Reading down through all of the comments, I can see that people have a totally mixed opinion of how this can happen. Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.
But from this transcript... these are the key points:
-------------
The "sexual assault/rape/molestation" charges were filed after two women Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen went to the police to seek advice if they could compel Assange to take a STD test since they did not use a condom during sex.
Both of the women went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm, however, it is mentioned that Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen.
Ardin had been frequently in the company of Assange. She had previously described him as such a "cool man" (Twitter). They also arrived and left together at a Crayfish party (equivalent of a cocktail party). Ardin was sharing accomodation with Assange and had refused an offer from someone else for temporary accomodation.
The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".
SMS text messages were also exchanged between Sofia and Ardin, which showed that the two of them knew of the relationship between each other and Assange.
Ardin responded to a friend who was looking for Assange : "He's not here. He's planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?"
The Swedish police, totally railroaded the investigation. Interviews have been leaked with Assange, and Wilen commented initially "that she became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.".
Assange went freely for interview to the police station and was released without immediate charge, and was free to travel. Almost immediately there after, another warrant was issued for his arrest.
Eventually, it was also upgraded to an Interpol "Red Notice".
It's alleged (from the transcripts), that Sweden has frankly always been the United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump", the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"
Assange's legal team are clearly trying to point out that US is coercing all of this behind the scenes so that he can then be extradited from Sweden and face trial for conspiracy to commit espionage.
> The burden should be on the United States Government to say, "We are not planning to prosecute Julian Assange". If they just gave that assurance, I can guarantee you that Julian Assange would go to Sweden tomorrow.
----------------
This is hugely and unequivocally politically motivated. I'm British, and I am largely ashamed that pressure is not being placed on Sweden by the foreign minister to have them reinvestigate the extradition request. Also, Sweden will, and has previously done all it can to scratch America's back.
Assange should stay put, until US says "we will not pursue extradition from Sweden". (Which they will not do.)
He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she
slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously
expressed wishes, before arguing that because she
subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of
intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as
consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to
have held a woman down against her will during a sexual
encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant]
was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she]
felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina
directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a
condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze
her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she]
tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had
stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her
legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without
using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since
she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this
could end badly.”
The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events.
Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.
Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.
The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense of Assange.
But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid.
The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be given in Sweden.
'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.'
It is not only the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims plus an attempt by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the prosecutions alleged facts.
This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday.
Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.
I don't even think that question matters. The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange? If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't. The suggestion that Sweden is so corrupt that it can't handle basic criminal law is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. No evidence has been presented to support it, at all.
The rest of the argument is to my ears just fever talk. Some US muckity muck said Assange should be killed? Ok. I won't vote for that moron. There are also US politicians who believe we should have nuked Iraq. There was never any real risk that we we going to fire nuclear weapons at a 3rd world country. Random politicians say all sorts of idiotic things. Thankfully, they cannot suspend criminal law as a result.
Of course it matters. If the answer to the question you were asked - and evaded - is yes, then the answer to your question is pretty much automatically no.
The suggestion that Sweden can't handle basic criminal law when they have political motivations for their actions has been well demonstrated by the fact that Swedish police have in the past violated Swedish law and international treaties by handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA without due process. In fact, without any process at all. In order for them to be shipped off to be tortured.
I don't begrudge you your right to care about this stuff, but I don't. At all. If there's a legitimate rape charge leveled in Sweden against Assange, or the Dalai Lama, or bassist Roman Glyck of 80s hair metal sensation Jackyl, I think extradition is a reasonable course of action.
So all China needs is for a Chinese woman to claim the Dalai Lama raped her in China, and China can demand the Dalai Lama be extradited to China! Brilliant!
You are just circling around now. If the rape charge is politically motivated, then it is not legitimate. So the question of whether or not this case is politically motivated remain.
Of course this is ignoring the fact there is no rape charge as of yet.
Whether or not the rape investigation is politically motivated or not is irrelevant, it must still be investigated. And part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
In reality, the investigation will most likely be dropped since they don't seem to have any evidence and it's their words against his.
> part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
If this is politically motivated, Sweden wants Assange in their jurisdiction to extradite him -- which seems plausible given that Sweden refuses to interview Assange over phone or in the UK. Does that seem normal to you? To have a suspect extradited for "interviewing"?
> The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange?
No that's not the question, because 1) Assange has not been charged with anything and 2) Sweden has been offered the chance to question him in the UK (as they did in a murder case involving a trip to Serbia for questioning), or alternatively question him in Sweden, but guarantee that he will not be extradited to a third country. That they've refused all offers is a clear indication that their primary motive is not quick resolution of this particular case.
> If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't.
The UK denied an extradition request for the Chilean dictator Pinochet, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of public record. "'If they can' the UK 'must' honor its extradition treaty" is a statement that doesn't seem to say much at all.
Also, considering this situation involves the West's most famous dissident, it is important to consider all actions and irregularities in a more considered light. The issuing of the Interpol notice was highly irregular, Sweden's actions were highly political, and the Supreme Court's final consideration of the legality of the request was found to be wrong by the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law:
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]
Does a law journal's opinion take legal precedence over the final decision of a Supreme court? Of course not. Does Assange's status as a Western dissident absolve him from any transgressions? Of course not. But the totality of these highly irregular and unusual actions demonstrate a clear pattern of political persecution. The naive political / legal reduction of this case that some undertake just seems like wilful ignorance.
Is absolutely matters. If Sweden picks and chooses which rapists to prosecute based on how wanted they are in the US then they have 0 credibility. Beyond that, I imagine if Ecuador allowed him to be extradited to Sweden he would immediately be extradited to the US, which is why the logic that he is being extradited for rape charges is ridiculous. This is the most blatantly politically motivated thing I've ever seen. How people are naive enough to consider every possibility except for that kind of amazes me.
It shouldn't matter Consider the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape allegetaion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn). It was widely claimed that Sarkozy was behind this, it was public lynching for the presidential candidate, etc. Although this may or may not be true, the question remains: Did he or did he not engage in nonconsensual sexual acts with the hotel maid. The political motivation is irrelevant in this regard, and should be investigated and discussed separately.
I don't know the particulars of the rape allegations against Assange (nor do I care); however, automatically dismissing them because of hos other involvements seems to me wrong.
This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer where he is stipulating to the statements provided by the prosecution for the purposes of an extradition hearing where the court will view the evidence as favorable as reasonable to the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyers presentation of the prosecutions claims followed by his attempt at making the claim there is no case even if the facts are entirely as alleged by the opposing party.
Presenting this as Assange's lawyers somehow agreeing that these are the facts is misleading at best. His lawyer goes on to specifically state that for the purposes of the hearing it is irrelevant whether or not Assange agrees with this version of events.
I don't think that's entirely true, but it's perhaps more true than not. I addressed it upthread.
The only issue being litigated in this thread and in UK court is "is this rape charge so ridiculous that the UK should refuse to honor its extradition treaty with Sweden over it". I don't see any reasonable argument for that assertion here.
Sweden is not an Orwellian dystopia. It's an especially enlightened and socially conscious state, even (perhaps especially) compared to the US.
It's a country that have admitted to having handed political asylum seekers over to the CIA so they could ship them back to the regime they were fleeing in order for them to be tortured.
While it did cause an uproar, it took a couple of months before Swedish military intelligence uncovered that illegal CIA rendition were still ongoing, with the involvement of Swedish airport staff.
Sweden has an extensive history of various services violating Swedish law in order to bend over for the US behind the scenes.
No, we are not an Orwellian dystopia. But we have still helped CIA to deport and torture by proxy totally innocent innocent asylum seekers. If I were Assange I would not wish to gamble on that not happening again.
Now, before you downvote me, as I see some 'enlightened' readers already have, consider whether a male would get a fair trial in Sweden on any sexual accusation.
Is this not 'radical feminism'? Is it not also kind of insane? Don't shoot the messenger.
She goes to a shelter for battered women and complains that they don't like the men who battered them, and maybe don't want to risk being battered again-- she calls this extremism. I call it once burned.
Burning Ken Dolls in front of a camera is not journalism.
The whole section in the middle where you describe the relationship between Assange and the two women – I’m honestly not really sure what you want to say with that. Do you think those facts make it less likely that rape occurred?
None of the facts you presented would lead me to adjust the probability that a rape actually occurred down.
Most commonly rape happens between people who know each other, not in some dark alley between total strangers. The fact that the women knew Assange and even expressed that they liked him doesn’t make rape less plausible. I can’t see how that can be evidence for some sort of conspiracy.
Similarly, victims of rape becoming distraught with the process and essentially giving up on it – especially with one that is so very public – isn’t something that would surprise me, so I’m also not sure why that is evidence in favor of a government conspiracy.
I don’t really care whether Assange really raped someone (I think the very capable Swedish justice system is perfectly able to sort that out), I’m only interested in whether there is any evidence that points to a government conspiracy – and I honestly do not see anything.
In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception.
If these women approached a lawyer in the US with their side of what happened, the lawyer would advise not to bring the matter to criminal court, with civil court also being a waste of time.
That's like fucking a prostitute (somewhere where it's legal) and then refusing to pay her. You didn't rape her, you simply tricked (defrauded) her! Rape can't be decided upon after sex! (Unless you were legally unable to give consent in the first place.)
Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
It's always really entertaining to me to see a bunch of dudes moralizing over what does and doesn't constitute rape.
EDIT: Preemptively: yes, I know; men can be raped, and not just in prison. Believe me, I know this better than you even want to guess at or speculate about. That doesn't change one whit the fact that people tend to talk shit and judge the world from their own categories and preconceptions, and not others'. This (generally, not specifically; your comment was simply the one that pushed my "Okay, I need to say something about this nonsense" button hard enough to actually respond) is just one of the more egregious examples of that.
It's kinda important for us as well. Just as women are generally the victims of rape, men are usually the victims of false rape allegations (I'm not saying that they are either more or less frequent (in the Western world), probably rape is more frequent, but I guess we'll never really know. In any case, I'd guess that false rape allegation can be just as devastating, if not more, as a rape).
As a man, I'd just like to know when it's ok to have sex with a woman without risking being accused of rape. Therefore, my opinion is that rape can not be declared after the fact.
You won't be accused of raping a woman if you avoid lying to her about using a condom, avoid coercing her to do things she actually doesn't want to.. stuff like that.
If you feel that you won't get laid because women "always say no when they mean yes" you can remind them that nowadays, if they mean yes they'd better say yes, or THEY won't get laid.
We're not saying rape. We're saying våldtäkt (which is a broad term). The closest equivalent your language has is rape. Something apparently gets lost in the translation, as is so often the case.
Let me give another example of a broad term: Violence. It can mean one kid pushing another on the play ground. It can also mean dropping a nuclear bomb on a city. Do you also think it's disrespectful to the victims of Hiroshima to ask the boy on the playground to stop being violent?
> Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
I'm glad you've apparently surveyed every rape victim and asked them if this law is insulting to them. I'm sure you're not just talking out of your ass about an extremely delicate and traumatic subject.
In the wiki article, it says that it's only recognized in a few jurisdictions.
Thank god, I say (as a man, the sex usually accused of rape). Otherwise it would be too easy to accuse everybody of rape. I believe that a necessary ingredient of rape is intent, as well. So, if she seems willing to have sex with me (and she's not too drunk with me being sober), I will have sex with her, and it would be really bad form for her to come after me the next morning and say that she didn't really want to have sex. I can only hope that the law doesn't allow that.
Also, see above my example of a prostitute. Is that also rape by deception?
I can hardly fantom that regret for having had sex with someone can be as traumatic as being forced/drugged into having sex.
You, like a staggering number of men on the Internet, have developed some notion that women go around randomly accusing people of rape all the time— like it's such a common occurrence that we need to devote time and laws to prevent it. The exact opposite is true: Women are most often times afraid to come forward about a rape due to fear of being ostracized. In fact, even when reporting a rape accusation, officers will often times mark an accusation as "unfounded" just because the victim didn't fight off the suspect![0]
Women aren't going around changing their mind post coitus about whether they wanted to have sex with you just like you aren't about them. It's incredibly rare and a notion perpetuated by people who really don't want to face the fact that rape and sexual assault are problems in our society.
I admit that I probably am biased, mostly because of (1) "the fight for justice" (I feel the need to present the arguments for the "other" side, so that both sides have arguments), and (2) because I often reflect upon these situations from the first person (I would never rape someone), so I'm wondering, "could this happen to me with me being innocent?"
Also, I never said that rape isn't a problem. It is. But so are false accusations of rape. Maybe a smaller problem, but a problem nonetheless.
"In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception."
• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex.
• "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW).
• "Sexual molestation" - "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body."
• "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.
I'm pretty sure having sex with someone who's asleep is illegal in the USA as well. Various countries (incl. UK) have the "I'll have sex with you only if you use a condom", and then taking off a condom later, would count as sex without consent.
"Miscommunication"? You must be joking. They consented to have sex if he used a condom. He tricked one of them and forced the other one to penetrate without a condom. That is sex without consent. And AFAIK it is not the first time he did this. This seems to be his MO.
I am not saying he should be extradited to Sweden without a guaranty he will not be sent to the US. But the allegations are serious.
I don’t care about the details of Swedish law with regards to rape (or more specifically: I only care when someone really loudly exclaims that something that is obviously rape isn’t), I do care about evidence presented in favor of a conspiracy. I commented only on why I think the presented evidence is not convincing me of a conspiracy, not (e.g.) whether it convinces me of whether Assange actually raped or not.
Have you done research on this? Because I have, and short-lived outward displays that "Everything's GREAT!" are a very common response to psychological trauma. You see this in victims of many types of psychological trauma, including torture, violence, and yes, sexual assault.
Sorry - that doesn't cut it I'm afraid. When someone is accusing someone else of something as serious as "rape" - and it is simply "word against word" (no physical evidence, no witnesses, no violence, etc), one ONLY has the actions and credibility of the parties involved both before and after the events in question. In this case, it appears plain that the sex was consensual, in both cases. The behaviour afterwards (Willen refusing to sign a rail-roaded statement and Ardin continuing to cuddle up and have more sex) would seem to indicate all was well. In cases such as this, the CONTEXT of the behaviours before, during and after the events are ALL-IMPORTANT. And in THIS case, when you factor in the political gain to be had from smearing and legally debilitating Assange, combined with the absolutely clusterfucked process via which they (eventually) launched arrest warrants and red notices, combined with their leaks to the press and unwillingness to question Assange by phone, videolink or in person in the UK ... really leads one to believe there is more going on behind the scenes than can be seen. At the end of the day, a simple question suffices. Would any of this be happening if the guy involved was JOE BLOGGS, rather than Julian Assange? The simple answer to that is "of course not." So ... what are we talking about again?
Sorry, your rationalization doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
When someone has BEEN raped, and I know you don't want to hear this, there is very often a reluctance to admit that's what happened. And of course, a HUGE reluctance to be treated like a filthy liar by people who really want their hero to not have raped someone.
It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone to fuck up and create a situation that will be a huge political debility. It's perfectly possible that your idol- and mine-- isn't so great when his 'nads get involved.
It's been a while since I read through various reporting and accounts, but as I recall from memory, here are a few pertinent points:
- The two women involved asked whether Assange could be compelled to take a test for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). They did not allege rape.
- The initial prosecutor dropped their investigation as not meeting criteria that would merit its continuance.
- Later, a second prosecutor -- in a different district and with no prior involvement -- picked the case up and pursued it further. Why?
- Assange stayed in Sweden upwards of a month and did participate in questioning. He left after the case was supposedly dropped and he was told, in response to his question, that he was free to travel abroad.
- Subsequent to his travel to England, Swedish authorities reopened the case and sought him for further questioning.
- Assange was willing to participate in further questioning, but upon advice of his attorneys declined to return to Sweden. Swedish law permits questioning to procede under such circumstances.
- Up to this point, Assange was not charged with any crime. He was simply "wanted for further questioning". If anything, the Swedish prosecutors seemed to be going out of their way to avoid charging him with any crime -- perhaps seeking to avoid causing any "warning", either informally or in some legal sense.
- When Assange refused to return, Sweden finally issued an Interpol Red Notice. Red Notices are the highest level of Interpol "flag". They are very rarely used. This was issued for someone wanted for questioning regarding alleged rape -- an allegation apparently made by a prosecutor but not by the actual alleged victims.
- Some fairly convincing, if circumstantial, evidence has been identified and reported that the U.S. has indeed convened a grand jury. This includes someone having identified the specific grand jury identification number. Decomposition of said number (it's constructed using various aspects of the grand jury timing and topic) shows that the grand jury is investigating a topic pertaining the Espionage Act.
- Apparently (I've seen less on this), one of the women involved has refused to sign her initial statements or to participate further in the Swedish investigation. The other woman has left Sweden. Now, granted, publicity and "blowback" from Assange supporters might well be a cause for this. But we don't have any reports of this being the case nor of specific events that might show such activity. On the other hand, it does not present a picture of two victims of rape seeking justice (in Sweden, where women's rights are much more supported than in many countries).
--
I don't mean to minimize the very real crime and trauma of rape. But upon digging into the specific details and timeline of this situation, it really starts to stink.
P.S. I'm reading some of the more specific, step by step descriptions of the sexual activity allegedly involved. If Assange did indeed force intercourse without the use of a condom, then I'm all for him being charged. Although this still seems at odds with the publicly observed personal interactions that continued for days after the alleged events.
Even if this were to be the case, it does not mean that the U.S. is not leaving no stone unturned in its effort to get its hands on Assange. And, if nothing else, the treatment of Manning -- now formally classified as torture by the U.N. -- seems to provide clear indication that extradition to the U.S. might well result in the violation of Assange's rights.
This is what happens when a government stoops to criminal activity. It no longer has any credence, even were its case to be legitimate.
And finally, once again, I'll ask: Where are the reprimands and punishments for those responsible who mis-designed and mis-managed such a fucked up intelligence information system? And for those whose criminal activities were identified by the leaked information.
Most countries don't make such a big deal of talking about freedom and liberty and democracy etc. Most countries don't call themselves 'the land of the free'.
Is it common practice to raid foreign embassies because of rape allegations? I was undecided about the allegations, but I think the current situation makes it pretty clear that this is not about the rape allegations at all.
Your parallel is not analogous. The reason is that Ecuador, like Assange, can and presumably does claim to legitimately believe that this is not really about rape but some political motivation.
Whereas the UK has to act commensurately with their official belief that it's "just" a rape charge.
The comment you are responding to is a response to the argument that since the UK is doing something unusual in rape charges (discussing their options to get Assange out of the embassy), this is not really about the rape charges.
But that doesn't follow. It is ABSOLUTELY relevant that UK's unusual actions occur in an unusual context they didn't set up: indeed, most rape charges do not coincide with diplomatic shielding by an embassy, so diplomatic issues do not arise.
Nefarious, deceptive motivations on the part of the UK are not a necessary condition for its response, because shielding someone from the host country's criminal justice system is highly diplomatically sensitive even where it is justified.
Yes, for the UK it CAN be about something other than the rape charge, WITHOUT it being about some nefarious plot to assassinate Assange for Uncle Sam: it can be about what the UK sees as abuse of the privileges it gives to the embassy.
Allow me to paraphrase your point (not to ridicule it, just to (i) make sure I understand and (ii) maybe help someone else follow it):
"Yes, it absolutely would be common practice to raid an embassy over (what started as) a rape charge, in the unlikely event that the accused and the embassy had both been silly enough to escalate it into a faux diplomatic immunity situation by unreasonably seeking and unreasonably granting asylum."
OK, now I've thought about it and I'm going to ridicule your point :).
The situation is that Assange says he's politically persecuted in the UK and therefore his asylum request is legitimate, the UK says he's not and it isn't.
But what else was the UK going to say? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to have the UK be the final arbiter on this point.
Since there's no other authority we can reasonably appeal to, we must accept Ecuador's judgement as final, and consequently, the UK should not override this judgement by force.
You can't very well ridicule my point when you haven't understood it; when you do, I will welcome any genuine and honest criticism you have.
- Ecuador decides to harbor a fugitive from British law. This itself is not 'standard practice' and it may or may not be justified.
- This alone can create a sensitive, high-profile diplomatic situation. There is really no 'standard practice' for when an embassy harbors someone over a rape charge. It is already an international incident.
- That situation easily explains the sharpness of the exchange, including e.g. legal discussion of the UK's rights with respect to embassy closure - and, in reply, public statements to pressure the UK. In both directions, such sharpness is not at all unexpected for a dispute like this. There is no international law principle of 'well, it's only rape so there is nothing we can do about it.'
- So it is not necessary to assume other motives for the UK to explain the UK's actions (whether they are sensible actions or not is a separate issue from whether there are other motives - they can be idiots who are very concerned with some matter of the international relationship or principle far out of proportion with the practical importance of Assange)
- So it cannot serve as the basis to an 'argument to the best explanation' concluding with an ulterior UK motive
That's all I argued in the post you were replying to.
APART from that, you seem to want to talk about other things . I don't want to encourage you to conflate those with the argument I gave above, but it seems rude to ignore your distinct topic, so I'll write a paragraph about it as well.
I can't say that your reasoning makes sense to me: 'it is unreasonable for the UK to be the final arbiter, therefore Ecuador must be the final arbiter.' If this argument has a basis, you haven't stated it; by what principle do you reject 'it is unreasonable for Ecuador to be the final arbiter, therefore the UK must be'? Insofar as they are both sovereign states and one does not start out with partisan assumptions, any legal basis for settlement would lie in the mutually agreed terms for the hosting of the embassy. And the upshot of this is not 100% obvious because sovereign countries do have the right under international treaties to close embassies - although that does not necessarily mean it is a prudent thing to do in any case, or in this case.
That isn't at all what I said, it is exactly ridicule.
The UK didn't raid the embassy.
If the embassy says 'we are harboring this criminal' that is inherently diplomatically difficult. There is absolutely historical precedent for sharply worded letters back and forth.
IIRC he hasn't even been charged with anything yet. They are still at the "we would like him to help with our inquiries" stage officially.
There are provisions in place between us and Sweden for relevant interviews to be done by video phone, by their police visiting, or by proxy (with our police handling the interview). Apparently all such options have been offered and refused.
If this were just about the rape case, there would be no such effort to retrieve him physically until charges were officially recorded.
Even if the general conspiracy theory is complete hogswash, there is definitely something extra to be considered here. The rape allegations and the way he has been pursued have become two separate matters because the way he has been pursued is significantly disproportionate to how such a case would normally progress. Whether he did it or not (and if he did significant punishment should be served) the authorities still have questions to answer as to why they are pushing in an unusual manner.
How about you stick to the facts and you reword your statement to:
"Is it common practice to grant asylum to a man wanted for questioning over accusations that he sexually assaulted two women?"
Not as much punch?
What's with all the miss-leading statements? Is it safe to assume they're intentional? After all, this is Hacker News, and people wouldn't just pipe in on a topic without having at least a tiny bit of information on the subject right?
While beating your breast about intentionally skewed wording and heavily implying that the other guy is lying by omission, you do the same thing yourself!
Is it normal for an embassy's shielding of someone from the host country's criminal justice system to become a diplomatic issue? Yes, of course it is. Even if the accusation is minor, the diplomatic issue is between the UK and Ecuador and its severity is not determined by the accused, but by the legal interactions of the UK and Ecuador.
However, if you are on one side of the issue it is much more persuasive to say that the UK is treating Ecuador like a colony, that the UK wants to send Assange to Sweden so he will be secretly sent someplace and assassinated by the CIA. None of which is actually substantiated.
It is common for it to become a diplomatic issue. It is NOT common for one party to threaten to enter the other partys embassy. That is, in fact, quite unheard of.
In the UK, as far as I know it has happened exactly _once_: To evict squatters from the Cambodian embassy after it had been unused by the Cambodian government for nearly 12 years in order to prevent them from gaining title to the property.
The UK has, despite having had this law on the books for 25 years, not used it a single time against an embassy that is actually in use. Most countries does not have laws authorising this kind of entry at all.
Even dictatorships none of us like to compare us generally treat embassies as entirely inviolate, and more than once have provided free passage for people who have obtained asylum in an embassy. Many of said regimes routinely claim these people are common criminals.
In other words: The UK has done something that is absolutely outrageous by even bringing this up.
On the other hand, what is not unheard of, is CIA agents getting people of interest gift wrapped by Swedish police in violation of Swedish law, and being allowed to strip them, drug them, chain them and ship them off to be tortured by dictatorial regimes.
That is something the Swedish government has admitted to having been complicit in.
However, I believe what Ecuador has done is also unheard of. Based off a pedantic reply to my mail, has anyone else ever given asylum to somehow who is wanted for questioning over accusations that he sexually assaulted two women.
The UK government claims all that is happening here is that normal UK, Swedish and European law is being applied to investigate a sexual assault charge.
One important thing, which I'm not sure I'll word right which is unfortunate. One important thing to remember is that by giving asylum Ecuador can be seen as highly insulting the UK, by effectively saying they can not be trusted to deal with this issue in a fair, non-political way. The UK government must respond to this accusation in the highest possible terms.
I'm saying it is outrageous for the UK government to use a UK law that was put in place to deal with extreme circumstances involving terrorism and threats to national security as a thinly veiled threat in a case that revolves around someone wanted for questioning about a rape and sexual assault, yes.
Especially when making use of said law might very well be in violation of international treaties, and have severe implications for the diplomatic protections of embassies worldwide.
You're mixing up "mention" and "use", which makes it very hard to understand which you mean. Maybe what you're trying to say is that it would be outrageous if they invoked that statue.
No. I meant what I wrote. It is outrageous that they are using the law in question as a threat.
I'm sure I could have formulated it otherwise, but your suggestion states something different, which implies no condemnation of the action they have already taken: They have already used the law in question as a threat by mentioning it in their letter to the government of Ecuador.
Actually making use of it would not merely be outrageous, it would be a violation of international law.
I actually never weighed in with an opinion on whether he should be have been granted asylum or not. I simply said that I prefer fact over fiction and miss-leading statements whether intentional or out of ignorance. I don't see how that puts me in the same boat.
Saying "wanted for rape" gets people riled up and makes him look like a douche (which he may very well be, but that's irrelevant). It derails intelligent and logical discussion in favour of emotional reaction. Fox News 101.
> Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.
Your argument is that the government is evil enough to extradite him on trumped up charges in order to have him killed, but also somehow incapable of telling a lie.
Support of the people is not something our politicians worry about before doing things. Look at SOPA/PIPA. "Better to apologize than ask permission." For people working unelected executive branch positions (police, for example) it would be even more unlikely.
The US will never say that and are right to do so.
Even if based on everything they know right now they honestly believed that to be true, what if they found new evidence tomorrow that changed their view?
The best you could ever get from them is "we have no plans based on what we know now" and that simply wouldn't be enough.
Patiño made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.
Sure, but that makes Sweden pretty much the only party in this game to be able to break the deadlock without endangering Assange's life: just fly your prosecutor to London and question Assange. Decide whether to raise charges or not.
If not, revoke the extradition request. Problem solved.
The current situation is probably costing each country involved more time and money per hour than the travel expenses for the questioning trip would be.
Setting aside the flying around across borders, is that a normal way to treat rape cases? - to have some arbitrary individual privately talk with the accused in order to decide to dismiss the charges unilaterally? Does that meaningfully decide the facts of a case or have you proposed a one-man trial with no purpose other than dismissing the charge?
If so, why even fly anyone in? Just dismiss the charge if that is what you really intend to do.
> If so, why even fly anyone in? Just dismiss the charge if that is what you really intend to do.
By the same argument they could have him charged in absentia. It is just complete nonsense from the Swedish prosecutor to pretend as if that is not possible under Swedish law.
So why this circus? A formal charge much earlier on would have stripped a bunch of issues from the case. E.g. the fact there is no formal charge was a big issue during the extradition hearings.
But of course a formal charge would also mean that the prosecutor would have to make fairly public binding statements in front of a Swedish court, and provide wider discovery to Assange's lawyers. Perhaps she is not prepared to do that.
You have your facts wrong. There is no rape case - it's an alleged rape case. He's only wanted for a secondary questioning. There are no charges, so none can be dismissed. He's being extradited to Sweden for questioning only - at least that's the official story. They could easily do that in London as well.
Bringing charges works different in Sweden from in the US. In Sweden it is the starting point of the actual trial, and it relies on the secondary questioning having already taken place. There are no charges precisely because Assange's behavior is obstructing the phase where charges can be raised.
That certainly isn't the usual way to handle such cases, but this also isn't exactly the usual kind of situation.
You either have this deadlock continuing indefinitely with nobody getting justice, or Sweden takes the more pragmatic approach and questions Assange in London (by flying whatever people would've been questioning him in Sweden there).
> The current situation is probably costing each country involved more time and money per hour than the travel expenses for the questioning trip would be.
By now, I imagine they could be flown in by singing angels for every day of the questioning and it would still be cheaper than maintaining the current mess.
Everything makes sense, always. It just may be that you are looking at it the wrong way, or assuming the wrong motivations.
Comments
Reading down through all of the comments, I can see that people have a totally mixed opinion of how this can happen. Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.
Onto the other topic of the rape charges, I think some people don't fully understand the facts surrounding the charge. I didn't either until I spent thirty minutes and read this article: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...
But from this transcript... these are the key points:
-------------
The "sexual assault/rape/molestation" charges were filed after two women Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen went to the police to seek advice if they could compel Assange to take a STD test since they did not use a condom during sex.
Both of the women went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm, however, it is mentioned that Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen.
Ardin had been frequently in the company of Assange. She had previously described him as such a "cool man" (Twitter). They also arrived and left together at a Crayfish party (equivalent of a cocktail party). Ardin was sharing accomodation with Assange and had refused an offer from someone else for temporary accomodation.
The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".
SMS text messages were also exchanged between Sofia and Ardin, which showed that the two of them knew of the relationship between each other and Assange.
Ardin responded to a friend who was looking for Assange : "He's not here. He's planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?"
The Swedish police, totally railroaded the investigation. Interviews have been leaked with Assange, and Wilen commented initially "that she became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.". Assange went freely for interview to the police station and was released without immediate charge, and was free to travel. Almost immediately there after, another warrant was issued for his arrest.
Eventually, it was also upgraded to an Interpol "Red Notice".
It's alleged (from the transcripts), that Sweden has frankly always been the United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump", the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"
Assange's legal team are clearly trying to point out that US is coercing all of this behind the scenes so that he can then be extradited from Sweden and face trial for conspiracy to commit espionage.
> The burden should be on the United States Government to say, "We are not planning to prosecute Julian Assange". If they just gave that assurance, I can guarantee you that Julian Assange would go to Sweden tomorrow.
----------------
This is hugely and unequivocally politically motivated. I'm British, and I am largely ashamed that pressure is not being placed on Sweden by the foreign minister to have them reinvestigate the extradition request. Also, Sweden will, and has previously done all it can to scratch America's back.
Assange should stay put, until US says "we will not pursue extradition from Sweden". (Which they will not do.)
Here's the testimony from Assange's own lawyers:
He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
That's rape.
You are grossly misrepresenting this.
The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events.
Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.
Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.
The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense of Assange.
But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid.
The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be given in Sweden.
I covered this when I wrote:
'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.'
It is not only the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims plus an attempt by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the prosecutions alleged facts.
That's a highly significant constraint.
This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday.
Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.
A chance in hell for being extradited for rape? Yes. There is.
For the record, do you believe this fiasco isn't politically motivated?
I don't even think that question matters. The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange? If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't. The suggestion that Sweden is so corrupt that it can't handle basic criminal law is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. No evidence has been presented to support it, at all.
The rest of the argument is to my ears just fever talk. Some US muckity muck said Assange should be killed? Ok. I won't vote for that moron. There are also US politicians who believe we should have nuked Iraq. There was never any real risk that we we going to fire nuclear weapons at a 3rd world country. Random politicians say all sorts of idiotic things. Thankfully, they cannot suspend criminal law as a result.
Of course it matters. If the answer to the question you were asked - and evaded - is yes, then the answer to your question is pretty much automatically no.
The suggestion that Sweden can't handle basic criminal law when they have political motivations for their actions has been well demonstrated by the fact that Swedish police have in the past violated Swedish law and international treaties by handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA without due process. In fact, without any process at all. In order for them to be shipped off to be tortured.
How many of these people faced charges?
I don't begrudge you your right to care about this stuff, but I don't. At all. If there's a legitimate rape charge leveled in Sweden against Assange, or the Dalai Lama, or bassist Roman Glyck of 80s hair metal sensation Jackyl, I think extradition is a reasonable course of action.
So all China needs is for a Chinese woman to claim the Dalai Lama raped her in China, and China can demand the Dalai Lama be extradited to China! Brilliant!
You are just circling around now. If the rape charge is politically motivated, then it is not legitimate. So the question of whether or not this case is politically motivated remain.
Of course this is ignoring the fact there is no rape charge as of yet.
Whether or not the rape investigation is politically motivated or not is irrelevant, it must still be investigated. And part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
In reality, the investigation will most likely be dropped since they don't seem to have any evidence and it's their words against his.
> part of that investigation is interviewing Julian Assange to let him give his side.
If this is politically motivated, Sweden wants Assange in their jurisdiction to extradite him -- which seems plausible given that Sweden refuses to interview Assange over phone or in the UK. Does that seem normal to you? To have a suspect extradited for "interviewing"?
There can be a legitimate rape charge that has been grabbed for use by political forces, which is what I see has happened.
Precisely.
Politically convenient rather than politically motivated I suspect.
> The question is, can Sweden objectively and fairly litigate a rape charge involving Julian Assange?
No that's not the question, because 1) Assange has not been charged with anything and 2) Sweden has been offered the chance to question him in the UK (as they did in a murder case involving a trip to Serbia for questioning), or alternatively question him in Sweden, but guarantee that he will not be extradited to a third country. That they've refused all offers is a clear indication that their primary motive is not quick resolution of this particular case.
> If they can, the UK must honor its extradition treaty. If they can't, the UK shouldn't.
The UK denied an extradition request for the Chilean dictator Pinochet, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of public record. "'If they can' the UK 'must' honor its extradition treaty" is a statement that doesn't seem to say much at all.
Also, considering this situation involves the West's most famous dissident, it is important to consider all actions and irregularities in a more considered light. The issuing of the Interpol notice was highly irregular, Sweden's actions were highly political, and the Supreme Court's final consideration of the legality of the request was found to be wrong by the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law:
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]
Does a law journal's opinion take legal precedence over the final decision of a Supreme court? Of course not. Does Assange's status as a Western dissident absolve him from any transgressions? Of course not. But the totality of these highly irregular and unusual actions demonstrate a clear pattern of political persecution. The naive political / legal reduction of this case that some undertake just seems like wilful ignorance.
[1] http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&vi...
Is absolutely matters. If Sweden picks and chooses which rapists to prosecute based on how wanted they are in the US then they have 0 credibility. Beyond that, I imagine if Ecuador allowed him to be extradited to Sweden he would immediately be extradited to the US, which is why the logic that he is being extradited for rape charges is ridiculous. This is the most blatantly politically motivated thing I've ever seen. How people are naive enough to consider every possibility except for that kind of amazes me.
It shouldn't matter Consider the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape allegetaion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn). It was widely claimed that Sarkozy was behind this, it was public lynching for the presidential candidate, etc. Although this may or may not be true, the question remains: Did he or did he not engage in nonconsensual sexual acts with the hotel maid. The political motivation is irrelevant in this regard, and should be investigated and discussed separately.
I don't know the particulars of the rape allegations against Assange (nor do I care); however, automatically dismissing them because of hos other involvements seems to me wrong.
sources?
Right here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-e...
This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer.
It does lose the context of the lawyer continuing on that Assange eventually did find and use a condom.
This is from testimony given by Assange's lawyer where he is stipulating to the statements provided by the prosecution for the purposes of an extradition hearing where the court will view the evidence as favorable as reasonable to the prosecution.
In other words, this is Assange's lawyers presentation of the prosecutions claims followed by his attempt at making the claim there is no case even if the facts are entirely as alleged by the opposing party.
Presenting this as Assange's lawyers somehow agreeing that these are the facts is misleading at best. His lawyer goes on to specifically state that for the purposes of the hearing it is irrelevant whether or not Assange agrees with this version of events.
I don't think that's entirely true, but it's perhaps more true than not. I addressed it upthread.
The only issue being litigated in this thread and in UK court is "is this rape charge so ridiculous that the UK should refuse to honor its extradition treaty with Sweden over it". I don't see any reasonable argument for that assertion here.
Sweden is not an Orwellian dystopia. It's an especially enlightened and socially conscious state, even (perhaps especially) compared to the US.
It's a country that have admitted to having handed political asylum seekers over to the CIA so they could ship them back to the regime they were fleeing in order for them to be tortured.
While it did cause an uproar, it took a couple of months before Swedish military intelligence uncovered that illegal CIA rendition were still ongoing, with the involvement of Swedish airport staff.
Sweden has an extensive history of various services violating Swedish law in order to bend over for the US behind the scenes.
No, we are not an Orwellian dystopia. But we have still helped CIA to deport and torture by proxy totally innocent innocent asylum seekers. If I were Assange I would not wish to gamble on that not happening again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
I beg to differ. Sweden is thought by many especially enlightened people to be case study in radical feminist insanity.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-...
"Radical feminist insanity". Here's where I get off this train. Have fun, all.
The Gender War is a two hour documentary by journalist Evin Rubar, about radical feminism and its influence on Swedish politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U&list=PL849AE3...
Now, before you downvote me, as I see some 'enlightened' readers already have, consider whether a male would get a fair trial in Sweden on any sexual accusation.
Is this not 'radical feminism'? Is it not also kind of insane? Don't shoot the messenger.
She goes to a shelter for battered women and complains that they don't like the men who battered them, and maybe don't want to risk being battered again-- she calls this extremism. I call it once burned.
Burning Ken Dolls in front of a camera is not journalism.
See this page on Swedish rape laws. In Sweden you are guilty until proven innocent in cases of alleged rape.
http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html
Still being downvoted, no reasons given. How about a link from the feminist section of Slate?
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_s...
Insane? Radical? You decide!
Oh? No SCUM for you? Bye!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM
The whole section in the middle where you describe the relationship between Assange and the two women – I’m honestly not really sure what you want to say with that. Do you think those facts make it less likely that rape occurred?
None of the facts you presented would lead me to adjust the probability that a rape actually occurred down.
Most commonly rape happens between people who know each other, not in some dark alley between total strangers. The fact that the women knew Assange and even expressed that they liked him doesn’t make rape less plausible. I can’t see how that can be evidence for some sort of conspiracy.
Similarly, victims of rape becoming distraught with the process and essentially giving up on it – especially with one that is so very public – isn’t something that would surprise me, so I’m also not sure why that is evidence in favor of a government conspiracy.
I don’t really care whether Assange really raped someone (I think the very capable Swedish justice system is perfectly able to sort that out), I’m only interested in whether there is any evidence that points to a government conspiracy – and I honestly do not see anything.
In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception.
If these women approached a lawyer in the US with their side of what happened, the lawyer would advise not to bring the matter to criminal court, with civil court also being a waste of time.
Swedish law is totally fucked up.
That's like fucking a prostitute (somewhere where it's legal) and then refusing to pay her. You didn't rape her, you simply tricked (defrauded) her! Rape can't be decided upon after sex! (Unless you were legally unable to give consent in the first place.)
Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
It's always really entertaining to me to see a bunch of dudes moralizing over what does and doesn't constitute rape.
EDIT: Preemptively: yes, I know; men can be raped, and not just in prison. Believe me, I know this better than you even want to guess at or speculate about. That doesn't change one whit the fact that people tend to talk shit and judge the world from their own categories and preconceptions, and not others'. This (generally, not specifically; your comment was simply the one that pushed my "Okay, I need to say something about this nonsense" button hard enough to actually respond) is just one of the more egregious examples of that.
It's kinda important for us as well. Just as women are generally the victims of rape, men are usually the victims of false rape allegations (I'm not saying that they are either more or less frequent (in the Western world), probably rape is more frequent, but I guess we'll never really know. In any case, I'd guess that false rape allegation can be just as devastating, if not more, as a rape).
As a man, I'd just like to know when it's ok to have sex with a woman without risking being accused of rape. Therefore, my opinion is that rape can not be declared after the fact.
You won't be accused of raping a woman if you avoid lying to her about using a condom, avoid coercing her to do things she actually doesn't want to.. stuff like that.
If you feel that you won't get laid because women "always say no when they mean yes" you can remind them that nowadays, if they mean yes they'd better say yes, or THEY won't get laid.
eventually it will all shake out.
We're not saying rape. We're saying våldtäkt (which is a broad term). The closest equivalent your language has is rape. Something apparently gets lost in the translation, as is so often the case.
Let me give another example of a broad term: Violence. It can mean one kid pushing another on the play ground. It can also mean dropping a nuclear bomb on a city. Do you also think it's disrespectful to the victims of Hiroshima to ask the boy on the playground to stop being violent?
> We're not saying rape. We're saying våldtäkt (which is a broad term).
Better. Somethings really are lost in translation, I guess.
However, extraditing someone for questioniong for an alleged våldtäkt (not rape) case? I'm guessing there's more than meets the eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
> Saying that it's rape is really inconsiderate and insulting to the actual rape victims...
I'm glad you've apparently surveyed every rape victim and asked them if this law is insulting to them. I'm sure you're not just talking out of your ass about an extremely delicate and traumatic subject.
In the wiki article, it says that it's only recognized in a few jurisdictions.
Thank god, I say (as a man, the sex usually accused of rape). Otherwise it would be too easy to accuse everybody of rape. I believe that a necessary ingredient of rape is intent, as well. So, if she seems willing to have sex with me (and she's not too drunk with me being sober), I will have sex with her, and it would be really bad form for her to come after me the next morning and say that she didn't really want to have sex. I can only hope that the law doesn't allow that.
Also, see above my example of a prostitute. Is that also rape by deception?
I can hardly fantom that regret for having had sex with someone can be as traumatic as being forced/drugged into having sex.
You, like a staggering number of men on the Internet, have developed some notion that women go around randomly accusing people of rape all the time— like it's such a common occurrence that we need to devote time and laws to prevent it. The exact opposite is true: Women are most often times afraid to come forward about a rape due to fear of being ostracized. In fact, even when reporting a rape accusation, officers will often times mark an accusation as "unfounded" just because the victim didn't fight off the suspect![0]
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_st...
Women aren't going around changing their mind post coitus about whether they wanted to have sex with you just like you aren't about them. It's incredibly rare and a notion perpetuated by people who really don't want to face the fact that rape and sexual assault are problems in our society.
I admit that I probably am biased, mostly because of (1) "the fight for justice" (I feel the need to present the arguments for the "other" side, so that both sides have arguments), and (2) because I often reflect upon these situations from the first person (I would never rape someone), so I'm wondering, "could this happen to me with me being innocent?"
Also, I never said that rape isn't a problem. It is. But so are false accusations of rape. Maybe a smaller problem, but a problem nonetheless.
"In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception."
Actually no, that's not what he's been 'charged' with. Read the appeal to the extradition ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ). He's been 'charged' with:
• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex. • "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW). • "Sexual molestation" - "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body." • "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.
I'm pretty sure having sex with someone who's asleep is illegal in the USA as well. Various countries (incl. UK) have the "I'll have sex with you only if you use a condom", and then taking off a condom later, would count as sex without consent.
"Miscommunication"? You must be joking. They consented to have sex if he used a condom. He tricked one of them and forced the other one to penetrate without a condom. That is sex without consent. And AFAIK it is not the first time he did this. This seems to be his MO.
I am not saying he should be extradited to Sweden without a guaranty he will not be sent to the US. But the allegations are serious.
As a Swede I do not think this is true. Do you have any source?
Many myths about Swedish law floating around in these comments.
Again, I don’t really care. I do not see how that’s relevant to the question of whether there is a government conspiracy or not.
If you don't really care, why was the vast majority of your comment concerning it?
I don’t care about the details of Swedish law with regards to rape (or more specifically: I only care when someone really loudly exclaims that something that is obviously rape isn’t), I do care about evidence presented in favor of a conspiracy. I commented only on why I think the presented evidence is not convincing me of a conspiracy, not (e.g.) whether it convinces me of whether Assange actually raped or not.
The UK extradition judge said the same act would be an offence in the UK as well.
> The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".
Really? that doesn't say ANYTHING to you?
the day AFTER. Very few people go out of their way to advertise how cool their rapists are.
Have you done research on this? Because I have, and short-lived outward displays that "Everything's GREAT!" are a very common response to psychological trauma. You see this in victims of many types of psychological trauma, including torture, violence, and yes, sexual assault.
So no, that doesn't say anything to me.
Sorry - that doesn't cut it I'm afraid. When someone is accusing someone else of something as serious as "rape" - and it is simply "word against word" (no physical evidence, no witnesses, no violence, etc), one ONLY has the actions and credibility of the parties involved both before and after the events in question. In this case, it appears plain that the sex was consensual, in both cases. The behaviour afterwards (Willen refusing to sign a rail-roaded statement and Ardin continuing to cuddle up and have more sex) would seem to indicate all was well. In cases such as this, the CONTEXT of the behaviours before, during and after the events are ALL-IMPORTANT. And in THIS case, when you factor in the political gain to be had from smearing and legally debilitating Assange, combined with the absolutely clusterfucked process via which they (eventually) launched arrest warrants and red notices, combined with their leaks to the press and unwillingness to question Assange by phone, videolink or in person in the UK ... really leads one to believe there is more going on behind the scenes than can be seen. At the end of the day, a simple question suffices. Would any of this be happening if the guy involved was JOE BLOGGS, rather than Julian Assange? The simple answer to that is "of course not." So ... what are we talking about again?
Sorry, your rationalization doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
When someone has BEEN raped, and I know you don't want to hear this, there is very often a reluctance to admit that's what happened. And of course, a HUGE reluctance to be treated like a filthy liar by people who really want their hero to not have raped someone.
It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone to fuck up and create a situation that will be a huge political debility. It's perfectly possible that your idol- and mine-- isn't so great when his 'nads get involved.
Very few people go out of their way to advertise how cool their rapists are
Sure they do. "Oh he's a good man really, he doesn't mean to beat me, it's just that he gets angry sometime"
It's been a while since I read through various reporting and accounts, but as I recall from memory, here are a few pertinent points:
- The two women involved asked whether Assange could be compelled to take a test for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). They did not allege rape.
- The initial prosecutor dropped their investigation as not meeting criteria that would merit its continuance.
- Later, a second prosecutor -- in a different district and with no prior involvement -- picked the case up and pursued it further. Why?
- Assange stayed in Sweden upwards of a month and did participate in questioning. He left after the case was supposedly dropped and he was told, in response to his question, that he was free to travel abroad.
- Subsequent to his travel to England, Swedish authorities reopened the case and sought him for further questioning.
- Assange was willing to participate in further questioning, but upon advice of his attorneys declined to return to Sweden. Swedish law permits questioning to procede under such circumstances.
- Up to this point, Assange was not charged with any crime. He was simply "wanted for further questioning". If anything, the Swedish prosecutors seemed to be going out of their way to avoid charging him with any crime -- perhaps seeking to avoid causing any "warning", either informally or in some legal sense.
- When Assange refused to return, Sweden finally issued an Interpol Red Notice. Red Notices are the highest level of Interpol "flag". They are very rarely used. This was issued for someone wanted for questioning regarding alleged rape -- an allegation apparently made by a prosecutor but not by the actual alleged victims.
- Some fairly convincing, if circumstantial, evidence has been identified and reported that the U.S. has indeed convened a grand jury. This includes someone having identified the specific grand jury identification number. Decomposition of said number (it's constructed using various aspects of the grand jury timing and topic) shows that the grand jury is investigating a topic pertaining the Espionage Act.
- Apparently (I've seen less on this), one of the women involved has refused to sign her initial statements or to participate further in the Swedish investigation. The other woman has left Sweden. Now, granted, publicity and "blowback" from Assange supporters might well be a cause for this. But we don't have any reports of this being the case nor of specific events that might show such activity. On the other hand, it does not present a picture of two victims of rape seeking justice (in Sweden, where women's rights are much more supported than in many countries).
--
I don't mean to minimize the very real crime and trauma of rape. But upon digging into the specific details and timeline of this situation, it really starts to stink.
P.S. I'm reading some of the more specific, step by step descriptions of the sexual activity allegedly involved. If Assange did indeed force intercourse without the use of a condom, then I'm all for him being charged. Although this still seems at odds with the publicly observed personal interactions that continued for days after the alleged events.
Even if this were to be the case, it does not mean that the U.S. is not leaving no stone unturned in its effort to get its hands on Assange. And, if nothing else, the treatment of Manning -- now formally classified as torture by the U.N. -- seems to provide clear indication that extradition to the U.S. might well result in the violation of Assange's rights.
This is what happens when a government stoops to criminal activity. It no longer has any credence, even were its case to be legitimate.
And finally, once again, I'll ask: Where are the reprimands and punishments for those responsible who mis-designed and mis-managed such a fucked up intelligence information system? And for those whose criminal activities were identified by the leaked information.
U.S.A. -- land of hypocrisy.
Hey nice post but ... what country isn't the land of hypocrisy?
Most countries don't make such a big deal of talking about freedom and liberty and democracy etc. Most countries don't call themselves 'the land of the free'.
Is it common practice to raid foreign embassies because of rape allegations? I was undecided about the allegations, but I think the current situation makes it pretty clear that this is not about the rape allegations at all.
Is it common practice to grant asylum to people wanted for rape?
Your parallel is not analogous. The reason is that Ecuador, like Assange, can and presumably does claim to legitimately believe that this is not really about rape but some political motivation.
Whereas the UK has to act commensurately with their official belief that it's "just" a rape charge.
The comment you are responding to is a response to the argument that since the UK is doing something unusual in rape charges (discussing their options to get Assange out of the embassy), this is not really about the rape charges.
But that doesn't follow. It is ABSOLUTELY relevant that UK's unusual actions occur in an unusual context they didn't set up: indeed, most rape charges do not coincide with diplomatic shielding by an embassy, so diplomatic issues do not arise.
Nefarious, deceptive motivations on the part of the UK are not a necessary condition for its response, because shielding someone from the host country's criminal justice system is highly diplomatically sensitive even where it is justified.
Yes, for the UK it CAN be about something other than the rape charge, WITHOUT it being about some nefarious plot to assassinate Assange for Uncle Sam: it can be about what the UK sees as abuse of the privileges it gives to the embassy.
Allow me to paraphrase your point (not to ridicule it, just to (i) make sure I understand and (ii) maybe help someone else follow it):
"Yes, it absolutely would be common practice to raid an embassy over (what started as) a rape charge, in the unlikely event that the accused and the embassy had both been silly enough to escalate it into a faux diplomatic immunity situation by unreasonably seeking and unreasonably granting asylum."
OK, now I've thought about it and I'm going to ridicule your point :).
The situation is that Assange says he's politically persecuted in the UK and therefore his asylum request is legitimate, the UK says he's not and it isn't.
But what else was the UK going to say? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to have the UK be the final arbiter on this point.
Since there's no other authority we can reasonably appeal to, we must accept Ecuador's judgement as final, and consequently, the UK should not override this judgement by force.
You can't very well ridicule my point when you haven't understood it; when you do, I will welcome any genuine and honest criticism you have.
- Ecuador decides to harbor a fugitive from British law. This itself is not 'standard practice' and it may or may not be justified.
- This alone can create a sensitive, high-profile diplomatic situation. There is really no 'standard practice' for when an embassy harbors someone over a rape charge. It is already an international incident.
- That situation easily explains the sharpness of the exchange, including e.g. legal discussion of the UK's rights with respect to embassy closure - and, in reply, public statements to pressure the UK. In both directions, such sharpness is not at all unexpected for a dispute like this. There is no international law principle of 'well, it's only rape so there is nothing we can do about it.'
- So it is not necessary to assume other motives for the UK to explain the UK's actions (whether they are sensible actions or not is a separate issue from whether there are other motives - they can be idiots who are very concerned with some matter of the international relationship or principle far out of proportion with the practical importance of Assange)
- So it cannot serve as the basis to an 'argument to the best explanation' concluding with an ulterior UK motive
That's all I argued in the post you were replying to.
APART from that, you seem to want to talk about other things . I don't want to encourage you to conflate those with the argument I gave above, but it seems rude to ignore your distinct topic, so I'll write a paragraph about it as well.
I can't say that your reasoning makes sense to me: 'it is unreasonable for the UK to be the final arbiter, therefore Ecuador must be the final arbiter.' If this argument has a basis, you haven't stated it; by what principle do you reject 'it is unreasonable for Ecuador to be the final arbiter, therefore the UK must be'? Insofar as they are both sovereign states and one does not start out with partisan assumptions, any legal basis for settlement would lie in the mutually agreed terms for the hosting of the embassy. And the upshot of this is not 100% obvious because sovereign countries do have the right under international treaties to close embassies - although that does not necessarily mean it is a prudent thing to do in any case, or in this case.
That isn't at all what I said, it is exactly ridicule.
The UK didn't raid the embassy.
If the embassy says 'we are harboring this criminal' that is inherently diplomatically difficult. There is absolutely historical precedent for sharply worded letters back and forth.
IIRC he hasn't even been charged with anything yet. They are still at the "we would like him to help with our inquiries" stage officially.
There are provisions in place between us and Sweden for relevant interviews to be done by video phone, by their police visiting, or by proxy (with our police handling the interview). Apparently all such options have been offered and refused.
If this were just about the rape case, there would be no such effort to retrieve him physically until charges were officially recorded.
Even if the general conspiracy theory is complete hogswash, there is definitely something extra to be considered here. The rape allegations and the way he has been pursued have become two separate matters because the way he has been pursued is significantly disproportionate to how such a case would normally progress. Whether he did it or not (and if he did significant punishment should be served) the authorities still have questions to answer as to why they are pushing in an unusual manner.
How about you stick to the facts and you reword your statement to:
"Is it common practice to grant asylum to a man wanted for questioning over accusations that he sexually assaulted two women?"
Not as much punch?
What's with all the miss-leading statements? Is it safe to assume they're intentional? After all, this is Hacker News, and people wouldn't just pipe in on a topic without having at least a tiny bit of information on the subject right?
While beating your breast about intentionally skewed wording and heavily implying that the other guy is lying by omission, you do the same thing yourself!
Is it normal for an embassy's shielding of someone from the host country's criminal justice system to become a diplomatic issue? Yes, of course it is. Even if the accusation is minor, the diplomatic issue is between the UK and Ecuador and its severity is not determined by the accused, but by the legal interactions of the UK and Ecuador.
However, if you are on one side of the issue it is much more persuasive to say that the UK is treating Ecuador like a colony, that the UK wants to send Assange to Sweden so he will be secretly sent someplace and assassinated by the CIA. None of which is actually substantiated.
It is common for it to become a diplomatic issue. It is NOT common for one party to threaten to enter the other partys embassy. That is, in fact, quite unheard of.
In the UK, as far as I know it has happened exactly _once_: To evict squatters from the Cambodian embassy after it had been unused by the Cambodian government for nearly 12 years in order to prevent them from gaining title to the property.
The UK has, despite having had this law on the books for 25 years, not used it a single time against an embassy that is actually in use. Most countries does not have laws authorising this kind of entry at all.
Even dictatorships none of us like to compare us generally treat embassies as entirely inviolate, and more than once have provided free passage for people who have obtained asylum in an embassy. Many of said regimes routinely claim these people are common criminals.
In other words: The UK has done something that is absolutely outrageous by even bringing this up.
On the other hand, what is not unheard of, is CIA agents getting people of interest gift wrapped by Swedish police in violation of Swedish law, and being allowed to strip them, drug them, chain them and ship them off to be tortured by dictatorial regimes.
That is something the Swedish government has admitted to having been complicit in.
I agree, what the UK has done is unheard of.
However, I believe what Ecuador has done is also unheard of. Based off a pedantic reply to my mail, has anyone else ever given asylum to somehow who is wanted for questioning over accusations that he sexually assaulted two women.
The UK government claims all that is happening here is that normal UK, Swedish and European law is being applied to investigate a sexual assault charge.
One important thing, which I'm not sure I'll word right which is unfortunate. One important thing to remember is that by giving asylum Ecuador can be seen as highly insulting the UK, by effectively saying they can not be trusted to deal with this issue in a fair, non-political way. The UK government must respond to this accusation in the highest possible terms.
You're saying it's outrageous for the UK government to mention UK law in the UK, is that correct?
I'm saying it is outrageous for the UK government to use a UK law that was put in place to deal with extreme circumstances involving terrorism and threats to national security as a thinly veiled threat in a case that revolves around someone wanted for questioning about a rape and sexual assault, yes.
Especially when making use of said law might very well be in violation of international treaties, and have severe implications for the diplomatic protections of embassies worldwide.
You're mixing up "mention" and "use", which makes it very hard to understand which you mean. Maybe what you're trying to say is that it would be outrageous if they invoked that statue.
No. I meant what I wrote. It is outrageous that they are using the law in question as a threat.
I'm sure I could have formulated it otherwise, but your suggestion states something different, which implies no condemnation of the action they have already taken: They have already used the law in question as a threat by mentioning it in their letter to the government of Ecuador.
Actually making use of it would not merely be outrageous, it would be a violation of international law.
I actually never weighed in with an opinion on whether he should be have been granted asylum or not. I simply said that I prefer fact over fiction and miss-leading statements whether intentional or out of ignorance. I don't see how that puts me in the same boat.
Saying "wanted for rape" gets people riled up and makes him look like a douche (which he may very well be, but that's irrelevant). It derails intelligent and logical discussion in favour of emotional reaction. Fox News 101.
None of which is actually substantiated.
Neither is the rape that he is accused of...
That is not a reason for early dismissal of the charges, however
Oh no, normally the governments and police just ignore the rape. "She was probabaly asking for it" is a common way to brush it under the carpet.
The one thing that's very fishy about this is how determined they are to prosecute this rape case.
> Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.
Your argument is that the government is evil enough to extradite him on trumped up charges in order to have him killed, but also somehow incapable of telling a lie.
If it would have the support of its people in the one but not the other, that doesn't seem so unreasonable.
Support of the people is not something our politicians worry about before doing things. Look at SOPA/PIPA. "Better to apologize than ask permission." For people working unelected executive branch positions (police, for example) it would be even more unlikely.
The US will never say that and are right to do so.
Even if based on everything they know right now they honestly believed that to be true, what if they found new evidence tomorrow that changed their view?
The best you could ever get from them is "we have no plans based on what we know now" and that simply wouldn't be enough.
Apparently Sweden is making no promises either:
Patiño made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-e...
Again, how can Sweden make a decision about an extradition request which hasn't been made?
Sure, but that makes Sweden pretty much the only party in this game to be able to break the deadlock without endangering Assange's life: just fly your prosecutor to London and question Assange. Decide whether to raise charges or not.
If not, revoke the extradition request. Problem solved.
The current situation is probably costing each country involved more time and money per hour than the travel expenses for the questioning trip would be.
Setting aside the flying around across borders, is that a normal way to treat rape cases? - to have some arbitrary individual privately talk with the accused in order to decide to dismiss the charges unilaterally? Does that meaningfully decide the facts of a case or have you proposed a one-man trial with no purpose other than dismissing the charge?
If so, why even fly anyone in? Just dismiss the charge if that is what you really intend to do.
> If so, why even fly anyone in? Just dismiss the charge if that is what you really intend to do.
By the same argument they could have him charged in absentia. It is just complete nonsense from the Swedish prosecutor to pretend as if that is not possible under Swedish law.
So why this circus? A formal charge much earlier on would have stripped a bunch of issues from the case. E.g. the fact there is no formal charge was a big issue during the extradition hearings.
But of course a formal charge would also mean that the prosecutor would have to make fairly public binding statements in front of a Swedish court, and provide wider discovery to Assange's lawyers. Perhaps she is not prepared to do that.
You have your facts wrong. There is no rape case - it's an alleged rape case. He's only wanted for a secondary questioning. There are no charges, so none can be dismissed. He's being extradited to Sweden for questioning only - at least that's the official story. They could easily do that in London as well.
Bringing charges works different in Sweden from in the US. In Sweden it is the starting point of the actual trial, and it relies on the secondary questioning having already taken place. There are no charges precisely because Assange's behavior is obstructing the phase where charges can be raised.
That certainly isn't the usual way to handle such cases, but this also isn't exactly the usual kind of situation.
You either have this deadlock continuing indefinitely with nobody getting justice, or Sweden takes the more pragmatic approach and questions Assange in London (by flying whatever people would've been questioning him in Sweden there).
> The current situation is probably costing each country involved more time and money per hour than the travel expenses for the questioning trip would be.
By now, I imagine they could be flown in by singing angels for every day of the questioning and it would still be cheaper than maintaining the current mess.
Everything makes sense, always. It just may be that you are looking at it the wrong way, or assuming the wrong motivations.
> he should be killed, and put to death
Would that be two consecutive sentences, or would they be served in parallel?