Assange Faces Arrest Even If Ecuador Grants Asylum

[Purveyor]

Source: Reuters

LONDON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has no way of leaving his refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London without being arrested, even if Quito grants him asylum shortly, lawyers say.

The Australian has been in the embassy for eight weeks since losing a legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted to stand trial for rape.

Assange denies the accusations made by two female WikiLeaks supporters. He fears Sweden could send him on to the United States, where he believes authorities want to punish him for publishing thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks in 2010 in a major embarrassment for Washington.

President Rafael Correa, who is openly sympathetic to Assange, is expected to decide on his asylum request this week. However, approval would offer no legal protection in Britain where police will arrest him once they get a chance.

Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/wikileaks-assange-idINL6E8JF79220120815

[Jumping John]

1. If the US wants him he can be gotten no matter where he hides. National Security and all. The US

can also buy or blackmail Ecuador into doing whatever - that's the American way.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Not if Ecuador gave him diplomatic status.

.

[riderinthestorm]

5. I said that on another thread and nobody answered me.

But I believe if Ecuador does take Assange in, they'll have to give him diplomatic status for Assange to get out of the country successfully. They can drive a diplomatic car into the embassy compound and drive Assange right up to the steps of the diplomatic plane at Heathrow I presume. Dragging Assange out of the car, or off the plane would be a shocking PR disaster for the Brits and I doubt they'd even do that for the US now that Assange has such notoriety.

You have to know that when/if Assange gets his chance to leave the UK, there's going to be a slew of reporters following. I have this vision of a slow motion OJ teevee moment with the media helicopters filming the whole journey....

[brooklynite]

6. There is a difference between granting someone asylum and granting them Diplomatic Status...

Doing the latter links the Government with person in a way that would prove extremely embarrassing if the charges turned out to be true. I suspect Ecuador would be very reluctant to go that far.

[riderinthestorm]

7. I understand but I believe the US would have no problem pissing off Ecuador to grab Assange

on the way to the airport if he's only got political asylum. The Brits would understand the difference and in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge operation, Assange would be arrested. Correa could protest all he liked but there would be very little he could do except be mad(der) at the US. Ecuador doesn't matter to the US a whole lot right now.

Pissing off the UK however would be a whole nother kettle of fish. If Assange has diplomatic status then arresting him on the way to the airport would be a major breach for the UK. There's no way the UK would allow it to happen even as a favor to the US imho since its magnitudes of degree different.

[robinlynne]

16. Can one country grant someone from another country, a non citizen, who is in a third country,

diplomatic status? I would imagine Australia can do that, but not Ecuador.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Why not? nt

[hack89]

20. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says no

Article 8
1.Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission should in principle be of the nationality of the
sending State.

2.Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission may not be appointed from among persons
having the nationality of the receiving State, except with the consent of that State which may be
withdrawn at any time.

3.The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who are
not also nationals of the sending State.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

He cannot be made a member of the diplomatic staff without Britain's permission.

[Swagman]

22. I am sure you personally would raid the Embassy on behalf of the USA seeing you seem to hate

Assange for exposing US crimes , however your hate for him blinds you to much: Ecuador can make Assange a citizen and give him diplomatic status overnight.

[hack89]

24. No - I think accused rapists should not flee arrest.

I don't think America gains anything by prosecuting Assange - it will just turn him into a martyr. Besides, after watching how Assange hung Bradley Manning out to dry, just how many whistle blowers will ever trust Assange?

Ecuador is not stupid - twisting diplomatic law to protect an accused rapist is not going to be perceived well in the world. I am sure they are pretty pissed at Assange right now for putting them in this bind.

[ronwelldobbs]

35. Limeys shooting their way into an embassy isn't going to win them any friends either.

[hack89]

44. They won't do that.

Ecuador will find away to ease Assange out.

[movonne]

52. If he goes to Sweden they will hand him over to the US and

he knows if that happens he will be treated like Manning...and never to be seen again..

[hack89]

61. He has been walking free for two years

he was in a British jail for a while - why wasn't he sent to America then? Do you think the Brits would respect the law in such a case?

[Ben_Caxton]

123. You know that Manning has been seen right?

[leveymg]

86. They were going to find SOMETHING to hang on him - rape? Perfect.

Under the circumstances, I don't see what choice he had but to flee. He should just let them pick him up, and do what they want to him? Hell, no.

Whoever was behind this was on a power trip. Why make it too easy for them?

[riderinthestorm]

28. I was just about to ask about making him an Ecuadorean citizen.... nt

[hack89]

30. Ecuador does not recognize dual citizenship - he would have to relinquish his Australian passport

And there is not the minor issue that Ecuador would have to violate their own citizenship laws - Assange does not meet naturalization requirements.

[riderinthestorm]

31. I believe he'd do that. Wouldn't you?

Besides, Ecuador is a fast-growing European retirement spot. Very, very reasonable to live there and absolutely pristine beaches.

Actually, now that you mention it, it reminds me a LOT of the Australia I knew when I lived there 30 years ago.... very natural and unspoiled. Beautiful

[hack89]

32. But their laws don't allow him to become a citizen

you really think Ecuador is going to pass a law specifically to make him a citizen?

[riderinthestorm]

33. I believe the Brits have now virtually assured it happening with the threat of invading

the Ecuadorean embassy.

That threat would be enough to seriously piss off just about any country around the world.

I'm stunned actually that the Brits have done this. Its an incredible action and I'm guessing the diplomatic world globally is horrified at the British position.

[hack89]

34. That's a bet I would be willing to take

they won't do shit. Correa has no problem using Assange to poke Europe and the US in the eye but he has no intention of pushing it to far - he has to much to lose and nothing to gain.

I bet that Assange will eventually "voluntarily" leave the Embassy. He is not going to spend the rest of his days enjoying life in Ecuador.

[ronwelldobbs]

36. Correa might not do anything but ordinary citizens in Ecuador can . . .

Like Muslims living in the US after 9-11, ordinary Ecuadorians can make life very very uncomfortable for limeys and Yankees living or visiting down there. What can the UK do about isolated acts of violence against their citizens in a foreign country by other ordinary people? Not a helluva lot.
Would you really want to be a limey living in Quito tomorrow? I have the feeling the UK embassy there might end up like the US embassy in Teheran in 1979.

[hack89]

45. So Ecuadorians are a violent people? That surprises me.

Is there anything that would motivate you to attack complete strangers? I have never hit another person - I am not sure I could except in self defense.

[loli phabay]

54. yeah great, you think saying to the UK let him go or we will taget your citizens will work

I think Ecuador is using him as a bargaining chip, they will get some business concessions and then advise Him to leave then he will be picked up.

[robinlynne]

47. COOL. I hope they make him a citizen then!

[DJ13]

56. I believe the order granting asylum included making Assange an Ecuadorian citizen

I may be wrong, but I remember thinking that was an odd move at the time.

[hack89]

58. I don't think it did. Ecuador would have to violate their own citizenship laws to do so. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. The embassy is not a 'compound'; it's a set of rooms in a block

Address: "Flat 3B, 3 Hans Crescent" ('flat' being the British for 'apartment')

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15270693

(The Colombian Embassy is also 3 Hans Crescent)

Assange would be protected from arrest if travelling in a diplomatic car, but the embassy is on the first floor of a building that is being watched by police day and night.

The tall red-brick block just behind the Harrods department store also houses the Colombian embassy and private apartments. A police van was parked outside the main entrance on Wednesday and police officers were patrolling the area in pairs.

The property has several gated entrances and a private car park, but the Ecuadorean embassy is not linked internally with any of them, making the front entrance its only point of exit, a security manager at the building told Reuters.

"There is no other exit. He is going to have to come out of the main entrance," said the manager, who asked not to be named. "There is no way to bring a vehicle in because the car park is private and it is not connected in any way to their premises."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-wikileaks-assange-idUKBRE87E0T620120815

[riderinthestorm]

15. Fascinating. I love the whole cloak and dagger aspect of this!

I'm really curious if anyone believes the diplomatic car can get onto the sidewalk between the front door and the police car. If they could get close enough, theoretically Assange could simply have one foot in the embassy and one foot in the car as he transferred. Edited to add, how about a diplomatic motorcycle? That could certainly fit through a front door


(can you tell I've read too many spy novels?)

I'm guessing the British threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy has them pretty annoyed now as well, they may try something.

[Swagman]

57. funny..I had the same OJ cavalcade in mind. Who knows how this will play out

long way to go yet methinks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. I think they'd have to make him a diplomat to the United Nations

The UK doesn't have to accept every diplomat put forward to it; and being wanted for breaking bail conditions would be a reason not to accept him.

An analysis: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/06/26/julian-assange-can-he-get-out-of-this/

[dipsydoodle]

11. From the sound of it,

aside from maybe making him a diplomat to the United Nations, its looks like the Embassy needs to order something in a large crate for onward routing to Ecuador - as set timpani drums would do the trick.

[cstanleytech]

13. A large crate like you mention would solve the problem.

All they have to do is make sure it has airholes and diplomatic seals on it and the government cannot open it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. No, they probably could open it - see the legal blog linked in #9

There is of course the theoretical possibility that Assange might be smuggled out in a “diplomatic bag”, which is also protected by the Vienna Convention, this time article 27, which states:

3. The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.
4. The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.

As article 27.4 makes clear, the “bag” can consist of a number of packages, or indeed crates. There’s no doubt it can be big enough to contain a person, and although it can’t legally contain a person under article 27.4, the ban on opening it suggests that a person can in practice be smuggled across borders this way. It has been tried in fact, as Katy Lee has pointed out, when in the 1980s Nigerian government agents tried to smuggle Umaru Dikko out of Britain. They apparently failed because the crate didn’t bear the external markings required by article 27.4. If you’re interested, it’s worth reading the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan’s Commons statement on the affair. The inviolability of diplomatic bags was also a hot issue after the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher, and Geoffrey Howe’s Commons statement on that is also interesting.

But I wouldn’t try it if I were Julian Assange. For a start, there may be some room to argue that a “receiving state” like Britain can lawfully insist on a diplomatic bag being opened or at least returned to its place of origin if it has grounds to suspect it contains more than just diplomatic articles. Canada, for instance, reserves the right to do so. Perhaps more importantly, the fact that British officials couldn’t lawfully open a diplomatic bag containing Assange does not mean an airline is obliged to carry it. Given the complex legal issues here, I wouldn’t blame any carrier at the moment from refusing to take an Ecuadorian crate big enough to contain a man. And even if they did, I wouldn’t fancy being sealed into a crate for a long flight to South America, perhaps via Madrid. The diplomatic bag idea really is best left to fiction.

An attempt to break the diplomatic rules by Ecuador (by putting a person in the 'bag') would be replied to with the loss of the status of the embassy (see #12). If Ecuador sticks to the rules, however, it can keep the moral high ground.

[HooptieWagon]

53. Tatoo Assange with a diplomatic message.

A document isn't just a piece of paper. Its any medium carrying a message. Could be CDs, flashdrives, tapes... or a tatooed person.

Edit: Another, less permanent, possibility: imbed a chip under his skin. Brits can even verify for themselves a message-bearing chip is there, without revealing the message.

[struggle4progress]

116. He'd be unlikely to qualify as a UN member representative before the UN seated him as such,

and so, whatever customary concessions UN member states might make for each others representatives, I doubt that the UK would be obliged to treat him as a UN member representative, simply on Ecuador's say-so

[hack89]

19. Not legal according to international law

From the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Article 8
1.Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission should in principle be of the nationality of the
sending State.

2.Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission may not be appointed from among persons
having the nationality of the receiving State, except with the consent of that State which may be
withdrawn at any time.

3.The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who are
not also nationals of the sending State.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

He cannot be made a member of the diplomatic staff without Britain's permission.

[loli phabay]

55. yeah thats what i thought too, we have seen lots of diplomats lose their accreditation over the year

and being sent home from embassies all over the world.

[midnight]

3. K&R

[Daemonaquila]

4. Not necessarily.

That's what diplomacy is all about. There is no such thing as enforceable international law, except what countries agree to... which is sometimes governed by the treaties they sign. If they feel like it.

If Ecuador is serious, they will arrange for him to leave the country, just as the U.S. arranged for Chen Guangcheng to leave China.

[MADem]

8. Well, they could always smuggle him out of the country in a trunk.

He's not all that big, he can just curl up in a steamer for the trip to the airport....it's a "diplomatic package!"

I hope his command of Spanish is halfway decent.

I wonder what happens when the Ecuadoran presidency changes hands?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Ecuador says Britain threatened to raid embassy over Assange

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Ecuador said on Wednesday that the British government had threatened to raid its embassy in London if Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was not handed over, and that Quito would make its decision on his asylum request on Thursday.

"We are not a British colony," Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said in an angry statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-idUSBRE87E16N20120815

The BBC said, on TV, said, roughly, the UK had reminded Ecuador that British law allowed it to revoke the protected status of the embassy, and this seems, unsurprisingly, to have annoyed the Ecuadoreans.

A Foreign Office spokesman said the UK remained "determined" to fulfil its obligation to extradite Mr Assange.

"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said.

"We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."

The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

Some commentary on the law:

Since withdrawal of status could be interpreted as a hostile act, the government are unlikely to use the Act where this may result in retaliation against our mission and against British interests in the sending state.

In the forseeable future the Act might be used to reclaim vacant mission premises that are being occupied by squatters.

The Act is also likely to be used where intelligence has convinced the authorities that a gross misuse of mission premises is taking place, for example wherre premises are being used to traffic in drugs.

Even then the Act will only come into play after other less offensive options have either been rejected sor have failed.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/the-inviolability-diplomatic-and-consular-premises

I think it would be hard to argue that allowing Assange to stay is 'a gross misuse'. I think he will either stay there a long time, possibly until Sweden changes something in their case, Ecuador will appoint him to their United Nations mission, or he'll be arrested and sent to Sweden.

[robinlynne]

17. Those two women in Sweden could recant. And end this!

[hack89]

21. What if they think they were raped?

are you suggesting that Assange's freedom is more important than justice for them?

[Swagman]

25. Assange has not been charged with anything. Rape has not been established

you twist the facts.

[hack89]

27. Being a fugitive from justice is a crime - he has two valid arrest warrants he is running from.

How many times does it have to be said that the Swedish legal system is different? The British court determined that the Swedes had reached a point in their legal process that was the equivalent of being charged.

The Swedish prosecutor told Assange's lawyer that Assange was going to be arrested. He skipped town the next day.

[tama]

40. Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza

were fugitives from "justice" and seeking asylum in Sweden. Sweden handed them over to CIA to be tortured by US and Egypt. UN has condemned Sweden for this. See: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

But I guess also those two other fugitives from "justice" were just criminals to you.

[tama]

39. They don't think they were raped n/t

[Swagman]

26. and their lawyers say they have. They do not want charges. All they wanted was for Julian

to take an STD test.
The whole matter is being puRsued like no other Swedish case has, by a well known US supporting right wing prosecutor.

I woud have thought US citizens would be well aware of how that happens in the USA.

[hack89]

29. You can't go to the prosecutors, describe a rape, and then ask the prosecutor not to investigate

once they made their statements to the police it was out of their hands - it is not the prosecutors job to ignore crimes.

[ronwelldobbs]

37. You are aware that rape charges have been used to lynch many black men in the US?

Same thing here, trump up some charges to get their hands on somebody they want to kill.
It's the American Way!

Once Assange is in Yankee/Limey custody, he'll be dead from a "suicide" or "attempted escape" within a month.

[robinlynne]

41. but they did not describe a rape.

[hack89]

43. According to the prosecutors they did.

they may not have said "he raped me" but Assange's actions met the requirements for him to be charged with rape.

[robinlynne]

46. a broken condom during consentual sex?

[hack89]

48. Suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion - according to a Swedish arrest warrant.

Here are the actual charges:

1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange 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.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

Do you think any of these acts should be legal?

[GliderGuider]

49. Sounds to me like he's being accused of being an inconsiderate lover.

Not exactly the sort of thing one would expect anyone to start an international diplomatic incident over, don't you think?

[hack89]

59. European countries don't have mediveal rape laws like America

they are not so slanted in favor of the man.

All that matters is what Swedish law says.

[reorg]

68. the law in question is actually pretty much the same everywhere

Taking sexual advantage of a woman in a "helpless state" is illegal even in medieval America.

However, it takes a considerable amount of sophistry to get from the original stories to such an allegation of rape.

Next we will probably see claims of rape based on a female's unawareness that the man didn't clip his toenails as required.

[GliderGuider]

72. On the other hand

Pressing one's naked penis against a woman's body when you're already in bed with her sounds less like sexual assault than simple foreplay. Even in Sweden.

[hack89]

73. Not being Swedish I don't know where they draw the line

if someone could show that such charges were extremely rare in Sweden then perhaps you are right. Don't forget there are four charges in all - some definitely more serious than others.

[GliderGuider]

75. Actually , there aren't "four charges in all". There are four *allegations*

They can only become charges after the questioning - that the Swedes are refusing to do.

But you knew that, right?

[hack89]

77. There is a valid arrest warrant with four charges. Things changed when he ran.

The interview is to present the prosecutors case to the accused so he can be charged and arrested. The reason that Assange insists on being interviewed in London is because he knows that the Swedes cannot arrest him in London. That is what that entire song and dance is about - Assange taking advantage of the Swedish system to avoid arrest.

When he was in Sweden his lawyer was told that Assange was going to be interviewed and taken into custody. He skipped town that very night.

[GliderGuider]

79. Thanks for the correction.

As far as I'm concerned, the "charges" are trumped up. I hope he can stay in the embassy until he gets out from under this stitch-up.

But of course my opinions and hopes make no difference to anyone but me.

[reorg]

82. you mean: since you cannot demonstrate that such charges have ever been brought

in Sweden or elsewhere, based on comparable scenarios and allegations, we should do the job for you and somehow demonstrate that such a thing has NEVER occurred?

[riderinthestorm]

74. NO! What matters is what the women say!

Misogynistic people and governments who shamelessly USE these women in a disgusting political power play are definitely "slanted in favor of the man". Its grotesque that the Swedish state has decided these two women must be FORCED in public to go over every last detail of their CONSENSUAL sex with Assange since they both say there's NO RAPE!

How DARE they force them into that witness box against their wish - that's a public rape and it has everything to do with a sick patriarchal Swedish government slavering for a public spectacle with these two women forced on display at the behest of a hideous bloated fat man (the US) in order to shame them.

What the women say should trump all, and when it doesn't THAT'S the real medievalism.

[hack89]

76. What about the rights of the rapist's next victim?

So if a rapist coerces a woman into not pressing charges the government can't arrest and charges the rapist?
And that in respecting the rights of a single woman, the government has no choice but to allow a rapist move freely in society? What about the rights of the next victim?

[riderinthestorm]

78. This is about Assange who is not a rapist. Full stop. The women don't fear him or feel he's a threat

There is no "next victim" because there hasn't been a first victim.

And I stand by what I say, if the women say there isn't any rape, then there isn't any rape and its simply a patriarchal, paternalistic, voyeuristic, sexist, despicable government (and the rest who are demanding this) that wants to put on a public spectacle of shaming the women into public testimony about their private sex lives.

Its grotesque misogyny. Its public rape. Its disgusting.

[hack89]

84. We were talking about the general case

not Assange specifically.

In general, do you think the government allow rapists to.go free because a woman refuses to press charges?

[riderinthestorm]

87. Ah, so much revealed with that little word "we". Who's "we" hack?

The "royal we"?

And this isn't any "general case". This is Assange, Wikileaks, and the US. There's no rape. Period.

Every single other case is its own case and IMPOSSIBLE to generalize. I would never DARE presume to speak for any other woman.

But then again, as a rape crisis counselor, advocate and women's shelter volunteer, I have actual experience with real women in these situations and know exactly how disgusting it is for any of us to dare presume to speak for them. Its the ultimate patriarchal move and if you can't see that then you and the rest of "you" stand exposed.

[GliderGuider]

90. He means "we" in its first person singular sense of course...

It's one of those "general case" exceptions - you just wouldn't understand.

[riderinthestorm]

91. I know, just ensuring I don't worry my pretty little head about it...

Only the "government" knows what to do, and should make those big nasty decisions about my body....

[hack89]

95. I thought you said that in every case it was the woman's decision

as to whether rape charges should be filed. If you don't believe that then we see eye to eye and I apologize for the confusion.

[riderinthestorm]

97. So you think I don't get to make my own decisions?

I edited my posts to include the sarcasm tag since you are clearly impaired and couldn't understand the laughing icon which indicated my comments were a joke.

So please answer me plainly, do you think a woman has the right to make these decisions and define her own sexual activities? If not her, then who? And why are they are superior arbiter than a woman herself?

[hack89]

100. If there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed the government has to act

especially if the case of violent crimes like rape. You don't get to decide if a potential rapist should be free to walk freely in society, potentially endangering other women.

[riderinthestorm]

102. Okay so we're clear. You believe women aren't entitled to that control

over their bodies, their destinies, their decisions.

Is everyone else listening to this? I hope so.

So onwards, exactly what "clear evidence" would suffice, such that it was so compelling that the woman's own authority is required to be removed from her? Would evidence of being tied up, or hit with a whip? (oops, that's S and M and a fair few people like that). Or how about strangulation? (oops that's erotic asphyxiation and some people like that). Rough sex? (oops, people like that too). Gentle nudging against your lover's leg with your penis to provoke arousal? (oops, that's kinky but plenty of folks find that to be fine). How about waking up your lover to make love? (is that really rape? Guess you get to decide, not the woman involved).

Really, why do you get to decide which activity is "rape" and what's "lovemaking"? Since you have decided there's a standard of 'clear evidence", go for it. Define "clear evidence" that entitles YOU to decide if that sexual activity is "rape" or consensual sex (and not the parties involved)?

[GliderGuider]

105. The smell of paint in that corner must be getting overpowering by now... nt

[hack89]

106. What if there was an eyewitness?

a passerby saw the rape happening, intervened to stop the rape and was able to identify the rapist. Would you ignore that?

[riderinthestorm]

107. I asked you 7 questions in my post. You didn't answer any of them. Not one.

Answer those first. What exactly constitutes "rape" when the two parties agree it was not?

Since you have told me directly that the state, and you, know better than the woman involved, and that her agency and authority to make those determinations should be stripped from her, please do answer me. In fact, the woman is so powerless that even if that woman says it wasn't rape, and you decide it is, that you have the authority on her behalf to go ahead and prosecute. Answer me my questions.

Then I'll get to yours.

[hack89]

109. Kind of awkward for you I know.

I presented the one scenario where the government doesn't need the woman to know that a rape took place.

[riderinthestorm]

111. Actually more awkward for you since you aren't answering me. A paste from #110

Eyewitness accounts are wrong at least 50% of the time. More than half.

http://www.ced-aai.com/index.php/areas-of-engineering-expertise-at-ced/consumer-products/252-witness-perception-eyewitnesses-are-wrong-50-of-the-time

They are not credible. And how are we to know that the eyewitness wasn't witnessing S&M? Erotic asphyxiation? Role playing? Anal sex? Multiple partners? Loud noises? My mother thinks sex in any other position but the missionary position is rape, how about her as a witness? She's a 78 year old church going, college educated, former member of a major police department - about as 'credible" witness as you're going to get

Remember, you are talking about stripping a woman of her own authority and agency to determine if the sex was rape or not. So if the woman involved said her BDSM session was consensual and my mother says its rape, you've just decided to prosecute that woman's partner. That's what you're really saying? That a witness gets to be the arbiter of what's rape, and not the woman involved who says its not?

You know, in Islamic countries women have to have witnesses too to ensure their sexual encounters are recounted appropriately to the authorities. Even with witnesses women don't necessarily have the agency and authority to say differently if the witnesses are liars.

Eye witness accounts when it comes to sex are for shit. Now please proceed to answer the rest of the questions I posted upthread, or even the ones I've posted here.

[riderinthestorm]

114. Even more crickets hack89.... answer me why you get to be the sex patrol

and what criteria you'd use to supersede the rights of women....

[robinlynne]

130. violent? the condom broke. violent?

[hack89]

131. You really need to read the four actual charges.

not one of them mentions a broken condom. Please read the charges.

[idwiyo]

124. I wish there was a way to K&R your post.

[reorg]

81. back to baseless slander, I see

If the women say there was no rape then the government has no case and no other women need to be protected because there is no rapist.

[hack89]

88. When they make official.statements that describe rape

then what is the government to do? You can't say there is no evidence of a.crime when you freely given statements describing a crime.

[riderinthestorm]

92. The government does NOT get to tell me what's going on with my own body!

This is a rethug talking point and honestly, a disgusting one.

Women get to make the decisions about what's going to happen to them and their bodies. The government gets NO SAY in deciding for me, what I should and should not do, or how I describe consensual sex or any other sex act I may perform.

You are advocating for these two women to endure a very public rape, forced by their government. The two women say it is not rape. That's the only standard the government needs to adopt without telling the women that their very own voices and description of their experiences is wrong.

[reorg]

104. well, the Stockholm prosecutor Eva Finné disagrees with you

that the official statements describe any kind of sexual misconduct and immediately closed the investigation.

The police transcripts were sent to the press, everyone can read them.

Show me the evidence of a crime.

And while you're at it, show me where comparable scenarios have ever led to allegations of rape.

The document which you love so much that you have cited it numerous times in the last few days doesn't concern itself with this effort. It merely lists the alleged offences and discusses whether the EAW is valid.

Let's take the example mentioned by GliderGuider:

On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange 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.

What is the evidence of this "crime"? Ardin who had invited him to stay, to share the bed and make love, said in the police interview that she was increasingly bothered by Assange's presence and particularly annoyed when at one time in bed he pressed his naked body against hers. How is this a "statement describing a crime", as you say? "What is the government to do", you ask, if a woman freely states that she was bothered by such an incident? Really?

I submit the government has better things to do than to concern itself with such crap. Unless it has ulterior motives to waste its time in this manner.

[GliderGuider]

83. Is Assange a "rapist"? I thought that would require one of three things:

1. A trial and conviction on rape charges;
2. An admission by Assange that he raped someone;
3. A statement from a credible victim that she had been raped by him;

All of these are absent in this case. Assange is not a rapist, and your insinuations are smears.

ETA: In any event, the "rape" business is invalid, and a distraction. This is not, and never has been, about Assange's sexual conduct. It's a bag job pure and simple - with sex used as both the bait for the trap and as a smokescreen to get people like you to ignore the real issue.

[hack89]

85. I was addressing the general case not Assange specifically.

read the post I was replying to.

[GliderGuider]

89. "Addressing the general case" in this case amounts to a smear by association

We can all stipulate that rapists are not good people, without impinging on the Assange case at all.

Fortunately the Assange case isn't actually about rape.

[hack89]

93. When a poster says that it should always be left up to the woman

as to whether rape charges should be pressed then I should be able to explain why it is a bad idea.

I did not bring up to topic.

[riderinthestorm]

94. I really want to know why you think its a "bad idea" for women to define their own

sexual experiences.

I'd really like to know why you believe the government is better suited to tell me that my version of my own sex life is wrong, and that they know better than me.

You are veering into very dangerous territory.

[hack89]

98. Because if there is clear and convincing evidence that a rape actually took place

the government cannot endanger other women by letting a rapist walk free.

I am not veering into dangerous territory at all. There has to be a balance between personal privacy and public safety. You seem to have no regard for public safety.

[riderinthestorm]

101. What clear and convincing evidence do you think you would have?

How would you know? If there's no accuser, exactly what would be used to create the case? Can you point to a single case where the government had to step in and prosecute a rape case without a victim (other than dead victims who have no say in whether the government makes these decisions for them)?

There must be some concrete examples since you seem so firmly convinced.

[hack89]

108. An eyewitness. A bystander that witnessed the rape and intervened.

and who was able to identify the rapist.

With a credible witness saying "I saw that man rape that woman" that should be sufficient to arrest and charge the rapist.

[riderinthestorm]

110. Eyewitness accounts are wrong at least 50% of the time

More than half.

http://www.ced-aai.com/index.php/areas-of-engineering-expertise-at-ced/consumer-products/252-witness-perception-eyewitnesses-are-wrong-50-of-the-time

They are not credible. And how are we to know that the eyewitness wasn't witnessing S&M? Erotic asphyxiation? Role playing? Anal sex? Multiple partners? My mother thinks sex in any other position but the missionary position is rape, how about her as a witness? She's a 78 year old church going, college educated, former member of a major police department - about as 'credible" witness as you're going to get

Remember, you are talking about stripping a woman of her own authority and agency to determine if the sex was rape or not. So if the woman involved said her BDSM session was consensual and my mother says its rape, you've just decided to prosecute that woman's partner. That's what you're really saying? That a witness gets to be the arbiter of what's rape, and not the woman involved who says its not?

You know, in Islamic countries women have to have witnesses too to ensure their sexual encounters are recounted appropriately to the authorities. Even with witnesses women don't necessarily have the agency and authority to say differently if the witnesses are liars.

Eye witness accounts when it comes to sex are for shit. Now please proceed to answer the rest of the questions I posted upthread, or even the ones I've posted here.

[riderinthestorm]

113. Crickets hack89. Asked you to respond hours ago. Crickets.... nt

[robinlynne]

132. There is not clear and convincing evidence that rape took place. Remember, the woman went back for

more sex with Julian days later. No woman goes back to be assaulted a second time. ever. Unless she is a prisoner, and has no choice.

[hack89]

134. I wasn't specifically addressing the Assange case

my comment was general one regarding whether or not the women has the final say on whether charges are ultimately filed.

However, in the Assange case, both women made official statements that indicated that he potentially broke Swedish law. The four official charges in his international arrest warrant are very specific and, if not illegal, very disturbing. I am not saying that he did rape them - for all I know a Swedish jury would find him innocent in a heartbeat. But that is an issue for the Swedish justice system to sort out. Which means he has to go to Sweden.

[robinlynne]

135. We are all addressing the Assange case.This OP is all about the Assange case.

[hack89]

136. The sub thread veered into the general

the poster believes that there is no situation where the woman should not have the final say as to whether charges should be filed.

[GliderGuider]

96. It's a grey area. Take domestic violence, for example

In some jurisdictions domestic violence charges don't require the victim to file charges, the prosecutor can do it without their permission. It's still a fairly controversial approach, but it can be justified by referring to the power imbalance in many marriages. However, even when such factors are present there should be a degree of prosecutorial discretion. I'm personally against any laws that tie a prosecutor's hands completely (so to speak).

In this case no such considerations apply, so the women's wishes should have been paramount. The fact that prosecutorial discretion was available is evident in the fact that the first prosecutor declined to pursue charges. So it's again obvious (to most of us anyway) that this is a political witch-hunt using sex as bait, trap and smokescreen.

[riderinthestorm]

99. Very rare for a DV case to go forward without the woman's cooperation

Almost impossible if she won't testify against them. The only cases that usually go forward without the woman involved have other witnesses who can testify to the abuse.

[GliderGuider]

103. That makes sense - a successful prosecution requires evidence after all

The quality of the evidence required depends on the jurisdiction and the circumstances though...

[riderinthestorm]

51. The women don't call it rape, they didn't want to press charges

This political stunt is hideous, especially in its treatment of women, even more so for the women involved in the Assange case, who've been told by their paternalistic state that they don't really know that they've been "raped"! And that despite the women's adamant desire to NOT press charges, the paternalistic state believes it can supercede the wishes of its own citizens and advance the case FOR them). I can't even imagine being the women involved - if this ever comes to a resolution in Sweden they will be forced to become hostile witnesses (if they can be found. One of them has fled the country and vows to not return) detailing their sex with Assange?!

Ick. Just completely patriarchal and disgusting. I'd bet a million dollars that virtually all of the posters pressing that this "rape" case go forward are all men - despicable, sexist, voyeuristic men.

[hack89]

60. When they make official statements to the police that describe rape according to Swedish law

it doesn't matter what they called it or what they wanted. Police can't ignore crimes.

[riderinthestorm]

62. Police ignore crimes all the time! Sweden has some of the worst rape prosecution rates in the EU

They particularly ignore rape allegations!

Really, is this the best you have? That police can't ignore crimes?

This is ridiculous.

What's despicable are the Swedish authorities telling these women they've been raped when they say they haven't been. Its patriachal, its designed to shame them in public testimony, and use them as political pawns. It demeans and belittles women who have legitimate allegations who really need and want prosecution.

Shameful.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

63. Is your argument really 'the police ignore crimes all the time, so they should ignore this' n/t

[riderinthestorm]

64. Yes, because that's what the women want. Who are you, or anyone! to tell them what to do

on something like this. Especially in light of the many rape victims who actually DO want prosecutions but never find justice.

This political stunt is hideous, especially in its treatment of women, even more so for the women involved in the Assange case, who've been told by their paternalistic state that they don't really know that they've been "raped"! And that despite the women's adamant desire to NOT press charges, the paternalistic state believes it can supercede the wishes of its own citizens and advance the case FOR them. I can't even imagine being the women involved - if this ever comes to a resolution in Sweden they will be forced to become hostile witnesses (if they can be found. One of them has fled the country and vows to not return) detailing their sex with Assange?!

Ick. Just completely patriarchal and disgusting.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

115. i'm sure rich people everywhere are thanking you currently

since you are basically arguing that if they manage to bribe whoever they have committed a crime against to drop their charges then they are safe from prosecution.

The above also goes to those good at intimidation(and other underhanded means )

If the state is aware of a crime then it should prosecute in my eyes(I'll admit it doesn't always happen, but point stands)

[riderinthestorm]

117. The women in this case, the supposed "victims", say there's no crime!

This isn't some rich guy pressuring the state. Not even close even with this ridiculous analogy.

If the women say there's no sex crime, then it stands to reason and common decency, to believe them.

Tell me Bodhi Bloodwave, have you ever participated in a rape trial where the women WANT to testify? They are motivated to do so for justice but its humiliating. Every last detail of the episode is recounted down to the last drop of vaginal lubrication, every millimeter of penetration, the exact positioning of the buttocks.... Only pervs would want to FORCE any woman onto the stand to recount a consensual act that she does not believe to be a crime. Its sick. Its slut shaming and a sign of a patriarchal society that believes it knows better than any woman to determine what kind of sex she had. It strips women of their own authority.

Misogyny on display. Glad to know exactly where everyone stands on this out front....

[Bodhi BloodWave]

118. we don't know what assange supporters might have done *shrugs*

Not that i *think* they have done anything, but its just as likely as any other conspiracy theory in regards to this case

and in all honesty if you go to the police and make a report, and the report describes what would be rape according to the laws of the country then i think the police have a duty to act on it, even if the one who made the report hadn't planned on doing such.

As for my 'rich' comment, it was more based on what seems to be your mindset that if the women decide to drop the charges after making a report then the state should stop acting on the knowledge(might not be your intent, but thats the logical continuation of the mindset)

[riderinthestorm]

119. So you are for slut shaming by the state, that you + them get to be the arbiters of consensual sex

I have no idea what you mean by "we don't know what assange supporters might have done *shrugs* Not that i *think* they have done anything, but its just as likely as any other conspiracy theory in regards to this case "


That's completely unrelated to anything I've written.

I'm going to take it you are okay with placing women as children to the patriarchal state who get to strip them of their authority to make their own decisions on their consensual sex. Thanks for making it clear.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

120. considering i took a look at the article you posted in another thread

and reading it in full(as well as translating a part of it) I'd say you are the one trying to twist the ladies words into something suiting your stance

omitting parts you don't like of what was written in the article to twist it into something totally different is pathetic

[hack89]

65. So the evil patriarch strikes again?

I am done with you. You are slipping into loony tune territory.

[reorg]

67. So the short summer of love with Feminism is over?

I knew something didn't sound right when defenders of the MIC started to speak up for "gender equality", LOL.

[hack89]

69. Gender equality and the MIC can coexist perfectly

look at all the women in positions of power in the military.

[reorg]

70. sure

there have always been women who made their peace with patriarchal institutions.

But:

... the elite depend, absolutely, on war, death, terror and fear to sustain their economic dominance. As the empire’s chief sycophant, Thomas Friedman, once put it: “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.” You really can’t put it any plainer than that. The only path to prosperity is through domination by armed force. Others must die, must suffer, must quake in fear, to preserve our comfort. This is Modern American Militarism in a nutshell: the ruling ideology and national religion of American society today.

Anything or anyone who threatens this dominance — or just disagrees with it, or simply wants to be left alone by it — is automatically judged an enemy of the imperial state. You must accept the system. You must get with the program. You cannot question it. ...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/17/imperial-affront/

[hack89]

66. So only "despicable, sexist, voyeuristic men" think Assange may have committed rape? Really. nt

[riderinthestorm]

71. No, they are the ones who are forcing and using these women in this power play,

and they are also the ones who believe the "state" knows better than the women that they were "raped" (even when they say they weren't), and they are the ones who self-righteously want some kind of "justice" for this case of "rape" (which the women say isn't rape) instead of focusing on cases where the women actually want and need real justice. Sweden's horrific rape prosecution statistics demonstrate the state's indifference to this crime for everyone else.

Would it titillate a sane person to force these women onto the stand, having to detail and outline their consensual sex for the public? Would you be happy to be forced to the stand to outline every last stroke, penis size, lubrication status, and position? The kind of person who believes this is anything but voyeuristic and despicable if you've ever seen rape testimony - and that's from women who are willing to testify.These women aren't. Their personal sex lives laid out for the public. Joy. The pervs are salivating.

The women were given assurances by the investigators that their request for Assange to take an HIV test would remain anonymous (which is all this case was ever about). More broken promises by a patriachal and paternalistic state that's abusing and forcing its power over these women.

So yes. Actually. Really.

[tama]

38. They have

They never wanted to press any charges in the first place, just to ask to have Assange tested for STD. But the system took over...

[Swagman]

23. perhaps you wil find Assange left the Embassy weeks ago in the trunk of a car

This was planned a long time ago with Ecuador's help.

Many countries in SA are tied of their rights being abused by the USA.

[robinlynne]

133. he spoke live from the embassy window on Sunday with news reporters from all around the world taping

[David__77]

42. So will continue to be a guest of the embassy indefinitely.

Of course many public figures have been in similar circumstances for years or even decades.

[fascisthunter]

50. then all should be revealed about the corruption that is dragging this world down

he's got nothing left to lose.

[lovuian]

80. Things happen over time...things change

The UK may change its mind The US may change their mind and Sweden

Time allows for change
the UK lost Sweden Lost Australia Lost and America Lost

Assange is still not within their grasp and this alone proves that the New World Order has failed

[lib2DaBone]

112. Why doesn't Obama call off his attack dogs? Obviously.. its the U.S. who wants Assange...

Mr. Obama is NOT going to get any boost in the polls from the far right because he crucifies this Assange guy? So why his he doing this? To take attention from Fast and Furious?

Does ANYONE really believe that Assange raped anyone? Seems pretty SOP that when they want to neutralize a politician or whistle blower... its the "SEX' charges that always do the job.

American helicopter opens fire on Journalists and innocent civilians... that's OK... but did you hear? Assange touched his penis on a consenting partner.. oh my....WTF? The whole thing is beyond obvious.

[tama]

121. Majority of American want to see people behind Wikileaks prosecuted

"According to a telephone survey of 1,029 US residents age 18 and older, conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in December 2010, 70% of American respondents – particularly Republicans and older people – think the leaks are doing more harm than good by allowing enemies of the United States government to see confidential and secret information about U.S. foreign policy. Approximately 22% – especially young liberals – think the leaks are doing more good than harm by making the U.S. government more transparent and accountable. A majority of 59% also want to see the people behind WikiLeaks prosecuted, while 31% said the publication of secrets is protected under the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.[107]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_of_WikiLeaks

[cqo_000]

122. Unasur backs Ecuador's asylum offer to Assange

QUITO, Aug. 19 (Xinhua) -- South American Foreign Ministers Sunday voiced their support for Ecuador in granting asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, rebuking Britain for "threatening" to storm the country's embassy in London.

The ministers of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) expressed their solidarity with Ecuador in a joint declaration issued following an emergency meeting in the Ecuadorian city of Guayaquil.


Unasur became the second regional organization this week to throw its support behind Ecuador and condemn Britain.

Member nations of the regional Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas issued a joint statement expressing their "emphatic support" for Ecuador and censure for the "intimidating threats" from the British government.

Together, the two organizations represent such nations as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Guyana, Nicaragua, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay and Venezuela, and several Caribbean islands.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/20/c_131795981.htm

[idwiyo]

125. Good for them and thank you for posting this

[djean111]

126. Guess I mised their call......

I am, however, amazed at the sheer volume and tenacity of the anti-Assange brigade.
Since I have read nothing that would change minds, I can only assume someone is going to eventually make a decision based on Google hits or something like that, and the Anti-Assange stuff is being beefed up.

[tama]

127. Not an easy case for DU

especially during election campaign time. Nobody can really say that that in treatment of Manning the buck does not stop at Oval office (member of Obama admin who criticized treatment of Manning got immediately fired), Iraq veterans who were heroes of DU during the OWS are attacking Dem campaign in support for Manning. On the other hand DUers are supposed by forum rules to be now united and work for re-election of Obama.

[djean111]

128. If all of this pounding about Assange is to ensure DU will support Obama no matter what....

then I will just stop reading these threads.
I would never vote GOP. No matter what. So slathering Dem pigs with lipstick is not needed, in my case.
And I don't want to see Assange prosecuted for Wikileaks.
And however Hillary feels - it comes with the job.

[SylviaD]

129. Assange should not be "prosecuted for Wikileaks"

prosecuted or persecuted.

However...perhaps he should be prosecuted for rape.

How women's rights seem to have flown out the window when it comes to the Assange case baffles me. Is there or is there not a victim who claims she was assaulted by this man? I'm surprised at the prevailing attitude here on DU.