I hope Rep. John Mica does move to hold Pharma Boy Martin Shkreli in contempt for his smirking and subsequent tweeting. Maybe Congress should unearth the 1821 Supreme Court ruling in Anderson v. Dunn, which affirmed Congress’ power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was “… not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.”
Would the three panelists of the UN working group that found this week in Julian Assange’s favor pass a law exam at any serious law faculty?
Their reasoning is utterly shocking. They fail to note even the UK Supreme Court’s dismissal of his appeal against extradition, a rather reckless attitude to the rule of law and due process by the panel.
As to his current abode at the Ecuadorian embassy, they say this: “Placing individuals in temporary custody in stations, ports and airports or any other facilities where they remain under constant surveillance may not only amount to restrictions to personal freedom of movement, but also constitute a de facto deprivation of liberty.” They fail to note that no authority forced him to take up his current residence.
And then this astonishing statement: “It defeats the purpose and efficiency of justice and the interest of the concerned victims to put this matter of investigation to a state of indefinite procrastination.” Yes, and who was responsible for the procrastination?
The dissenter on the panel, Ukraine’s Vladimir Tochilovsky, deals with the embassy stay thus: “In fact, Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the Embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest. Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention. This could be some premises, as in Mr. Assange’s situation, or the territory of the State that does not recognise the arrest warrant. However, these territories and premises of self-confinement cannot be considered as places of detention for the purposes of the mandate of the Working Group.” Quite.