Assange granted asylum

[Flagg]

Why could he not have be questioned in England? That's what's so puzzling to me about all of this.

[Alyeska]

The whole case has gotten political. Ars Technica has a good overview on how this has turned into a cluster fuck.

Ecuador is in an interesting position and they have acted with more reason than most.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... l-limited/

[Mange]

That's easily circumvented - its not like Assange can only be charged with the crime of disseminating classified US info. Charge him with say, computer crime. *ding* Turkey's done.

It's not quite that easy. Any country requesting an extradition must provide a details of the nature of the crime, the time and place the crime was commited and a detention order or a conviction must be enclosed. Also, legal experts in Sweden, as well as the Swedish Foreign Ministy, has stated that there's no legal way to extradite him to the U.S. as the country practices the death penalty.

Assange's lawyer has already stated Assange is willing to go to Sweden if a guarantee is made that he will not be extradited.

The United States hasn't requested his extradition and Sweden can't give any guarantees for something which may or may not happen in advance.

That's some stellar record right there. I thought that was mainly the habit of Eastern European nations to serve the US as rendition points, but naah.

It was a unique event and I've discussed it at length in the other thread. The rendition of Mr. Agiza and Mr. Alzery to Egypt, which occured in the wake of 9/11, was decided by Foreign Minister Anna Lindh of the Social Democratic government (and who was murdered in 2003). When the story broke in 2004 it led to a huge scandal in Sweden.

The two Egyptians weren't suspected of having committed any crimes in Sweden and an earlier request by the Egyptian government to extradite the men to Egypt had been denied.

When the decision was made to rendition the men, Sweden demanded guarantees that the they wouldn't be tortured or recieve the death sentence. Sweden also demanded that staff from the Swedish embassy would have access to the the men in prison and that embassy staff would be allowed to be present during the trial. Egypt didn't honor the guarantees nor the other promises. Following the investigation of the rendition, the Swedish Committee on the Constitution stated that Sweden shouldn't have accepted the guarantees and as a consequence, Sweden no longer accepts any such guarantees and won't extradite anyone who risks either the death penalty or to be the subject of cruel and/or degrading treatment.

Alzery was never charged with a crime in Egypt but Agiza was found guilty of terrorist crimes by a military tribunal (which had notoriously unfair trials) and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. The repatriations were overturned by the new government in 2007 and the men filed new asylum applications in 2009 which were denied. Agiza was released from prison last year and his application for asylum in Sweden, where his family lives, was granted earlier this year.

The rendition was surprising for most Swedes as Sweden is a known champion for human rights.

He was already questioned about the rape accusation. After his questioning, the Swedish prosecutor said that there wasn't enough evidence to support charges, and that he was free to leave the countty. He applied for a residence permit to stay in Sweden, but the Swedish government denied it, so he left. Several weeks later (and two days after the big dump of diplomatic cables were released on wikileaks) the Swedes sent out an interpol notice saying that he was wanted for (more) questioning and likely charges. Exactly why the Swedish prosecutor switched from "not enough evidence, free to go" to issuing an interpol detention request has not been explained. If new evidence has come to light, the Swedes have not shared it with anyone.

A preliminary investigation that has been closed by the police or a prosecutor can be reopened by for example a senior prosecutor or the chief prosecutor if he or she believes that there's more left to investigate. There's certainly nothing remarkable about that and it happens quite often.

Why could he not have be questioned in England? That's what's so puzzling to me about all of this.

Swedish prosecutors has explained why. One of the pinnacles of the Swedish judicial system is of course that everyone is equal before the law. It would be extraordinary for Swedish prosecutors to travel abroad to question a suspect for alleged crimes that's occurred in Sweden and may set an unfortunate precedent. Also, further questioning may be needed after possible follow-up interviews with the plaintiffs and the defendant would have to be available for the trial in the (very unlikely) event that this would go to trial based on the results of the preliminary investigation.

Ecuador is in an interesting position and they have acted with more reason than most.

In what way? This whole affair is just an opportunity for its president to point the finger at the U.S. (which has nothing to do with this) and the U.K. and holler for a time in the spotlight while he closes yet another media outlet which is critical of the Ecuadorian government. Somewhat exaggerated perhaps but it's quite the journalistic haven he has been granted asylum in.

[sciguy]

A preliminary investigation that has been closed by the police or a prosecutor can be reopened by for example a senior prosecutor or the chief prosecutor if he or she believes that there's more left to investigate. There's certainly nothing remarkable about that and it happens quite often.

Sure. But it would be prudent for the Swedish prosecutor's office to provide some explanation as to why the state's position changed, especially when they not only tell him that he's free to leave, but essentially throw him out of the country by refusing to extend his visa, and then immediately issue an Interpol request saying they need him back. Presumably something must have happened to radically change their minds, and some explanation might be helpful. At the very least, it would help them avoid looking like a bunch of clowns who can't make up their minds. No, they are not under any obligation to explain it, but it would make them look better if they offered some specific explanation.

Swedish prosecutors has explained why. One of the pinnacles of the Swedish judicial system is of course that everyone is equal before the law. It would be extraordinary for Swedish prosecutors to travel abroad to question a suspect for alleged crimes that's occurred in Sweden and may set an unfortunate precedent.

Yeah, they said that, but they backed off from that assertion after the Ecuadorian embassy and various pro-Assange groups pointed out that Swedish prosecutors have, in fact, done such interviews with suspects in foreign countries plenty of times before, that Sweden is party to an international treaty to facilitate such interviews, that Swedish law explicitly permits such interview when a suspect is in a foreign country (it's in the Swedish "International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act"), and that in 2007 the Swedish supreme court issued a ruling saying that it is acceptable to question a suspect abroad. You can read the actual ruling here, if you know Swedish: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337

Amusingly, although the claims about not being able to interview in a foreign country seem to be getting a lot of uncritical repeating outside of Sweden, the major newspapers in Sweden seem to be going out of their way to not report anything about the prosecutor making those claims, even to the point of redacting already-published news stories that contained the quotes. There's an English-language post on it here: http://ccwlja.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/ ... s-nyheter/

[Magis]

Summary:
-The US hasn't asked for him.
-There's no indication that the US has any plans or intentions to ask for him.

I do think Assange should stand trial in sweden and I do trust the swedish courts to render a fair and impartial verdict. Even if the evidence is he said she said, I do think there is enough to start proceedings.

However, the above is wrong.

Then I concede that point - there is some indication that the US may want to get Assange. Though at the moment, they have not initiated any official proceeding (that is publicly known) to have him extradited or otherwise transferred to American custody.

They still can't do anything about it without laying hands on members of Ecuador's diplomatic staff, who are explicitly afforded immunity entirely separately from the premises of the mission.

Furthermore, means of transportation are ALSO assigned immunity from searches in a separate article of the convention on diplomat relations.

And finally, the wording of the above UK law doesn't mean the embassy is no longer an embassy the moment its staff does something which violates international law ; It ceases to be an embassy when the mission is shut down. Has Ecuador stopped performing regular diplomatic tasks with the land?

Apparently the entire 1987 UK law is in a sort of legal gray area. According to the CBC article, "Why seizing Assange could break international law"

The [1987 UK] law gives Britain the power to revoke the status of a diplomatic mission if the state in question “ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post” — but only if such a move is “permissible under international law.”

I imagine that the UK argument is that as soon as the embassy granted Assange diplomatic asylum (which is not recognized as a legitimate action of an embassy), they were no longer exclusively carrying out the purposes of a consular post and therefore their status can be revoked.

On the one hand, the UK has to honour its treaty obligations regarding foreign embassies, but on the other hand the UK also has to honour its treaty obligations regarding the extradition of wanted persons.

[Thanas]

I imagine that the UK argument is that as soon as the embassy granted Assange diplomatic asylum (which is not recognized as a legitimate action of an embassy), they were no longer exclusively carrying out the purposes of a consular post and therefore their status can be revoked.

Why is granting asylum not supposed to be recognized as a legitimate action of an embassy?

[Mr Bean]

I imagine that the UK argument is that as soon as the embassy granted Assange diplomatic asylum (which is not recognized as a legitimate action of an embassy), they were no longer exclusively carrying out the purposes of a consular post and therefore their status can be revoked.

Why is granting asylum not supposed to be recognized as a legitimate action of an embassy?

It is a legitimate action of an embassy, but Britain passed a law in the 70s saying that if the embassy did something that was against British whims they could do something about it. Because if ever used this law it would violate several treaties that the UK is a party to.

[Decue]

[...]and that in 2007 the Swedish supreme court issued a ruling saying that it is acceptable to question a suspect abroad. You can read the actual ruling here, if you know Swedish: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337

Have you read what the ruling is about? It is not a ruling about questioning a suspect abroad but "the proportionality principle in Chapter 24. 1 § third paragraph of the Code of Judicial Procedure are sufficient conditions for the detention of a suspect with a permanent address abroad in order to conduct a final questioning with him during the investigation."
And they rule that it is not considered disproportionate that the suspect will be detained (in absentia).

[D.Turtle]

It is a legitimate action of an embassy, but Britain passed a law in the 70s saying that if the embassy did something that was against British whims they could do something about it. Because if ever used this law it would violate several treaties that the UK is a party to.

To be exact it is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987.

The relevant sections would be this:

(3)In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—
(a)a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or
(b)the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,
it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.

(4)The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law.

(5)In determining whether to do so he shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—
(a)to the safety of the public;
(b)to national security; and
(c)to town and country planning.

I bolded the important part. It would be a clear break of international law, to be more specific, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states in Article 22:

Article 22
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

If the British decide to revoke diplomatic immunity and consular status just to extradite someone, they would set a tremendously harmful precedent, allowing many other countries to do the same to British embassies and consulates around the world. I don't think they are crazy enough to do that.

[Mange]

A preliminary investigation that has been closed by the police or a prosecutor can be reopened by for example a senior prosecutor or the chief prosecutor if he or she believes that there's more left to investigate. There's certainly nothing remarkable about that and it happens quite often.

Sure. But it would be prudent for the Swedish prosecutor's office to provide some explanation as to why the state's position changed, especially when they not only tell him that he's free to leave, but essentially throw him out of the country by refusing to extend his visa, and then immediately issue an Interpol request saying they need him back. Presumably something must have happened to radically change their minds, and some explanation might be helpful. At the very least, it would help them avoid looking like a bunch of clowns who can't make up their minds. No, they are not under any obligation to explain it, but it would make them look better if they offered some specific explanation.

He didn't apply for a visa but for permanent residency in Sweden (a visa isn't required if you intend to stay in the country for less than three months) which was denied in October 2010. How are the two issues even related? You must know just as well as I do that issues relating to permanent residency, as well as visas, are handled by Migrationsverket (and visas are also handled by Swedish missions abroad).

Yeah, they said that, but they backed off from that assertion after the Ecuadorian embassy and various pro-Assange groups pointed out that Swedish prosecutors have, in fact, done such interviews with suspects in foreign countries plenty of times before, that Sweden is party to an international treaty to facilitate such interviews, that Swedish law explicitly permits such interview when a suspect is in a foreign country (it's in the Swedish "International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act")

Indeed it does (it specifically mentions by telephone or video conference), but you need to show that Swedish prosecutors have interviewed suspects abroad "plenty of times" before. I think the reasons as to why the prosecutors didn't want to interview him at the embassy are clear enough (even though they may come to change their mind).

and that in 2007 the Swedish supreme court issued a ruling saying that it is acceptable to question a suspect abroad. You can read the actual ruling here, if you know Swedish: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337

I didn't said that it's not acceptable to question a suspect abroad, but that it would be extraordinary. I just skimmed the supreme court ruling, but where does it say anything about questioning the suspect abroad? The suspect (in a case involving tax evasion) was questioned in Sweden on March 30, 2004 and returned to his home in Dubai shortly afterwards. The District Court remanded the suspect (in absentia) so that the prosecutor would be able to finish the preliminary investigation. The suspect was then called to Sweden for questioning to which he replied that he had no intention to return and instead offered to be questioned by telephone or by mail correspondence.

To cut it short: The supreme court reversed the decision to remand the suspect as the court didn't find that the Prosecutor-General had shown that questioning by telephone or by mail correspondence wouldn't be sufficient. Nowhere does it say that Swedish prosecutors would travel to Dubai to question the suspect.

Amusingly, although the claims about not being able to interview in a foreign country seem to be getting a lot of uncritical repeating outside of Sweden, the major newspapers in Sweden seem to be going out of their way to not report anything about the prosecutor making those claims, even to the point of redacting already-published news stories that contained the quotes. There's an English-language post on it here: http://ccwlja.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/ ... s-nyheter/

Ask DN or TT (the original source) why it was redacted (a quick search showed that the same article is available at for example Göteborgsposten och Hallandsposten). To be honest, I don't think Swedish prosecutors are among the sharpest knives in the drawer. Also, that guy is ranting about freedom of speech on the issue being threatened by moderators on Flashback (a private Swedish message board) for crying out loud.

[sciguy]

Mange,

You are correct, I was making the mistake of not distinguishing between "prosecutor travels abroad to interview" vs. "interview a suspect abroad (by telephone)."

[Mange]

Mange,

You are correct, I was making the mistake of not distinguishing between "prosecutor travels abroad to interview" vs. "interview a suspect abroad (by telephone)."

Glad we cleared that up.

[Skgoa]

How is the british law of any consequence? They signed a treaty that trumps it. No matter what laws Britain writes for herself, entering the embassy without Ecuador's consent would still be international law.

[mr friendly guy]

Assange's lawyer has already stated Assange is willing to go to Sweden if a guarantee is made that he will not be extradited.

The United States hasn't requested his extradition and Sweden can't give any guarantees for something which may or may not happen in advance.

You misunderstand. His lawyer is calling on the US to publicly state not to request extradition, and NOT for Sweden to say they won't extradite.

[Magis]

I imagine that the UK argument is that as soon as the embassy granted Assange diplomatic asylum (which is not recognized as a legitimate action of an embassy), they were no longer exclusively carrying out the purposes of a consular post and therefore their status can be revoked.

Why is granting asylum not supposed to be recognized as a legitimate action of an embassy?

According to Wikipedia article on diplomatic law,

A right of diplomatic asylum is not established in international law. The International Court of Justice has emphasised that in the absence of treaty or customary rules to the contrary, a decision by a mission to grant asylum involves a derogation from the sovereignty of the receiving state. The Organization of American States agreed a convention in 1954.

Since the UK is not a signatory to the OAS convention, unless they had some other treaty with Ecuador allowing for this, then it seems like a diplomatically improper action by the Ecuador embassy.

[Magis]

I bolded the important part. It would be a clear break of international law, to be more specific, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states in Article 22:

Article 22
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

If the British decide to revoke diplomatic immunity and consular status just to extradite someone, they would set a tremendously harmful precedent, allowing many other countries to do the same to British embassies and consulates around the world. I don't think they are crazy enough to do that.

Yes, but Article 41 states,

Article 41
1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
2.All official business with the receiving State entrusted to the mission by the sending State shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other
ministry as may be agreed.
3.The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by
any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.

Granting diplomatic asylum to Assange didn't respect the laws of the UK that had set strict bail conditions on him, and it was also - as far as I understand - incompatible with the rules of general international law. Even more, it interferes with the UK's ability to extradite him, which they are under a legal obligation under UK law to do. So maybe it was Ecuador that violated the Vienna Convention first.

[Simon_Jester]

How is the british law of any consequence? They signed a treaty that trumps it. No matter what laws Britain writes for herself, entering the embassy without Ecuador's consent would still be international law.

Britain's constitutional situation is... peculiar; they don't have a judiciary capable of judicial review of laws. And it's far from guaranteed that their government will choose to enforce international treaties over local laws. They should for all sorts of reasons, but I don't think there's any internal legal documents in Britain requiring them to.

Note that the US at least in principle has such documentation- treaties are part of "the supreme law of the land" in the Constitution. Then again, the US has held to an 800-pound gorilla foreign policy for decades, so it's becoming an increasingly moot point what the Constitution says...

Granting diplomatic asylum to Assange didn't respect the laws of the UK that had set strict bail conditions on him, and it was also - as far as I understand - incompatible with the rules of general international law. Even more, it interferes with the UK's ability to extradite him, which they are under a legal obligation under UK law to do. So maybe it was Ecuador that violated the Vienna Convention first.

This is shaky, because nearly all cases of asylum involve one country taking in a person who's a criminal (or abused second-class citizen) under the laws of another country.

If preventing someone from getting asylum is as easy as "have a judge say this person isn't allowed to seek asylum," then everyone's going to start doing it.

[Skgoa]

How is the british law of any consequence? They signed a treaty that trumps it. No matter what laws Britain writes for herself, entering the embassy without Ecuador's consent would still be international law.

Britain's constitutional situation is... peculiar; they don't have a judiciary capable of judicial review of laws. And it's far from guaranteed that their government will choose to enforce international treaties over local laws. They should for all sorts of reasons, but I don't think there's any internal legal documents in Britain requiring them to.

Note that the US at least in principle has such documentation- treaties are part of "the supreme law of the land" in the Constitution. Then again, the US has held to an 800-pound gorilla foreign policy for decades, so it's becoming an increasingly moot point what the Constitution says...

The question remains unanswered: how is any of that of consequence? Or am I allowed to declare taxes illegal, just because I assert I have no internal obligation to pay taxes? Surely not.

[mr friendly guy]

If Western nations including the US and UK grant asylum to people who are criminals under the laws of a third country, then they can suck it down and accept that a third country can also grant asylum to people like Assange, especially when Assange isn't even guilty of any crime yet, and isn't even wanted to face charges (only for questioning).

[K. A. Pital]

If Western nations including the US and UK grant asylum to people who are criminals under the laws of a third country, then they can suck it down and accept that a third country can also grant asylum to people like Assange, especially when Assange isn't even guilty of any crime yet, and isn't even wanted to face charges (only for questioning).

Indeed. When Posada fucking Carilles gets hidden in the US, it is really cringeworthy when the West cries "foul play!" at Ecuador for covering Assange.

[Mange]

especially when Assange isn't even guilty of any crime yet, and isn't even wanted to face charges (only for questioning).

As I've said several times earlier, the term "charge" someone doesn't really exist in the Swedish judicial system (only to prosecute someone) and in the sense it does it works differently and occurs late in the process.

If, as a result of the preliminary investigation (which must be conducted objectively and evidence supporting the suspect must also be included and must be presented by the prosecutor during trial), the prosecutor believes that the evidence is sufficient to secure a convection then the prosecutor takes the case to court. The trial must start no later than fourteen days after the case was filed (during which time the defendant and legal counsel is given access to the preliminary investigation) and the defendant must be personally present in court to plead guilty or not guilty to the crime and it's not before that court appearance the person is charged.

[Skgoa]

Semantics. The case hasn't been filed and they aren't trying to arrest him. This is practically the same as "not being charged" in anglo-american judicial systems.
e/ Especially since, as has been pointed out, there is no legal necessity for him to be required to go to Sweden to be questioned. And that is the point people are getting at: he is not wanted for (being credibly suspected to have committed) a crime. The swedish investigator shouldn't be asking for his extradition.

[Magis]

If Western nations including the US and UK grant asylum to people who are criminals under the laws of a third country, then they can suck it down and accept that a third country can also grant asylum to people like Assange, especially when Assange isn't even guilty of any crime yet, and isn't even wanted to face charges (only for questioning).

Indeed. When Posada fucking Carilles gets hidden in the US, it is really cringeworthy when the West cries "foul play!" at Ecuador for covering Assange.

Except that Carilles wasn't granted asylum at an American embassy while he was out on bail. The complaint that the UK is making isn't merely that Assange was granted asylum, but that Ecuador used their embassy in the UK as a mechanism for granting asylum to someone that was on bail, and that the UK had a legal obligation to extradite to another place. The UK recognizes political asylum in principle, but not diplomatic asylum. If Assange had physically managed to get himself to Ecuador and then was granted asylum, I don't think the UK would be raising such a fuss over it.

People have been talking in this thread about the setting of precedents, what about the precedent this sets for future bail hearings of politically active people? Some future person facing extradition could conceivably be denied bail in part because the UK might have to worry about the person walking into any embassy and requesting asylum regarding political matters that have nothing to do with the matter related to the extradition!

[EDIT] One more thing, how much of a self-serving hypocrite is Assange that he's fleeing to a country that has a record of locking up journalists? He was also essentially exploiting the existing diplomatic discord between Ecuador and the USA to help him escape (he didn't choose the Ecuador embassy arbitrarily). Isn't this some of the same sketchy, international politicking that Wikileaks condemns? If you replace Assange with some mining corporation CEO that was wanted for questioning in sex crimes, the Wikileaks people would be popping a massive rage-boner over it.

[mr friendly guy]

especially when Assange isn't even guilty of any crime yet, and isn't even wanted to face charges (only for questioning).

As I've said several times earlier, the term "charge" someone doesn't really exist in the Swedish judicial system (only to prosecute someone) and in the sense it does it works differently and occurs late in the process.

So what? I don't care what the Swedes call it. What is being described would be known as "not being charged" in English. Whether the Swedes have a different term to describe the same thing is really irrelevant.

[Vympel]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-inten ... 24e1l.html

Australian diplomatic cables indicate- unsurprisingly - that the US has a hard-on for Assange.