6 ms·

How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.

by 0x0 14y ago

jgrahamc 14y ago
Or, how often do rape suspects having gone through the entire legal system in the UK decide that asking for asylum is the way to go?
- toyg 14y ago
  He has not been convicted of anything, in the UK nor in Sweden, so he's not "gone through the entire legal system". The Swedish Police officially wants him for questioning, and for that reason they requested his arrest through Interpol. The UK legal system only argued on whether there's any impediment, under British Law, which would not allow him to be extradited. Under pressure from the current government, Lord Justices ruled that they cannot find anything of the sort. Hardly a trial or "going through the entire legal system".
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    "He has not been convicted of anything" And I did not say he had. Your entire comment is based on a false premise (that I believed that he had been convicted) that you have invented.
    - toyg 14y ago
      Your entire comment is based on the false premise that he's "gone through the entire legal system". My comment proved that he has only skimmed the surface of extradition law, so he cannot have "gone through the entire legal system". If that were the case, a convicted murderer would have gone through the legal system and... something more? But who cares, he's just a man. The problem here is the sanctity of the asylum principle, which is not worth losing over such a petty dispute.
      - mongol 14y ago
        Has he not gone through the entire legal system in the extradition case though?
      - vacri 14y ago
        Your last sentence is the important part that I think most people aren't really seeing.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    To be convicted of something he'd have to go to Sweden, something he's doing his level best to prevent. As a result the fact he's not been convicted is potentially somewhat misleading as he's made it impossible to do so up to this point.
    - papercrane 14y ago
      Why can't he be tried in absentia?
      - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        I don't know enough about Swedish law to know but I would say that I think being tried in absentia is both morally wrong and likely open to legal challenge. And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him?
        papercrane 14y ago
        In the general case I would agree, but there needs to be a point where you can say that every effort was made and opportunity given and that the accused has actively refused to participate in the trial. > And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him? I can see your point here, but after some time I would think that it would become difficult to continue with the case. Witnesses get hard to track down, evidence lost, etc..
    - lmm 14y ago
      To be convicted he'd first have to be charged; the swedes are insisting that he is only wanted for questioning and will not be charged with anything (which seems somewhat at odds with the amount of effort they're putting into this).
untog 14y ago
How often do rape suspects claim asylum?
meiji 14y ago
It's also a different thing. He's also wanted in the UK for breaching his bail conditions. So he not only has the extradition hanging over him but he's broken the law in the UK now.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure nearly anybody who seeks asylum is breaking some law in their home country. The whole point of asylum is to protect against persecution, which is usually justified in the home country under some law.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    The problem with this argument is nobody has produced any evidence to show Assange is 'persecuted'. Sweden issued a legitimate European Arrest Warrant, and the UK allowed Assange to appeal that to the highest court. There is no evidence that he is being persecuted by the US in this matter: if Ecuador has some they should publish it.
    - justsee 14y ago
      > The problem with this argument is nobody has produced any evidence to show Assange is 'persecuted'. Actually they have. Enough was presented to the Ecuadorian Government that they agreed he faced potential political prosecution. That's why he's been granted asylum. > Sweden issued a legitimate European Arrest Warrant, and the UK allowed Assange to appeal that to the highest court. Sweden issued an extremely unusual arrest warrant, and in the highest UK legal circles there is an opinion that the final Supreme court decision was simply wrong: "The Supreme Court wrongly, and without any analysis, assumed that VCLT Article 31(3)(b) is applicable in the interpretation of secondary European acts such as the Framework Decision. It also neglected to look into the interpretative rules of the EU. The result was a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court." [1] Assange is a Western dissident. You don't have to like him or agree with WikiLeaks mission, but the actions against WikiLeaks have been highly political, and manouverings by Sweden, the UK, and the US in line with the actions of any states acting against dissidents through various channels. [1] http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=22&Itemid=101 http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&vi...
mootothemax 14y ago
How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? You could argue the opposite side: how many embassies offer protection to famous rape suspects? This is not an ordinary occurrence.
- toyg 14y ago
  What about famous killers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
- DividesByZero 14y ago
  Something quite similar happened before with Roman Polanski. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_cas...
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    Something quite similar happened before with Roman Polanski. Which is why I wrote: This is not an ordinary occurrence meaning that it happens rarely, not that such things never happen.
    - DividesByZero 14y ago
      I wasn't suggesting otherwise, merely citing another similar case that I hadn't seen posted yet.
- furyg3 14y ago
  The key word here is "suspect". We live in 2012: if you want to question a suspect you don't have to have him in your jurisdiction to do so. If you don't want to interview him in the embassy or by phone, you obviously don't care. If he doesn't want to talk, that's within his rights, and a refusal to come to your country should be interpreted as such. The only reasons you would want a suspect extradited to your country are: to press charges and make an arrest, to torture, to make a media scene, or to 'punish' someone by detaining them even though you can't make the case stick. The only acceptable reason is the first one, in which case you should press charges before extradition.
politician 14y ago
Isn't the crime Assange is charged with in Sweden is significantly different from what is generally understood as rape in the US? Isn't he actually being charged with having two "one night stands"?
- hythloday 14y ago
  He's charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Case_reopened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...
  - politician 14y ago
    Do you know if those charges carry the same connotation in Sweden as in the United States? IIRC, there was some confusion about what he actually is being charged with when the case was originally brought, then dismissed as unsubstantiated, then reopened.
    - hythloday 14y ago
      Here's the transcript of the High Court decision that declined his appeal. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... "Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity." I would consider that to be rape, but I have no idea whether the US in general or legally would agree.
      - rustynails 14y ago
        http://www.google.com/search?q=assange%20half%20asleep http://www.google.com/search?q=assange%20half%20asleep Take your pick of articles. Was she asleep? Anyone who had read all of the posts in this thread knows there is something suspect about this whole case. Simply interview the man where he can't be extradited to the US and be done with it.

How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.

by 0x0 14y ago

How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.

jgrahamc 14y ago

Or, how often do rape suspects having gone through the entire legal system in the UK decide that asking for asylum is the way to go?

toyg 14y ago
He has not been convicted of anything, in the UK nor in Sweden, so he's not "gone through the entire legal system". The Swedish Police officially wants him for questioning, and for that reason they requested his arrest through Interpol. The UK legal system only argued on whether there's any impediment, under British Law, which would not allow him to be extradited. Under pressure from the current government, Lord Justices ruled that they cannot find anything of the sort. Hardly a trial or "going through the entire legal system".
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  "He has not been convicted of anything" And I did not say he had. Your entire comment is based on a false premise (that I believed that he had been convicted) that you have invented.
  - toyg 14y ago
    Your entire comment is based on the false premise that he's "gone through the entire legal system". My comment proved that he has only skimmed the surface of extradition law, so he cannot have "gone through the entire legal system". If that were the case, a convicted murderer would have gone through the legal system and... something more? But who cares, he's just a man. The problem here is the sanctity of the asylum principle, which is not worth losing over such a petty dispute.
    - mongol 14y ago
      Has he not gone through the entire legal system in the extradition case though?
    - vacri 14y ago
      Your last sentence is the important part that I think most people aren't really seeing.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  To be convicted of something he'd have to go to Sweden, something he's doing his level best to prevent. As a result the fact he's not been convicted is potentially somewhat misleading as he's made it impossible to do so up to this point.
  - papercrane 14y ago
    Why can't he be tried in absentia?
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      I don't know enough about Swedish law to know but I would say that I think being tried in absentia is both morally wrong and likely open to legal challenge. And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him?
      - papercrane 14y ago
        In the general case I would agree, but there needs to be a point where you can say that every effort was made and opportunity given and that the accused has actively refused to participate in the trial. > And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him? I can see your point here, but after some time I would think that it would become difficult to continue with the case. Witnesses get hard to track down, evidence lost, etc..
  - lmm 14y ago
    To be convicted he'd first have to be charged; the swedes are insisting that he is only wanted for questioning and will not be charged with anything (which seems somewhat at odds with the amount of effort they're putting into this).

untog 14y ago

How often do rape suspects claim asylum?

meiji 14y ago

It's also a different thing. He's also wanted in the UK for breaching his bail conditions. So he not only has the extradition hanging over him but he's broken the law in the UK now.

chimeracoder 14y ago
I'm pretty sure nearly anybody who seeks asylum is breaking some law in their home country. The whole point of asylum is to protect against persecution, which is usually justified in the home country under some law.
- objclxt 14y ago
  The problem with this argument is nobody has produced any evidence to show Assange is 'persecuted'. Sweden issued a legitimate European Arrest Warrant, and the UK allowed Assange to appeal that to the highest court. There is no evidence that he is being persecuted by the US in this matter: if Ecuador has some they should publish it.
  - justsee 14y ago
    > The problem with this argument is nobody has produced any evidence to show Assange is 'persecuted'. Actually they have. Enough was presented to the Ecuadorian Government that they agreed he faced potential political prosecution. That's why he's been granted asylum. > Sweden issued a legitimate European Arrest Warrant, and the UK allowed Assange to appeal that to the highest court. Sweden issued an extremely unusual arrest warrant, and in the highest UK legal circles there is an opinion that the final Supreme court decision was simply wrong: "The Supreme Court wrongly, and without any analysis, assumed that VCLT Article 31(3)(b) is applicable in the interpretation of secondary European acts such as the Framework Decision. It also neglected to look into the interpretative rules of the EU. The result was a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court." [1] Assange is a Western dissident. You don't have to like him or agree with WikiLeaks mission, but the actions against WikiLeaks have been highly political, and manouverings by Sweden, the UK, and the US in line with the actions of any states acting against dissidents through various channels. [1] http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=22&Itemid=101 http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&vi...

mootothemax 14y ago

How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? You could argue the opposite side: how many embassies offer protection to famous rape suspects? This is not an ordinary occurrence.

toyg 14y ago
What about famous killers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
DividesByZero 14y ago
Something quite similar happened before with Roman Polanski. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_cas...
- mootothemax 14y ago
  Something quite similar happened before with Roman Polanski. Which is why I wrote: This is not an ordinary occurrence meaning that it happens rarely, not that such things never happen.
  - DividesByZero 14y ago
    I wasn't suggesting otherwise, merely citing another similar case that I hadn't seen posted yet.
furyg3 14y ago
The key word here is "suspect". We live in 2012: if you want to question a suspect you don't have to have him in your jurisdiction to do so. If you don't want to interview him in the embassy or by phone, you obviously don't care. If he doesn't want to talk, that's within his rights, and a refusal to come to your country should be interpreted as such. The only reasons you would want a suspect extradited to your country are: to press charges and make an arrest, to torture, to make a media scene, or to 'punish' someone by detaining them even though you can't make the case stick. The only acceptable reason is the first one, in which case you should press charges before extradition.

politician 14y ago

Isn't the crime Assange is charged with in Sweden is significantly different from what is generally understood as rape in the US? Isn't he actually being charged with having two "one night stands"?

hythloday 14y ago
He's charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Case_reopened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...
- politician 14y ago
  Do you know if those charges carry the same connotation in Sweden as in the United States? IIRC, there was some confusion about what he actually is being charged with when the case was originally brought, then dismissed as unsubstantiated, then reopened.
  - hythloday 14y ago
    Here's the transcript of the High Court decision that declined his appeal. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... "Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity." I would consider that to be rape, but I have no idea whether the US in general or legally would agree.
    - rustynails 14y ago
      http://www.google.com/search?q=assange%20half%20asleep http://www.google.com/search?q=assange%20half%20asleep Take your pick of articles. Was she asleep? Anyone who had read all of the posts in this thread knows there is something suspect about this whole case. Simply interview the man where he can't be extradited to the US and be done with it.