Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[TjW]

The Heads of State of the UNASUR (representing about 400 million people) issued an official declaration in support of Ecuador giving asylum to Assange and stated that it is good to give asylum to people who are threatened for life (in this case, Assange).
They did not say a word about accusations of rape, or the need to bring an alleged raper to justice, which is a puzzle.
And they do not seem much impressed by the position of people like you.
Maybe they are all terrorists psychos.
Or maybe you are been lied to, and you swallowed hook, line and sinker.
(good thing that you are not much in the position to harm anyone, if I may)

I didn't think the Swedes had capital punishment.

 

[Wudang]

They did not say a word about accusations of rape, or the need to bring an alleged raper to justice, which is a puzzle.

Because they want to gloss over that.

And they do not seem much impressed by the position of people like you.
Maybe they are all terrorists psychos.
Or maybe you are been lied to, and you swallowed hook, line and sinker.
(good thing that you are not much in the position to harm anyone, if I may)

They should not care about my position, they should care about the facts. Especially the facts agreed to by Assange and his lawyer which you studiously avoid like the plague.

 

[TjW]

And are they stupid that they do not care about facts?
12 Heads of States are all stupid?
Exactly.
And why on Earth should they talk about capital punishment at all if they believed that Assange would not be at risk to be extradited to the US at all?

Actually, in politics it's often quite convenient to ignore facts, and use emotion to sway people's opinions. So having 12 heads of state ignoring facts in order to make a statement that will emotionally affect their constituencies wouldn't surprise me at all. This doesn't make them stupid. It makes them politicians.
But let's look at it. I've quoted it, but I'll put in some bolding here and there where I want to point something out.

Statement

The Council of Foreign Ministers of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), at an extraordinary meeting in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on August 19, 2012, consider:

That the Ecuadorian minister of foreign relations, commerce and trade informed the Council that the citizen Julian Assange requested political asylum at the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London on June 19, 2012, an issue regarding which the governments of Ecuador, the United Kingdom and Sweden have sustained diplomatic conversations surrounding the request for Assange’s extradition and his request for asylum;

That Ecuador was analysing the request for asylum in accordance with the principles of human rights protections and international law;

That on August 15 the Government of the Republic of Ecuador publicly announced having received from the United Kingdom an aide memoire threatening “to take actions to arrest Mr. Assange at the current location of the Embassy” and invoking its domestic law in the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987;

That according to article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 – of which the United Kingdom is a signatory – that “The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission,” and that “The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution”;

That according to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, States should abstain from resorting to the threat or use of force or acting in any other manner that is incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations in their international relations, and should solve their differences peacefully;

That the United Nations Security Council, in its Press Release SC/10463 dated November 29, 2011, condemned in the strongest terms violations of diplomatic immunity and recalled the fundamental principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic missions and consular offices of receiving States in relation to what is established in the 1961 Vienna Convention of on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations.

The Council of Foreign Ministers of UNASUR hereby:

1. Manifest their solidarity with and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador in light of the threat of the violation of the space of their diplomatic mission.

2. Reiterate the sovereign right of states to grant asylum.

3. Emphatically condemn the threat of the use of force among States and reiterate the full validity of the principles enshrined in international law, respect for sovereignty and strict compliance with international treaties.

4. Reaffirm the basic principle of the inviolability of the spaces of diplomatic missions and consular offices and the obligation of receiver States, in relation to what is established in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations.

5. Reaffirm the principle of international law, by virtue of which domestic law may not be invoked in order to fail to comply with an international law, as is reflected in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

6. Reiterate the validity of the institutions of asylum and refuge that protect the human rights of persons that consider their life or physical integrity to be threatened.

7. Urge the Parties to continue a dialogue and direct negotiation to procure a mutually acceptable solution in accordance with international law.

Guayaquil, Ecuador

UNASUR / August 19, 2012

Note my emphasis.
Well, it's no news that Assange "considers his life to be threatened". He's said it over and over. But of course, his saying so doesn't make it true. His saying so doesn't even make it true that he believes it. It only makes it true that he's said it. We have no way of knowing what he actually believes.
Likewise this statement by UNASUR doesn't say that there's evidence Julian Assange's life is in danger, or that they believe Assange's life is in danger, or even that they believe Julian Assange believes his life is in danger.
No. It supports a much broader abstract view, that as sovereign states, they have the ability to give asylum to someone who says his life is in danger. It doesn't have to be actually true that his life is in danger.

And here I may surprise you -- I agree with that broader abstract view. I'll even agree they have that right to grant asylum to Julian Assange for any reason or no reason at all.
I will go further and say Britain's threat to take Assange out of the embassy by force was not a good idea.

Where I'm going to disagree very strongly is that this statement says anything at all about a threat to Assange's life. It is about a perceived threat by the signing governments to the signing governments' sovereignty, which they rightly wish to protect.

 

[John Mekki]

Note my emphasis.
Well, it's no news that Assange "considers his life to be threatened". He's said it over and over. But of course, his saying so doesn't make it true.

BS, if I may.

If I murder one person and then go to the Thai Embassy and and ask for asylum in Thailand, would I be granted it only on my assumption that my life is threatened if I will not be granted asylum?

Does not make any sense.

Of course, the country that provides asylum also has to somehow agree that there is a risk that the person is at risk of life.
In this case Ecuador, supported by all South America

 

[nathan]

If I murder one person and then go to the Thai Embassy and and ask for asylum in Thailand, would I be granted it only on my assumption that my life is threatened if I will not be granted asylum?

So, mapping this onto the case in question, you think JA did rape someone? Otherwise, that's just a straw man.

 

[Wudang]

And why should they do that?

Because it's politically more convenient for them to protect someone who is portrayed as a political refugee than someone who has a fetish for trying to impregnate unwilling women.

If it's not about political convenience explain this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482

 

[TjW]

BS, if I may.

If I murder one person and then go to the Thai Embassy and and ask for asylum in Thailand, would I be granted it only on my assumption that my life is threatened if I will not be granted asylum?

Does not make any sense.

Of course, the country that provides asylum also has to somehow agree that there is a risk that the person is at risk of life.
In this case Ecuador, supported by all South America

I agree. A great number of things you have posted don't make any sense.
But as for why you would/would not be granted asylum, you would have to ask the country involved. They can grant asylum for good reasons (saving the life of an activist), bad reasons (sticking a figurative finger in the eye of a country for which they wish to show disdain), or no reason at all. They are sovereign.
The statement doesn't speak to what must be done with respect to asylum. It merely reiterates that granting asylum to persons fitting that description is a valid thing for a government to do.

My opinion is that the statement is regarding Britain's threat to extract someone from the embassy by force, and has nothing to do with whether the organization believes Assange's life to be in danger.

ETA:
Consider: what would change in the statement between UNASUR believing/not believing Assange's life was in danger? Would they leave out the narrative of what started the incident? Would they leave out any of the numbered points? Would they add an extra one -- "8. We think Julian Assange's a self-aggrandizing git, too, but that doesn't mean you get to barge into our embassies."
I don't think much about it would change. And that's why it's not evidence for or against Assange's life being in danger.

 

[theprestige]

12 Heads of States are all stupid?

Obviously not. The stupid thing to do would be to get involved in the Assange case.

The smart thing to do--the thing they actually did--would be to assert their support for the institution of asylum, without saying anything one way or another about the merits (or lack thereof) of the Assange case.

That's the smart thing to do, and it's what they actually did. And I support them in it, as I support the institution of asylum, and as I support Ecuador generally in its practice of the institution of asylum.

You really should pay attention, John Mekki: This is me considering seriously your point. I wish you would do me the same courtesy.

What I don't support--what I will never support--is your insistence that the silence of UNASUR on the details of the Assange case must be interpreted as evidence in support of your conspiracy theory about the Assange case.

 

[John Mekki]

The smart thing to do--the thing they actually did--would be to assert their support for the institution of asylum, without saying anything one way or another about the merits (or lack thereof) of the Assange case.

False.

The support was not given to the insitution of asylum in general, but directly related for to the case of Assange:

"The Council of Foreign Ministers of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), at an extraordinary meeting in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on August 19, 2012, consider:

That the Ecuadorian minister of foreign relations, commerce and trade informed the Council that the citizen Julian Assange requested political asylum at the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London on June 19, 2012, an issue regarding which the governments of Ecuador, the United Kingdom and Sweden have sustained diplomatic conversations surrounding the request for Assange’s extradition and his request for asylum;"

http://venezuela-us.org/2012/08/20/declaration-of-guayaquil-in-support-of-the-republic-of-ecuador/

In case they believed Assange were a rapist, it would be quite strange for them to support Ecuador` s stance

 

[John Mekki]

I agree. A great number of things you have posted don't make any sense.
But as for why you would/would not be granted asylum, you would have to ask the country involved. They can grant asylum for good reasons (saving the life of an activist), bad reasons (sticking a figurative finger in the eye of a country for which they wish to show disdain), or no reason at all. They are sovereign.
The statement doesn't speak to what must be done with respect to asylum. It merely reiterates that granting asylum to persons fitting that description is a valid thing for a government to do.

Then why supporting the rights of Ecuador to give asylum if they believed Assange was a rapist?
Why not agreeing with the UK that Assange must be moved to Sweden?
Why not a word on it?
And why not saying anything bad about Ecuador, if Ecuador were protecting an alleged raper from justice?

My opinion is that the statement is regarding Britain's threat to extract someone from the embassy by force, and has nothing to do with whether the organization believes Assange's life to be in danger.

Then why saying talking about threats to asylum seeker (in this case, Assange) at all?

ETA:
Consider: what would change in the statement between UNASUR believing/not believing Assange's life was in danger? Would they leave out the narrative of what started the incident? Would they leave out any of the numbered points? Would they add an extra one -- "8. We think Julian Assange's a self-aggrandizing git, too, but that doesn't mean you get to barge into our embassies."
I don't think much about it would change. And that's why it's not evidence for or against Assange's life being in danger.

I do not think they would issue a statement supporting Ecuador stance if they believed Ecuador was just protecting a rapist from justice.

Would you issue a statement in support of someone protecting a raper from justice?
I would not

 

[tyr_13]

Maybe it is like you are saying.
But your problem is that you do not accept the fact that our (Western) governments too can behave the same way, that is, that the prosecution of Assange may be politically motivated.And this is exactly the reason why I opene the thread “us vs. them”



Please follow the discussion

Maybe. What is the evidence that the governments you cite aren't being politically motivated and that Sweden and Britain are?

Being consistent with one possibility in addition to being consistent with others is not, no way no how, evidence for that possibility over others.

 

[theprestige]

False.

The support was not given to the insitution of asylum in general, but directly related for to the case of Assange:

"The Council of Foreign Ministers of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), at an extraordinary meeting in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on August 19, 2012, consider:

That the Ecuadorian minister of foreign relations, commerce and trade informed the Council that the citizen Julian Assange requested political asylum at the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London on June 19, 2012, an issue regarding which the governments of Ecuador, the United Kingdom and Sweden have sustained diplomatic conversations surrounding the request for Assange’s extradition and his request for asylum;"

Directly related, yes. But for some reason they didn't actually give an opinion about the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. Instead, they confined themselves to general comments about the institution of asylum.

Indeed, their entire position seems to be "surrounding....[Assange's] request for asylum". Where's their analysis of the rape case?

In case they believed Assange were a rapist, it would be quite strange for them to support Ecuador` s stance

Your Spanish must be even worse than mine: It's obvious to me that their support for Ecuador's stance carefully avoids any dependency on Assange's legal status in Sweden as a rapist (or not). Indeed, if you read their statement, it's clear that it would be just as good and true if Assange were a rapist, as it would if he were not.

It's kind of a shame that the foreign ministers of the UNASUR member nations had to be dragged to Guayaquil for an extraordinary meeting, just to affirm their support for the institution of asylum without committing to anything official on the status of Assange's rape case. Most rapists would have been extradited, tried, and acquitted (or sentenced, as the case may be) already. Some rapists would have already served their terms and been released as free men by now.

 

[BenBurch]

Seems that Assange is losing weight in an alarming fashion according to his lawyer. If true, this must resolve at some point sooner rather than later.

 

[TjW]

Then why supporting the rights of Ecuador to give asylum if they believed Assange was a rapist?
Why not agreeing with the UK that Assange must be moved to Sweden?
Why not a word on it?
And why not saying anything bad about Ecuador, if Ecuador were protecting an alleged raper from justice?

Then why saying talking about threats to asylum seeker (in this case, Assange) at all?



I do not think they would issue a statement supporting Ecuador stance if they believed Ecuador was just protecting a rapist from justice.

Would you issue a statement in support of someone protecting a raper from justice?
I would not

Because UNASOM's issue has nothing to do with Assange, and everything to do with supporting the sovereignty of their member states.

The only way in which Assange figures in that statement at all is as the proximate cause of Britain's threat to Ecuador.

The statement makes it clear that the threat Britain made is in contradiction to treaties that Britain agreed to abide by.

Would I make a statement in favor of someone trying to protect a rapist? It would depend on how they were doing it. If they were breaking the law in order to do it, certainly not. If someone else threatened to violate that protector's valid rights in order to get the suspected rapist, I wouldn't support that. In fact, if you'll read back a few posts, I said that Britain making the threat was a bad idea. I can support the idea that Ecuador has a right to provide asylum to anyone they choose, and also say that the right thing for Assange to do is to go to Sweden for questioning, and if charged, trial. I can say that because treaty violations and rapes are not the same thing. They have little to do with each other. In this case, the person being given asylum is a suspected rapist avoiding trial, but who or what he is doesn't have anything to do with the terms of the treaty that Britain threatened to violate.

Under the U.S constitution, there's a right to free speech, and I support it. That right gives some noxious people the right to say noxious things, but supporting the right is not supporting noxious speech, it's protecting my right to speech.
Similarly, UNASUR wishes to protect its member nations right, under various treaties that have been signed, to give asylum. Their issue is with the right to grant asylum. I'm pretty sure from a practical point of view they don't want to get bogged down in people asking them if they support rapists. And from a treaty point of view, it doesn't matter.
And so they write a strongly worded statement, but don't mention much about Assange other than his existence, because he doesn't matter.

 

[PhantomWolf]

WHO DEFINES WHAT IS EVIDENCE AND WHAT IS NOT?

How about just starting with the Dictionary?

Evidence - 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

Opinion - 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

Note that these things are NOT the same. Opinions might be formed via the use of Evidence, or not in some people's cases, but it is not evidence itself.

How about Legally?

This is two examples in Law

The opinion rule is stated in s 76. Evidence of an opinion is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact about the existence of which the opinion was expressed.

15. OPINION EVIDENCE

An opinion is a statement as to what a person thinks about an alleged fact, whether or not it took place, who caused it, why or when it occurred.

Matters of opinion are conclusions drawn by a person in reference to particular inferences. Ordinarily, witnesses are invited to testify in Court whenever it’s necessary to give testimonial evidence and when this happens, they are asked to give evidence of facts as they perceived them. This is because of the general rule that opinions of witnesses as to the existence of facts-in-issue or relevant facts are inadmissible.

Reasons why opinion evidence is inadmissible:

1. The opinion of a witness will most likely be partial to the party who called him to give evidence;

2. Opinion evidence in most cases is likely to be influenced by matters of hearsay.

Now if you actually have some evidence that is relevent to the case and isn't just someone else's opinion, we'd be delighted to see it.

Now while you are considering that, think about this as well.

Do you consider it possible that the Swedish Prosecution Service believe that given the agree facts and the women's testimony that they have enough evidence to prosecute Assange for Rape?

 

[Wudang]

Maybe it is like you are saying.
But your problem is that you do not accept the fact that our (Western) governments too can behave the same way, that is, that the prosecution of Assange may be politically motivated.
And this is exactly the reason why I opene the thread “us vs. them”
Please follow the discussion

I am, in detail. I have never said that the prosecution may not be politically motivated because it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 2 women (who were supportive of Assange ) have accused him of sexual offences for which he should stand trial and have his day in court.

 

[smartcooky]

There is no evidence that the charges against Assange are politically motivated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't, it could just mean that the evidence of it is well hidden... after all the British government is hardly likely to issue a press release saying that they are just using the rape changes as a means to an end, are they.

Perhaps all those asking Mr Mekki for "evidence" of political motivation, should be specifying just what form that evidence could take. I for one, cannot think of anything that could likely be called "evidence" other than perhaps a leaked government memo.

Also, I would hardly think that a country like Ecuador (with the support of all other South American sovereign states) would grant political asylum to a person they didn't NOT believe was subject to political persecution

 

[trustbutverify]

There is no evidence that the charges against Assange are politically motivated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't, it could just mean that the evidence of it is well hidden... after all the British government is hardly likely to issue a press release saying that they are just using the rape changes as a means to an end, are they.

Perhaps all those asking Mr Mekki for "evidence" of political motivation, should be specifying just what form that evidence could take. I for one, cannot think of anything that could likely be called "evidence" other than perhaps a leaked government memo.

Also, I would hardly think that a country like Ecuador (with the support of all other South American sovereign states) would grant political asylum to a person they didn't NOT believe was subject to political persecution

You think maybe Ecuador and their SA allies might have political reasons of their own for cuddling up to Saint Julian having nothing to do with his potential "persecution"? You think maybe they couldn't care less about ol' Prince Assange outside of finding him a useful propaganda tool? Or does that type of agenda only apply to thegreatsatan?

 

[smartcooky]

You think maybe Ecuador and their SA allies might have political reasons of their own for cuddling up to Saint Julian having nothing to do with his potential "persecution"? You think maybe they couldn't care less about ol' Prince Assange outside of finding him a useful propaganda tool? Or does that type of agenda only apply to thegreatsatan?

What you say is very possible, and I could ask you "where's the evidence to support that view", but I won't.

Instead, I will point out that you are acknowledging, and appear to accept the possibility, that the government of Ecuador are playing covert political games. Would you accept that Britain also might be playing political games?

There is in fact no evidence (that I know of) to support either view.

 

[Here_to_learn]

There is no evidence that the charges against Assange are politically motivated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't, it could just mean that the evidence of it is well hidden... after all the British government is hardly likely to issue a press release saying that they are just using the rape changes as a means to an end, are they.

I think the first stage is to decide who it is that is politically motivated.

Is it Sweden (that is trying to prosecute JA for rape and sexual assault), the UK (that is trying to extradite him to Sweden), or the US (that is or is not trying to charge him with something related to Wikileaks)?

If it's Sweden, at what level? The two women, the police, the prosecution, the courts?

Perhaps all those asking Mr Mekki for "evidence" of political motivation, should be specifying just what form that evidence could take. I for one, cannot think of anything that could likely be called "evidence" other than perhaps a leaked government memo.

JA has several times said that he knows exactly how many pages the secret US investigation against him contains. He apparently knows that exact number, but does not have access to the actual documents since they haven't been put in Wikileaks.

A verified leak of government documents that show that something illegal going on related to the would surely help the case. Note that in Sweden, a person that leaks that kind of information to the press would be protected by law.

Also, I would hardly think that a country like Ecuador (with the support of all other South American sovereign states) would grant political asylum to a person they didn't NOT believe was subject to political persecution

Here is one person arguing for what Correa could have gained. I do not know anything useful about Ecuador politics to say if this is relevant or not - I just wanted to show that there are people that claim they see different reasons for why the current regime in Ecuador could gain from this.


Also, Ecuador has specifically said that JA should answer to the investigation in Sweden regarding rape:

That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense;

Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation;

That press conference resulted in the Ecuador ambassador to Sweden being called up to the Sweden Foreign ministry and being told:

On Thursday, Ecuador’s Ambassador in Stockholm, Mario Guerrero, was summoned to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for a meeting at which the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Frank Belfrage, presented [that SE has not received an extradition request from the US, and that SE will handle any such future request according to Swedish law.]