Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??
It's important to know that as the article points out Embassies do not enjoy full extraterritorial status, and contrary to popular belief are not sovereign.
The practice of the host country entering only with permission is based in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and a violation of this would likely have no real material effect. That convention also requires the host country to protect the embassy and other rules. It is unlikely that the UK's allies would object, and even more unlikely that the country in question here would mount any serious diplomatic or military response.
"The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.
It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange."
If they do that it wouldn't be an act of war, it would be legal. It definitely sets a terrible precedent though and even if it's legal Ecuador might interpret it as an act of war.
Whether or not it is legal would be pretty much irrelevant, I'd think - it would be something every regime that dislikes Britain would pay close attention to for the purpose of pointing to the moment they decide they want to pick someone up from a British embassy.
I can't imagine Britain would be willing to risk the integrity of its own embassies in that way over Assange. It sounds like sabre-rattling, nothing more.
Consider that they did not even try to enter an embassy over the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher by someone at the Libyan embassy - a murder that achieved infamy in Britain. The Metropolitain Police laid siege to the Libyan embassy for 11 days and the government severed all diplomatic ties with Libya. But they did not try to enter.
If Thatcher was not prepared to do it, I very much doubt the current government would be willing to deal with the fallout.
The Libyan case doesn't really apply - the suspected gunman was a diplomat and a Libyan national and there's a whole extra set of legal issues involved that don't apply to someone seeking asylum in an embassy for a non-political crime.
I think some will disagree with the reason for asylum. I don't think there is any doubt that this is political. This is not about rape accusations. This is very political.
Do you honestly believe Ecuador will initiate hostilities against NATO in order to protect a foreign citizen from due legal process in that persons home country?
It would surely be less effort and risk to lift him from the roof by helicopter and whisk him to a waiting jet James Bond style.
They probably would not call it an act of war without backing it up --so I doubt they would. If they did bluff and get called, next time hostilities flared up with Peru or Columbia, they might not be taken seriously.
I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.
It would be more to the point to say that they are harboring him from espionage charges. We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom.
But he's not being shielded from any charges. The extradition request is for questioning; he simply hasn't been charged yet.
It's his story that, upon extradition to Sweden, the Swedes will turn around and hand him over to the US to be Gitmo'ed with extreme prejudice, but that's all it is thus far: his story. That said, it's certainly plausible; he's mightily pissed off the US government, which does seem to have a habit — particularly lately — of treating people that embarrass it rather less than gently. It would also explain how het-up the Swedes are to have him extradited, and the fact that Britain is willing to violate the Ecuadorian embassy (which, FTR, is not sovereign territory) in order to retrieve him. But idiotically zealous investigation of alleged rape (let alone lesser charges) isn't exactly unheard of, either.
Either way, however much good Assange has done the world by exposing the stuff he and WikiLeaks have exposed, he is an attention-whore, and his motives are pretty broadly suspect. Personally, I'd vastly prefer he not be subject to "extraordinary rendition" — not because of anything he's done, but because I don't think anyone should be shipped off to countries where they "interrogate" with rectally inserted broken beer bottles (to reference just one of the many stories that have bubbled up from that kind of thing). But that's just me.
That sounds pretty silly. He was only a couple of hours away by plane, he is surrounded by media. Runs a talk show. Claiming they can't question him is just ridiculous and make them seem like they certainly have other ideas than just simple questioning for not wearing a condom.
> We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom.
bingo. that's why, in part, this is clearly about something other than the alleged sex incidents. it's pretty obviously about Wikileaks, trying to impede/stop/punish it and him.
That's nonsense. You only have to look at Roman Polanski, who fled rape charges to a foreign jurisdiction and the amount of press generated over that.
The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.
It is worth pointing out that the women in question did not go to the police to file a complaint. Nor have charges been taken out (there is an arrest warrant for questioning on suspicion).
This case was pursued by the prosecutor at the instigation of Swedish police, after a previous prosecutor had initially closed the case stating that there was no indication anything illegal had taken place.
The women in question does not under Swedish law legally have any say in whether or not the case is pursued or not - if a prosecutor believes a crime has taken place, it is their duty to pursue the case in the interest of the state, not on behalf of the women.
(What does make this case stink, though, is that one of the women in question at one point prior to the case against Assange published a blog post about leveraging this exact method to "legally" take revenge against a lover who she found had was involved with someone else)
The prosecutor said there was no case of rape to follow, but did concede that there was a case of sexual assault. The rape case was reopened and the sexual assault case remained opened
Interesting parallel perhaps in the two cases: the accused was initially not too concerned about the outcome, and cooperated, then suddenly something changed and it spooked the accused enough to go on the run.
In the Polanski case, his lawyer had arranged a plea bargain, then, later at trial, the judge suddenly reneged without explanation. In the Assange case, he had already been questioned, the allegations were dropped, then suddenly a couple days of media coverage pass and the allegations are reinstated.
Not to imply either is a case of no wrongdoing, but in each case the accused initially faced the allegations, then something changed and scared the accused enough to go on the run.
The victim in the Polanski case has all but forgiven him, but does anyone disagree he would be crazy to ever set foot in the US again? The prosecutors office seems to have a very long memory and an uncanny ability to hold a grudge.
that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds.
on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed by rude comments. something about the culture and the kind of people it attracts, perhaps an increasingly young male techie demographic, dunno.
This is the second comment by you where you are accusing someone of misogeny or justifying rape without basis. I think you should be careful about talking about moral high ground.
How so? I'm not saying that anyone is correct because they are being smeared. I assert no connection between your smears and the alleged smear campaign against Assange, and I certainly am not saying that your smears in any way vindicate the accusations of those who you are smearing. I'm just saying it is amusing.
Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "all but justifying raping women". That is a serious allegation.
There's nothing amusing about the remark that "one could argue that 'sex without a condom' with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape". The notion being put forth is a justification of rape, and "one could argue" is a way of rhetorically evading responsibility for putting the notion forward.
That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification.
Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state this explicitly: I do not approve of the actions as portrayed in that narrative.
Maybe "justify" is too strong a word. The central principle is that having sex with someone who does not consent is rape. It doesn't matter if their clothes are on or if you're in bed with them. It doesn't matter if they consented to protected sex, but you chose to have unprotected sex with them instead even though they didn't consent to it. It's still rape.
To say that it isn't technically rape could mean a few things. It could mean that it's worse than rape or at least equivalent to rape, or it could mean that it's not as bad as rape. But if it's just as bad as rape or even worse, there would be no point to the remark at all, especially in a series of comments meant to defend Assange. Obviously, the intention was to say that this action is something less than rape.
To say that this particular type of rape is something less than rape might not justify it, but it does minimize it in such a way that denies the basic agency, dignity, and human rights of the victim. It's a hideous, misogynistic notion. (That's not a supporting argument, by the way, it's a conclusion.)
Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.
Phil, have Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén said the sex was rape?
For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads promoting that Assange is a rapist, that women have accused him of rape, and that he is charged with rape. Yet, despite being requested for citations showing your accusations are factual, you have failed to do so for two years now.
> Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.
Not at all. I simply think the Swedish justice system should fully process these accusations, and whatever outcome or verdict is reached will simply be whatever it is.
I am dismayed that in many rape cases, it's easier to perform a character assassination on the alleged victims and intimidate them from testifying. I'm worried that people with some sort of political sympathy for Assange due to his work with WikiLeaks will engage in this kind of character assassination and intimidation. Fortunately, the Swedish prosecutors seem to have collected depositions already, so Assange's alleged victims might not have to go through the agony of reliving their experiences on a worldwide stage only to be called liars or sluts, or to be accused of being paid off by the CIA.
Still, there's a very high chance that even if Assange is guilty, he will not be convicted. I simply hope that if he is guilty, he is convicted, and that if he is innocent, that he is not only acquitted but fully exonerated. No innocent man deserves that kind of cloud over his head.
> For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads...
You seem to be keeping very close tabs on my activity on HN. If you had an email address in your profile I would ask you about this privately, but you seem determined to retain your pseudonymity, so I will ask publicly. Why exactly are you so interested in my comments in particular?
If I was stalking you as you are absurdly trying to assert then I'd be commenting frequently on your comments here, which I don't.
Your comments on the rape sounded familiar and I looked through past threads on Assange and was surprised to notice that you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape and he has been charged with rape, both which are false. The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape, but I do want to point out that your claims about Assange are bald faced lies and you have an agenda.
It would be one thing if you had heard in passing that the women had accused him of rape and he was being charged with rape and mistakenly thought it was correct. But you have a history of promoting these claims and during this time have not provided evidence either that he has been charged with rape or that either woman has claimed to have been raped. Thus you do know what the facts are, and you are intentionally choosing to lie here. There is nothing innocent about your assertions and your propaganda tactics are far from naive.
Your comments about "rape cases" where people blame the victims, "intimidate them from testifying" and engage in "character assassination" are more of your attempts to falsely promote and assert that these women have said they were raped and that he was been charged with rape, but then adds on a new accusation - there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News! Who here is intimidating them from testifying? Name them! Rape has not been accused by the women or charged, so there is no rape case. There is no character assassination against the women to repeatedly ask you to show your evidence that rape has been charged, or that the women have accused him of rape. Cite specifically the character assassination that has occurred here. Show your evidence. Asking you to provide evidence of your claims is not character assassination against women, nor is it blaming victims, nor is it intimidating witnesses in a trial, and it is absurd rhetoric to claim these things.
> If I was stalking you as you are absurdly trying to assert
droithomme, has Philip Welch ever said your interest in his past comments on this issue was stalking? You have failed for one hour to provide a single citation showing your accusation is factual!
> you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape
It's all me, huh? If Google is to be trusted, the word "rape" has been used to describe the accusations against Assange by over a thousand news sources today alone. I promise you I'm not responsible for that.
> The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape
Now that's just plain bad faith on your part. My interest is in the basic human rights and dignity of all people. Some women get raped, and as a culture we do a bad job of handling it. We do a bad job of handling when men get raped, too.
> your propaganda tactics are far from naive
You give me too much credit, and yet too little at the same time.
> there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News!
I'm not the one spinning conspiracy theories. I'm not the one calling people propaganda artists. I'm not the one who thinks it's all a CIA frame job intended to somehow make it easier to spirit Julian Assange away to Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, it's sadly a common thing for those accused of rape and their supporters to commit character assassination and intimidation against the alleged victims in order to undermine the criminal justice system. I'm far from the first or only person to notice this. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, I'm just disappointed that, as always, these tactics will interfere with the ability of the justice system to decide once and for all whether or not Julian Assange is guilty.
Fine. The truth is, it doesn't really matter. I would be ecstatic for the Swedish criminal justice system to carefully consider all the evidence and come to a fair outcome for everyone involved. My concern is that Julian Assange is obstructing this process out of either paranoid delusion or regular evasiveness, and his political supporters are all too eager to support his actions.
there are no rape charges. rape != sexual assault. and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly. also there are no charges. merely an accusation. and they merely want to "question" him, which of course they could do easily without forcing him to go to Sweden. The whole thing is a pretty blatant sham, a masquerade for some other goal of theirs.
From an article about the charges [1] "...one of the women alleges that Assange behaved threateningly with her and held her down to prevent her from reaching for a condom. He did end up wearing one, but she thinks he ripped it and deliberately ejaculated inside her. He also later rubbed up against her with his pants off, she says, against her will. The other alleged victim claims that she struggled with Assange over the condom all night, had consensual sex with him when he finally put it on, and then woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom. In my personal and professional experience with rape, these kinds of allegations are both credible and common."
These are definitely allegations of sexual assault, and the described behavior treads perilously close to what everyone would agree is rape.
You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges. One of the women are now refusing to sign any past statements regarding the case. The other appears to have left Sweden. At tehe time prosecutor reviewed the statements and made it clear the full statements did not imply a crime had taken place.
Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women.
There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to intimidate victims of rape into not cooperating with attempts at prosecution. If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden.
Also:
> woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent
> If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden
I disagree. If the prosecutor has no case, Assange has - rightfully or not - every reason to wonder why they are pursuing him in this manner, and every reason to then worry about what the underlying motivation is. He might be more paranoid than justified in how he interprets it, but if I was in his shoes and a prosecutor acted the way the Swedish prosecutor has in this case, and I knew I hadn't done anything wrong (or thought I hadn't), I'd be worried something was up and be far more concerned about that than a potential Swedish jail sentence.
If the prosecutor actually has a case, Assange presumably knows he did what is claimed, and in that case he would have more reason to believe early on that his "worst case" scenario might be a very short stay in a low security, comfortable Swedish prison - the crimes he is wanted for questioning about have very short sentencing guidelines in Sweden.
In terms of extradition, if I was him I'd not be so concerned about legal, above board extradition. I would be concerned about the fact that Sweden has admitted to, and have been censured by the UN for, having violated their own laws as well as international treaties to participate in rendition arranged by the US of two Egyptians to Egypt where they were subsequently tortured. If they were willing to do that with some relatively low level targets, at the behest of the US, then there is every reason to worry they'd be willing to be "flexible" about giving Assange to the US.
The odds of them taking the political fallout from that in this case might be small, but then this is not just about what Assange might objectively have reason to fear - a lot of it boils down to what his actual, subjective fears are. I see little reason to doubt that Assange personally genuinely fear the US is after him and that he believes he is important enough that given its past history with rendition that Sweden might very well be easy to push into handing over him too.
He might very well make irrational choices because of that fear without there being any implication of guilt behind those choices.
Then again, he might also be guilty and just not want to face it.
Point is, this isn't nearly as clear cut as some would like to think it is.
In Assange's own mind, yes, he probably is the victim of a massive international conspiracy whether or not he committed rape. It's a little disappointing to see so many people on HN take those delusions of grandeur at face value.
The thing is, I don't even like the guy. Wikileaks is fantastic, but we can credit him for his involvement with that without whitewashing the person.
Even if I were to only accept the parts his own lawyers have conceded, the statements do paint the picture of someone who is quite a bit of an asshole. Maybe he is a bit of a misogynist, though I think it's more likely he is "just" a bit narcissistic and didn't really take anyones feelings into account. Add in some paranoia - even if people are after him, he comes across as believing they care more than I think they do.
I just think there are a lot of things about this case that are fishy to the point where there's good reason to be extremely suspicious about the motivations of some of the people involved, even if one discounts the idea of US involvement. He might very well be guilty for what I know, but that still doesn't mean there's nothing weird going on with how the whole situation has been handled.
Doesn't it seem like Assange has introduced most of the weirdness himself? Lots of people run into legal trouble overseas. Most of them don't hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.
The vast majority of this weirdness preceded his decision to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. In fact, the vast majority of it took place even before the arrest warrant was issued, and by the time of the initial extradition decision the prosecutor had continued to make it worse by refusing even more offers of interviewing Assange while making excuses for why she can't that are directly contradicted by Swedish authorities behaviour in other recent cases.
Evidently, they have to formally question Assange before filing charges. They'd rather have him in custody in Sweden before they do that. Isn't it pretty well established by Assange's own actions that Assange would be a massive flight risk? The Swedish aren't the ones acting irrationally.
First of all, you can be charged in absentia in Sweden. If they interviewed him, and he still refused to return, then that would be a textbook case of a justification for having him charged in absentia.
Secondly, he claims that he will be extradited to the US if he is brought to Sweden. How exactly would he suddenly become more likely to try to flee if they decide to charge him? He is already claiming that going to Sweden means a risk of facing the death penalty in the US.
In that context it seems ludicrous to think that interviewing him and then charging him would somehow increase his resolve try to avoid extradition, or that this has been the case for a very long time.
It is not like he would have considered voluntarily setting foot on Swedish soil from any point over the past year or more. A charge would not have made that more or less likely.
Meanwhile, a formal charge would remove at least some reason to question the motivations of the Swedish prosecutor, and it would make it much harder for Ecuador to justify asylum given that they have publicly used this as part of their process for determining whether or not to give asylum.
As for that. At the moment he is holed up in a small embassy, while the Metropolitan police is outside, waiting for a chance to grab him.
Yet the Swedish police still refuse to interview him, while making up bogus excuses for why they don't. They could have stated the reason you suggest: That if they make the decision to charge him, they want to be able to take him into custody immediately under the circumstances. That reason is still a poor excuse, but they've not even tried to use even that.
If he is a flight risk in his current location, he is a flight risk whether or not they interview or charge him - his only realistic means of escape is if he gets asylum from Ecuador and Ecuador finds a way of getting him on a plane, whether smuggling him in an oversized diplomatic pouch or convincing the UK to give him free passage. Either way, this doesn't become any harder or easier depending on whether or not Swedish authorities interview him.
The Swedish might not be the only ones acting irrationally. But if they're not acting irrationally, it would imply they have a hidden agenda. If their agenda is what they claim it is, then yes, they are acting irrationally. Either alternative is pretty bad.
So in the absence of information, we assume it's a CIA conspiracy? What?
OK, maybe it's a little irrational that the Swedish prosecutor doesn't want to bend over backwards and do it Assange's way just to humor his paranoid delusions. But it's not suspicious.
> You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges.
This, ultimately, is why this should be seen as a "non-case" and therefore just an excuse for the US/UK/Swedish government to hassle Assange and therefore Wikileaks.
You can make statements about non-explicitly authorized "wake-up sex" in either gender direction. The fact that we're talking about one particular direction does not make one a misogynist.
You seem quite eager to call people misogynists. It sounds to me like you enjoy it.
The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent is pure misogyny. It outright justifies rape. I'm not going to give you a pass on making comments like that out of politeness. Ideas like that need to be called out for what they are.
> The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.
> It outright justifies rape.
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't.
I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake.
Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.
> I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.
I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally.
That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.
You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
In context, the notion put forward is this: it's arguably not rape to have unprotected sex with someone who refuses consent to have unprotected sex with you, as long as you've already got them naked and in bed with you. I'm not sure you can classify that notion as a harmless technicality. And if you leave out the part about the woman refusing consent, then it's a non-sequitur anyway.
> You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.
Note that the arrest warrant does explicitly claim rape, though it does so in a very vague manner.
Someone pointed out at the Guardian's site last night that the warrant presented to the UK courts actually is worded in a very contorted way to claim an allegation on rape on the basis that one of the women was in a "state of sleep" without actually stating whether she was asleep or half asleep and whether or not there's a claim that she was not consenting or unable to consent.
If she was claiming to be "half asleep", which is what has been stated previously in the Swedish press, and aware of what was going on, she might very well have been in position to legally consent, and there's to my knowledge not been a claim in Sweden that this in itself is what gave rise to rape claims, but that the rape claim was predicated on him not using a condom in that instance, despite her previous insistence that he had to.
It could be just an innocent bad wording, but given the rest of this case, and how this curiously misrepresents the claims presented in Sweden, this does seem rather odd. It would have been trivial to precisely express the claims presented in Sweden in unambiguous terms in far fewer words than they used.
This may not answer your question, but it's somewhat related as it kind of did lead to war against Iran (at least that's what wikipedia tells me).
>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in support of the Iranian Revolution.
Forget all the legal nuances. We have to answer that question. So what then? So Britain blows everyone the middle finger and declared a war on Ecuador. Just like US invaded Iraq (physically).
Who is going to protect Ecuador? Is Ecuador going to suicide its soldiers by landing in Britain to protect Assange? Some Latin American countries will issue a very strongly worded statement and maybe some other countries will say something, and then I bet you nothing happens.
