They can. But will they? I think they will just back off.

They might, but they are under no legal obligation. Sweden, as I understand it, wants to discuss rape accusations with Assange. Why would the UN intervene in a crime like that? Not judging his guilt or innocence on that issue--hope he's innocent, in fact--but the UN is on very shaky ground if it thinks it has jurisdiction on a crime like that.

a reply to: jellyrev

I worry about this trend towards acceptance of Marxists being a trait of the cool crowd. They have not a clue what they are talking about IMO. When they wake up, it could well be to late to reverse the mistaken thinking.

It's sad how many ignore history and the fact our cultures around the world are nowhere near to being compatible yet. Cultural evolution can't be forced upon we humans, it has to evolve slowly.

The UN does serve a purpose and it's good it is evolving, but to give the UN any real power at this point would be a fools move.

Assange is also far from being a hero in my estimation. Releasing ill gotten information to the world can do a lot of unintended harm. I doubt he truly gives a damn though. He's an attention whore IMO.

a reply to: goou111

Sweden havent cared about the UN for the last 70 years, but it seems like a good gesture, i like him cause he is a story spreader

a reply to: Blaine91555

The information provided by people to Assange is the truth.

If we cannot handle the truth, then we deserve to burn in it. How long are we to call those who lie to our faces patriots, leaders, heroes and figureheads, rather than the decrepit things they are? How long are we to place a greater value on the blindfold about our eyes, than the reality which lay beyond it?

There is no truth which is uglier than the lie used to hide it, no matter how pretty the lie may appear on first comparative glance. The reason for this is simple. When you act on a lie, you work toward nothing. When you act on the truth, you work toward a noble purpose.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: residentofearth

No dead mans switch. Considering his internets has been cut for sometime. Unless it was deactivated in the huge ddos attack a little while ago.

False.

His internet getting cut off is how we know of his dead man's switch in the first place. TPTB thought that by cutting off his internet they would prevent him from leaking more documents during the election. We all see how that worked out.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Not really following you. There have been no dumps after his internets was cut off. That is what you would expect if he was using a dead mans switch.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Blaine91555

The information provided by people to Assange is the truth.

If we cannot handle the truth, then we deserve to burn in it. How long are we to call those who lie to our faces patriots, leaders, heroes and figureheads, rather than the decrepit things they are? How long are we to place a greater value on the blindfold about our eyes, than the reality which lay beyond it?

There is no truth which is uglier than the lie used to hide it, no matter how pretty the lie may appear on first comparative glance. The reason for this is simple. When you act on a lie, you work toward nothing. When you act on the truth, you work toward a noble purpose.

...and when it happens to be information that may be of a genuine national security concern? If it puts an innocent persons life at risk? If it ends a career over a private conversation stolen from someones computer?

It sounds good on the surface, but in the end, it's not.

A person who will hack a computer is in fact a thief and Assange got his reputation by accepting stolen goods from them. That he gives it away makes it no less criminal. I simply do not buy into his quest to be the center of attention no matter how much damage he may do. The Cult of Assange is not my cup of tea. I highly doubt he truly gives a damn beyond keeping himself in the spotlight.