Assange granted asylum

[mr friendly guy]

What I implied is that any time someone is on an honour system and doesn't follow through, it makes life harder for everyone else on that honour system. Somewhere down the line, someone in a similar situation as Assange might now face harsher bail conditions because it's clear that Assange's conditions were not harsh enough.

Don't be coy here. Your example was also implying the mechanism of avoiding the honor system, ie using the embassy in such a manner, and I called you out on that. I even underlined that part in the very post you replied to here, so there wasn't any ambiguity that was what I was referring to. Your post is essentially regurgitating what you said in a different manner and avoiding the part about the mechanism.

Your examples did not show that what happened in the Assange situation had 1) ever happened before in the UK

So what? Using that same logic, if the UK raids the Ecuadorian embassy it won't set a precedent of allowing other countries to do the same to the UK embassies, unless the UK also does it to those other countries.

and 2) happened anywhere to someone that was currently wanted for arrest for a legitimate crime in a developed country with a strong record of human rights and an independent judiciary.

So what about people wanted for crimes in a country which isn't developed? But thanks for showing that its one rule for some people and one rule for others right? All this nitpicking about using the embassy in such a manner is just an example to make a rule given you the exception. Unfortunately its falling flat.

I do not think that the idea of Assange running into an embassy was something that his bail officials considered, and even given your examples, it wouldn't not surprising that they didn't consider that.

Yes, like I mentioned earlier, they just never envisaged it happening to them.

By granting him asylum, they'll either be using the inviolability of their embassy to shield him there indefinitely, or they will use the inviolability of their diplomatic vehicles to get him out of the country (just like people in this thread and elsewhere have been saying they could do) - otherwise the asylum they are offering is worthless. The point is that the asylum would be meaningless unless Ecuador has decided to shield him indefinitely. The USA didn't do that in China, and never announced that it was their intention. They allowed him entry into their embassy, and did not grant him asylum - meaning that he wasn't going to stay there forever.

So if the UK and Ecuador negotiate some type of agreement where Assange leaves the UK (with the UK's agreement) and Ecuador announces Assange no longer needs asylum so they withdraw it, then it will suddenly be ok, according to your statement right? We both know the answer to that.

That is very important because the responsibilities and limitations of an embassy are issues that involve only the sending state and the receiving state. By granting asylum to 3rd state nationals, the embassy is not interfering with the internal affairs of the receiving state, unless, say, those nationals are wanted by the authorities of the receiving state, for example. Maybe you can imagine the difference between an embassy granting asylum to a wanted person in the receiving state vs. an embassy granting asylum to a temporary visitor for whom the asylum would have no impact whatsoever on the receiving state.

2 points
1. The US shielding Mr Chen isn't interfering with the affairs of the receiving state ie China? Oh wait, its only interfering when they shield him for long periods of time. Mate, you are just going to continue to make more arbitrary criteria in a bid to make it look like its ok for the West to do it, but its wrong for others to do it.
2. Even under your criteria, the temporary visitor (which isn't temporary if they fail to make it into an embassy) is making an impact on the receiving state, because the receiving state would deport them. Or are you not aware that illegal immigration is a problem in some countries. This is more special pleading on your part.

I was merely pointing out, in addition that there is no reasonable human rights argument in Assange's case that would conceivably justify the misuse of their embassy.

Well asides from what America did to Bradley Manning and Assange wanting to avoid such awesome treatment for himself. No reasonable human rights argument at all.

It's reasonable to say that in some extreme situations the ethical argument could be made that an embassy should break the rules. Of course, they should still expect that perhaps their diplomatic status be revoked afterwards.

Fair enough, that in extreme situations we can make an ethical argument that embassy should break the rules. I can live with that. Wait a minute, didn't you say this earlier.

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.

Its clear that in this statement using the embassy in the manner Equador did was more important than granting asylum to someone like Carilles. (Because if Carilles tried to seek asylum via an embassy it would be wrong to grant it, but its ok to grant it if Carilles sought it in another manner). This of course is the guy who admits to bombing up Cuban nightspots, involved in bombing a plane which killed how many people now? Nice to see that when its convenient legal concerns outweigh ethical concerns, and when it doesn't, ethical concerns can outweigh legal ones. How ever do you say such things and keep a straight face?

Yes, perhaps they committed a crime by entering China illegally. But since all China would have wanted to do in response is to kick them out of their country, an embassy granting them asylum and removing them is not adversely affecting China in any way, and is also not interfering in their internal affairs.

Yes, perhaps Assange committed a crime by breaching his bail conditions. But since all Britain would have wanted to do to Assange is to kick him out of their country, an embassy granting him asylum and removing him is not adversely affecting Britain in anyway, and is also not interfering in their internal affairs.
Mate, you are a bundle of laughs. Thanks for playing.

Were the NK refugees changed with anything?

They were committing an illegal act of entering the country illegally, and you know it. Assange until he breached his bail conditions still needed to be proven guilty, due to the nature of the crime he is accused of.

Good question - why aren't you applying the same standards?

I am, for the reasons outlined.

If the NKs weren't charged, then what's the problem? Feel free to neglect the fact that Assange is a man actually wanted for arrest.

Ok. The NK are guilty of illegally entering the country. By the same logic, they would be actually wanted for arrest. Assange isn't guilty at this point in time. I thought saying that he isn't even being charged yet would make that clear, but obviously not.

I was actually making two distinct points, not realizing that your feeble mine can only handle one per post.

Oh really. Lets recap.

It must also be pointed out that in all of your examples, they were refuges or activists who were escaping from actual tyrannical states - not fucking Sweden.

This was of course after you had made a statement about the method of embassy protection being more important than ethical concerns in regards to Carilles (which I quoted earlier). Or in other words, legal concerns were more important than ethical ones. So naturally I found it strange you suddenly switched to ethical concerns, and promptly noted that in my post.

The very fact that you NOW have to argue along the line of the states people were escaping from SUXS (which they do), proves that you are arguing the merits of asylum rather than the mechanism of granting asylum despite the whole song and dance you gave us earlier. So whats the matter? Can't win with the latter so shift the goalposts and start arguing the former?

So in reply to your post, I got that you were making a separate point. What I didn't get was why the ethical concern suddenly surpasses the legal one, based on reading your previous posts.

So let me hold your hand through this. Diplomatic asylum is an inappropriate use of an embassy. But even if you think that some extreme instances exist where it's okay to use a diplomatic mission in an inappropriate way, that couldn't conceivably apply to the Assange case.

And if you argued those other examples I gave were also legally wrong, but morally right, I might have more respect for you. Instead we are treated to bullshit justifications why they are legally different, including the awesome statement that shielding a person under house arrest isn't interfering in the receiving nation's internal affairs.

I have said that, you imbecile.

Yeah, in this reply you stated Assange didn't deserve any ethical consideration for asylum. However in all your other posts in this thread prior, consisted mainly of arguing the legal status of using an embassy in the manner Ecuador used it, and calling Assange names. The closest that you came to was arguing that the US doesn't want him, which you conceded later.

This might be a surprise to you, but something can simultaneously be wrong and illegal.

Wow. Really.

Assange's supporters have no problem simultaneously arguing that Assange's leaks were both right and legal - which are arguments they are free to make if that's what they think. Likewise, it's not unreasonable for me to argue that the granting of diplomatic asylum was both wrong and illegal.

Fair enough. Except you concentrated on the legal issue, and the precedent issue. The only other time you raised ethical concerns was in my NK and East Germans example.

You simply made the mistake of thinking that I was only knowingly arguing only one issue when in fact I was knowingly arguing two. You made that mistake because you're dumb.

Now thats bullfuckery. Your statements prior to this post was the legal issue. You didn't make a case about the ethics of Assange's asylum bid until this post.

And has it ever happened before in the UK?

Is the UK the only country with embassies?

And has it ever happened before in the UK in a case where the person in question wasn't actually facing any reasonable threat of political persecution or cruel punishment?

I love how you keep on adding more and more criteria onto the list. First its using an embassy to grant asylum inteferes in the affairs of the receiving state. Then its ok to because they were going to be deported anyway. Then its ok as long as their is a strong ethical concern. Please, keep on adding more.

I'm sure your response will consist of more examples such as North Korean refugees being granted asylum by the French embassy in Belarus or something.

That depends, are you going to give me any more gems to laugh at. How about its ok to grant them asylum via an embassy, because they aren't Julian Assange.

[Enigma]

Read only the first two pages but why would the U.S. say anything now? It is election season and both candidates aren't going to say squat about Julian Assange. If there is any comment or action taken, it won't be until early December, IMHO. What are the chances of the U.S. to nab JA from Ecuador?

[mr friendly guy]

Yes, because Sweden is known internationally to be a hell hole without due process and fair trials, right?

Look we can go through this all day. I am happy if Sweden made an effort to correct its mistake, but frankly I can understand why he would afraid.

And no, I'm not happy with such a solution as a person because I, generally speaking, don't like the idea that persons suspected of committing serious crimes should be able to set the agenda (at least not when it comes to countries that fulfills the requirements of due process). In this specific case it would also make any further questioning more difficult. And what if the prosecutor finds that the case should be taken to court? However, I personally think it would be acceptable as long as it's not the final hearing.

Fine, I will rephrase that you are at least satisfied of that solution given your statement "Also, at this point, I think the prosecutors really should go to London to interview him (the preliminary investigation is almost certainly going to be closed very soon after the interview anyway)." However frankly this is small fry in our disagreement, so I am not going to raise it further.

Unsubstantiated claims (read nonsense) by "diplomatic sources" and not from any leaks. The Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has denied the claims (and such contacts would in all likelihood be unconstitutional).

Hmm. Ok, I will withdraw that claim unless some new evidence turns up.

Also, The Prime Minister obviously wasn't privy to the particulars of the case (as he really shouldn't be and he has refused to comment any further on the issue which, again, he shouldn't) and his comments hasn't stirred up any animosity against Assange. Assange has his supporters and detractors here just as anywhere else (and Swedes are pretty good to think for themselves without anyone telling what to think). His comments was more directed at the caricature his defense team drew of the Swedish legal system during the hearings in London than the suspect himself.
The defense team also made a really grotesque claim when they said that Assange is perceived as an 'enemy of the people'. However, the Prime Minister shouldn't have said anything at all. It's not in his place to speak on the matter though it must be stressed that he naturally didn't say anything about whether he's guilty or innocent or the handling of the case. If he had, it would've amounted to ministerstyre (=ministerial rule) which is unconstitutional in Sweden (that's also the reason why Sweden can't offer any guarantees).

I am glad that the PM hasn't made it impossible for a fair trial then. Keep in mind that in Assange's native Australia some cases were dropped after shock jocks made similar comments. I think he should have his day in court, and I have stated that if the US (not Sweden, the US) state they won't want to extradite him, I would have no sympathy if he still backed out. Of course the US won't, because they want to keep that option open, even if they do decide not to proceed.

The article in SvD doesn't mention how many extraditions that have taken place or any specifics of the cases. Also, the legal principles I mentioned earlier still applies (such as for example "dubbel straffbarhet" or "dual criminality". The United States (or whatever country it might be) must also provide evidence which Sweden of course doesn't accept without careful review.

Is this a problem with google translate? Because from the English article you can work out 2/3 were approved, the 1/3 that was not is because they couldn't locate the people of interest.

In a case in 2003, the United States gave evidence to Sweden that a Swedish citizen, Oussama Kassir, had helped to set up a terrorist camp in Oregon in 1999. A Swedish prosecutor reviewed the evidence but found that they were insufficient and that the U.S. couldn't prove that any crimes had been committed. Kassir was however convicted of the possession of an illegal firearm and assault and battery of a police officer and was sentenced to ten months in prison. The United States also tried to have him extradited but it was denied since Sweden doesn't extradite its citizens and because of the weak evidence.

This is good that they didn't extradite on weak evidence, however I fail to see how Sweden doesn't extradite its citizens help Assange, since he is an Australian.

Look, I am already arguing with several posters, so I am not going to press on with you, when you have been pretty cordial to me. Accept that as a concession if you wish. Suffice to say my view is
a) he should have his day in court
b) ideally the US should just guarantee they won't extradite him, then the media circus can stop. If he still refuses to go, then its telling.
c) Despite his behaviour, Assange has the right to seek asylum like anyone else.
d) If other countries can grant asylum, then Ecuador can as well. And there have been lots of examples of people just entering into an embassy, so there is nothing ground breaking with how Assange chose to do it.

[Mange]

Yes, because Sweden is known internationally to be a hell hole without due process and fair trials, right?

Look we can go through this all day. I am happy if Sweden made an effort to correct its mistake, but frankly I can understand why he would afraid.

And no, I'm not happy with such a solution as a person because I, generally speaking, don't like the idea that persons suspected of committing serious crimes should be able to set the agenda (at least not when it comes to countries that fulfills the requirements of due process). In this specific case it would also make any further questioning more difficult. And what if the prosecutor finds that the case should be taken to court? However, I personally think it would be acceptable as long as it's not the final hearing.

Fine, I will rephrase that you are at least satisfied of that solution given your statement "Also, at this point, I think the prosecutors really should go to London to interview him (the preliminary investigation is almost certainly going to be closed very soon after the interview anyway)." However frankly this is small fry in our disagreement, so I am not going to raise it further.

I'm sorry for splitting hairs (it wasn't my intention). As we've both indicated, this is a he-said/she-said situation and I expect that the preliminary investigation would be closed soon after the questioning. Look, I don't think one way or the other about JA but I strongly believe the situation had been resolved a long time ago had he not fought the extradition order. Sweden isn't a perfect country, no country is, but I'm also sincerely convinced that JA shouldn't have anything to fear from the Swedish legal system.

This is good that they didn't extradite on weak evidence, however I fail to see how Sweden doesn't extradite its citizens help Assange, since he is an Australian.

Indeed, I wanted to illustrate that Sweden just doesn't accept any evidence and runs with it (though I think the point is moot anyway).

Look, I am already arguing with several posters, so I am not going to press on with you, when you have been pretty cordial to me. Accept that as a concession if you wish. Suffice to say my view is
a) he should have his day in court
b) ideally the US should just guarantee they won't extradite him, then the media circus can stop. If he still refuses to go, then its telling.
c) Despite his behaviour, Assange has the right to seek asylum like anyone else.
d) If other countries can grant asylum, then Ecuador can as well. And there have been lots of examples of people just entering into an embassy, so there is nothing ground breaking with how Assange chose to do it.

You're making fair points, they're perfectly valid and there's nothing factually wrong about point C or D (and I haven't contested those).

[Knife]

Sorry, became really busy. Don't want to drop it, the Manning issue is interesting. That said, I concede all points and let this discussion go where it may.