5 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? You could argue the
by 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 agoWhat about famous killers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
- DividesByZero 14y agoSomething 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 agoSomething 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 agoI wasn't suggesting otherwise, merely citing another similar case that I hadn't seen posted yet.
- furyg3 14y agoThe 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.
- ceejayoz 14y ago1812, 1912, or 2012, subjects of police investigation don't generally get to pick the interview venue.
- anthonyb 14y agoIf you're only a suspect, and haven't been charged, you don't have to talk to the police at all. Picking a venue seems minor in comparison.
- ceejayoz 14y agoIn the US. Not sure on Sweden's laws on that. At this point in the US he'd probably be charged with obstruction of justice, at which point venue is again no longer up to him.
- s_henry_paulson 14y agoIn Sweden you do not have to be in the country for questioning, and JA has offered to be interviewed over phone or video link. In the US there's the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Even if you know nothing of the law, surely you've at least seen a television show or movie where someone says "Am I being charged with a crime? ... Then am I free to go?" That's all you need to say.
- glenstein 14y agoA suspect is not a convict, and the privilege of selecting a site for interview is just as likely to be abused by the state as it is the suspect. Assange has a perfectly justified fear that the request for interview functions as a strategy for entrapping & extraditing him. The notion that this is nothing more than a disinterested preference in procedure is implausible.
- vacri 14y agoIf he doesn't want to talk, that's within his rights This is true in the US. It's not quite true here in Australia - a refusal to talk to police can be used against you in a court of law. It's not going to make or break a case, but you can't just 'plead the 5th' here and have no consequences. I imagine it's similar in the UK as our law is quite similar to theirs.
- twelvechairs 14y agoActually arguing the opposite as you say "how many embassies offer protection to famous rape suspects" is silly, because he is not being offered asylum because he is a rape suspect so effectively its as meaningful a question as "How many embassies offer protection to people born in Townsville, Queensland".