Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Noztradamus]

So, anyone watch the Assange statement?

Did Evita say anything new and interesting?

 

[angrysoba]

Because the nature of the crime is significant. A rape is not a political crime, and I'm unaware of any western embassy granting asylum or refuge to anyone for a crime which would also be a crime in the country of the embassy granting refuge or asylum.

That's the significant difference, one you are desperately trying to avoid in an attempt to equate them.

You can answer my questions above. Remember, we are talking about the distinction under international law and the repercussions of setting a precedent. We are not talking here about who can posture and affect outrage more and as you are certainly the champion posturer.

Your "significant difference" is laughable and arbitrary. What on earth has "western embassy" got to do with anything?

 

[WildCat]

here is what I said (which you ignored):

For wikileaks to have not been relevant you need to show: 1) none these allegations were not reported before and 2) the leaks add no new evidence for these allegations I think you're over-reaching just on (1) and you're definitely over-reaching on (2).
ie. whilst I think you may well be over-reaching on (1) I am sure that you are over-reaching on (2). So even if you are right about (1), then that still does not show that wikileaks was irrelevant if it still provided (2).

Let's take the assumption that wikileaks provided no new allegations whatsoever that had not previously been reported (unlikely but let's assume), if it was able to provide evidence that previously reported allegations had indeed been perpetrated, well then that is still hugely valuable. It's like saying "well someone accused him of murder years ago, so the evidence that provided detailed evidence of that murder is irrelevant.."

When you explain why you think any particular example you copied and pasted is relevant I'll comment.

But if you don't care enough to make a case, why should I?

 

[angrysoba]

I predict that they will go in and get him at around 400 UTC when they do. Best time for a raid because people are at their lowest ebb of alertness and if asleep hard to rouse at that hour.

Is this your stream of consciousness verbalized for the benefit of the rest of us?

I don't mean to be rude, but you needn't bother.

 

[WildCat]

You can answer my questions above. Remember, we are talking about the distinction under international law and the repercussions of setting a precedent.

You see no difference between a political crime and a rape?

 

[angrysoba]

You see no difference between a political crime and a rape?

OH FFS! Are you going to keep on this silly buggers business?

I have answered that question already.

You say that rape and political crimes are not the same thing. That's very good. Very astute of you. I agree with you. There, that was easy, wasn't it? And we agree on something, don't we? How happy we should be now.

Now, that we have established some common ground (remember, we agree that rape and political crimes are different. That is they are not the same.) let me ask you two questions.

Now, I want you to provide the distinction under international law regarding entry by law enforcement of a diplomatic mission. Can you tell me?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Did Evita say anything new and interesting?

I didn't watch it, have only read the press reports, but I think the only interesting parts was this about what happend wednesday night (after the UK letter/threat to Ecuador)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-us-war-whistleblowers

"On Wednesday night, after a threat was sent to this embassy, the police descended on this building. You came out in the middle of the night to watch over it, and you brought the world's eyes with you.

"Inside this embassy in the dark, I could hear teams of police swarming up inside the building through its internal fire escape.

"But I knew there would be witnesses, and that is because of you.

"If the UK did not throw away the Vienna Conventions the other night, it is because the world was watching. And the world was watching because you were watching.

So he claims that the police was in the building, but only stopped short of storming the embassy thanks to the people outside.

I haven't seen any reports about this previously - has anyone?


I understand that he mentioned Pussy Riot also, even though right now I cannot find a full transcript of what he said. Assuming that the reports I saw was correct, I think it's good that he can criticize Russia regardless of his Russia Today connections.

He also said:

Assange referred to recent jailings of people for exercising their freedom of speech and called for enthusiastic opposition to such oppressive actions.

But I don't think he mentioned Ecuador among those...

 

[WildCat]

Now, I want you to provide the distinction under international law regarding entry by law enforcement of a diplomatic mission. Can you tell me?

I already explained the difference - when the law being broken only applies to one of the 2 countries.

Rape, however, is a crime in Sweden and Ecuador. And the UK for that matter.

 

[eirik]

If there was a suspected rapist in Embassy X, what legislation or statutes would allow the local law enforcement to enter the embassy without the consent of the diplomatic mission? Give it your best shot, WildCat!

Next, what provision would prevent that legislation or statute also extending to political crimes? Please do your best WildCat, because you are the one trying to demonstrate the legal difference under international law.

And for a bonus question, what does international law say is the difference between rape and political crimes when it comes to law enforcement entering a diplomatic mission?

1. One don't need consent, as has been earlier explained. One can simply revoke the diplomatic status of the mission, and send the diplomats packing. This means a breakdown in all diplomatic contact, and is typically the most serious diplomatic action a country would make.

This is certainly not illegal, as embassys are not mandatory, but based on a bilateral or multilateral agreement, a contract if you will.

Step 2 would be to make the neccesary arrests on the now non-diplomatic property.

2. See no. 1.

3. See no. 1.

 

[angrysoba]

Now, I want you to provide the distinction under international law regarding entry by law enforcement of a diplomatic mission. Can you tell me?

I already explained the difference - when the law being broken only applies to one of the 2 countries.

Rape, however, is a crime in Sweden and Ecuador. And the UK for that matter.

No, sorry, you lose. The answer is that there is no distinction under international law as is pointed out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations:

Article 22 confirms the inviolability of mission premises – barring any right of entry by law enforcement officers of the receiving State and imposing on the receiving State a special duty to protect the premises against intrusion, damage, disturbance of the peace or infringement of dignity. Even in response to abuse of this inviolability or emergency, the premises may not be entered without the consent of the head of mission.

Unfortunately for you, WildCat, ole chum, they do not say that it is okay in the case of rape but not in the case of political crimes. They don't say that it is okay for UK law enforcement officers to uphold Ecuador's laws in the embassy, so it covers all the other obfuscations and desperate dust-throwing you were doing back there. So, the answer is, there is no distinction and it matters not one jot whether or not we both know that rape and political crimes are different and, yes, yes, I know you are just about to say "Buh-buh-buh-but they are different!" because I know they are but not in the sense that I was talking about. Oh, dear.

1. One don't need consent, as has been earlier explained. One can simply revoke the diplomatic status of the mission, and send the diplomats packing. This means a breakdown in all diplomatic contact, and is typically the most serious diplomatic action a country would make.

This is certainly not illegal, as embassys are not mandatory, but based on a bilateral or multilateral agreement, a contract if you will.

Step 2 would be to make the neccesary arrests on the now non-diplomatic property.

2. See no. 1.

3. See no. 1.

Yes, that is true. They could just close down the embassy. Maybe they will do that instead. It still doesn't get around the point I was making earlier that threatening to storm the embassy was a ridiculous thing to do.

 

[AlBell]

I predict that they will go in and get him at around 400 UTC when they do. Best time for a raid because people are at their lowest ebb of alertness and if asleep hard to rouse at that hour.

As was mentioned earlier it would be better to expel Ecuadorian personnel as personas-non-grata and arrest JA once they left and the Embassy was just a structure.

 

[Checkmite]

Re: the thread title - we'll never find out until he gets a fair trial. But to do that he has to go back to Sweden.

 

[theprestige]

No, I didn't. I was asking why China couldn't revoke the status of diplomatic missions if the UK could?

That's the whole point: China can. China always could. Just like every other nation always could.

Diplomatic status isn't a magic circle of protection. It's not an immutable law of physics. It's a convenience nations grant each other if and when it suits them.

 

[WildCat]

No, sorry, you lose. The answer is that there is no distinction under international law as is pointed out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations:

That doesn't apply if it is no longer a diplomatic mission, which it would no longer be if that status was revoked under the 1987 law.

 

[WildCat]

That's the whole point: China can. China always could. Just like every other nation always could.

Diplomatic status isn't a magic circle of protection. It's not an immutable law of physics. It's a convenience nations grant each other if and when it suits them.

See the US embassy in Iran ca. 1979.

 

[Noztradamus]

Re: the thread title - we'll never find out until he gets a fair trial. But to do that he has to go back to Sweden.

Behind the game. much?

We've moved up the front page from "Is what Assnage accused of rape?" (Social issues and current events) through politics and are currently at Conspiracy Theory.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I didn't watch it, have only read the press reports,

Transcript: http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/au...mbassy-in-london-august-20/20120820-gzkt.html

 

[Here_to_learn]

Behind the game. much?

We've moved up the front page from "Is what Assnage accused of rape?" (Social issues and current events) through politics and are currently at Conspiracy Theory.

Oh, boring, let's talk about how he could get out of the embassy, so we can get to Conjuror's Corner!

Oh, except that we can't share secrets, so Puzzles it is then.

 

[Korren]

Oh, boring, let's talk about how he could get out of the embassy, so we can get to Conjuror's Corner!

Oh, except that we can't share secrets, so Puzzles it is then.

Or History and Literature: How Would Author X Have Assange Escape?

I suppose Agatha Christie would do something clever with a disguise and tricky manipulations of schedules and alibis. Ian Fleming would just have a simple car chase (albeit with a sexy, Ecuadorian female secretary involved somehow.) But what about Eric van Lustbader? Iain Banks? Terry Pratchett?

 

[BenBurch]

Or History and Literature: How Would Author X Have Assange Escape?

I suppose Agatha Christie would do something clever with a disguise and tricky manipulations of schedules and alibis. Ian Fleming would just have a simple car chase (albeit with a sexy, Ecuadorian female secretary involved somehow.) But what about Eric van Lustbader? Iain Banks? Terry Pratchett?

Robert Ludlum - Assange jumps from the embassy to the roof of a passing fuel truck, and a high speed chase ensues. Assange then cuts loose the fuel trailer which slides sideways into the approach of Tower Bridge, and explodes into a fireball, ending the police pursuit. But seconds later a helicopter is behind firing into the truck cab. The truck overruns a public works crew. The truck veers off the road into a building and erupts into flames.

Cut to a dark scene of Assange pushing sewer workers aside and dashing off into London's main sewer.

Darkness.

Next we see Assange swimming to the surface of the Thames, well down the estuary, we can hear fog horns. After nearly being run down by a dark shape looming out of the fog, he grabs a trailing mooring line on a cross-channel ferry, pulling in himself into the anchor pocket.

Fog.

Fini.