Assange and the UN "arbitrary detention" ruling

[Kathryn]

Can we talk about this? I am just flabbergasted. How is his holing up in an embassy to avoid being arrested on rape charges "arbitrary detention?"

[Anne in CA]

It has been very hard to have respect for the UN for a long time. I have been disgusted with them since they gave Nepal to the Maoists when the Maoists lost the popular election but refused to give in. Lets not even talk about Rwanda or some of their other bigger debacles. The UN does not help the cause of justice, as far as I can see.

[Laura Corin]

Can we talk about this? I am just flabbergasted. How is his holing up in an embassy to avoid being arrested on rape charges "arbitrary detention?"

I believe that there's also mention of his original solitary confinement before he was bailed..... which is normal for those accused of sex crimes, for their own protection.

[MSNative]

The writer of this article does a good job of detailing the illogic of the UNs actions.

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-05/un-s-protection-of-assange-is-unjustified

[Melissa in Australia]

I think the whole way the situation was handled by the Swedish tends to show that Assange was not being paranoid and in fact the alleged rape charge was in fact trumped up by persons unknown in US who do not like whistleblowers.

 

I personally think it a good thing that the UN has pointed this out.

 

 

I agree with Sadi that he is an unlikable person and that is beside the point.

 

 

 I also think the world does need whistleblowers. 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Melissa in Australia

[Kathryn]

I will ashamedly admit that though I have heard the word "Wikileaks," I am so out of it on news items that disinterested me for years that I have no knowledge or opinion on whatever this guy is or is not wanted for in the US. All I know is what I read about the news that happened yesterday, but I did read about ten articles. It was my understanding that he had been questioned, arrested and released on bail and that's when he went to the embassy. Is that not accurate? I'm more than willing to change my opinion with new information.

[abba12]

My understanding is, he was wanted by the US for wikileaks. Out of nowhere rape allegations came up and he was wanted for questioning, and questioning only. It seemed fishy from the beginning. He does not want to go to sweeden because he convinced (justifiably) they will extradite him to the US for being a whistleblower (yep, that's the side I'm on). Many people think the rape allegations are false, and I believe there were multiple allegations but all but one were dropped? And none of them were violent, they were coercive. If true, they're still wrong and punishable, but, a little different from a violent offender. 

 

And, to be honest, I have my doubts anyway. How do we prove an intentional hole in a condom from a tear or damage? And the half-asleep thing? I don't think it's that uncommon for someone to get frisky with their half-asleep girlfriend who they have previously slept with (so they have a certain level of assumed consent, just like your husband doesn't directly ask before surprising you with a sexual touch I assume), waking them up. Provided he stopped when she woke up and said no, when did that become rape? Trying to have sex with a sleeping stranger is quite different to attempting to have sex with your sleeping girlfriend who you have a sexual relationship with. I admit, however, that I have not read the allegations in full yet. But this is in so much grey area legally from what I've heard. 

 

Regardless of all that. NOTHING has stopped Sweeden from interviewing him and questioning him in the UK. They have done so for dozens of people in the past few years. I believe he even said he would go to Sweeden if he could be promised, absolutely, that he would not be extradited. They are welcome to come question him in the embassy, he has never refused to co-operate with anything that does not involve him risking extradition. 

 

And the UK is kicking up a fuss now because they don't want to have wasted MILLIONS of dollars keeping an around-the-clock watch on the embassy to arrest a man wanted for questioning over, they claim, non-violent sexual assault of one past girlfriend based almost entirely, as I understand it, on her word. Seems a little extreme if that's truly all that's at play here, don't you think? I look at all the obvious violent rapes of multiple women that authorities will barely look at because there's not enough evidence, but this deserves millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours. 

 

If it's true, I'm sorry for that woman and what she went through, and Assange isn't exactly a likable person (though, when you learn about his history and childhood there's good reason for that). But there's way too much that doesn't add up here. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The issue I have is that I don't know of any nation that lets the accused when and where they will be questioned.

 

I also don't personally believe that having good intentions excuses criminal actions.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

And, to be honest, I have my doubts anyway. How do we prove an intentional hole in a condom from a tear or damage? And the half-asleep thing? I don't think it's that uncommon for someone to get frisky with their half-asleep girlfriend who they have previously slept with (so they have a certain level of assumed consent, just like your husband doesn't directly ask before surprising you with a sexual touch I assume), waking them up. Provided he stopped when she woke up and said no, when did that become rape? Trying to have sex with a sleeping stranger is quite different to attempting to have sex with your sleeping girlfriend who you have a sexual relationship with. I admit, however, that I have not read the allegations in full yet. But this is in so much grey area legally from what I've heard.

 

It is a not a grey area and your views on rape are appalling.

[Ausmumof3]

I began reading but didn't finish due to lack of time

 

"The War on Journalism" and definitely came away with a lot more sympathy for Assange and Snowden. Don't know how biased the book is, though.

 

http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/andrew-fowler/the-war-on-journalism-9780857986849.aspx

 

I also find Assange fascinating because he was homeschooled.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'd have to go back and look for the citation, but I have read that it's not unknown for the Swedes to interview suspects out of the country.

 

I don't believe that being a whistleblower excuses rape; what would be ideal is some way for Assange to answer those accusations in court, without a subsequent extradition for treason being the outcome.

 

I don't believe he is in the embassy to avoid the rape charges. I could be wrong.

It doesn't matter if it has happened before. Generally the person being investigated doesn't call the shots.

[JoJosMom]

It is a not a grey area and your views on rape are appalling.

 

With regard to the first part, many people disagree with you.  As for the second, your manners (or lack thereof) are appalling.

[Ausmumof3]

It's actually hard to get a neutral source on Assange. He's either a persecuted hero or a despicable crim - nothing in between.

 

He's a very polarizing figure, and that shows in the media coverage, much more than with someone like Snowden.

Yep. And I don't even know why it has to be either/or. Plenty of people who had very important roles, even "hero" roles in politics have had really messed up personal lives.

[abba12]

It is a not a grey area and your views on rape are appalling.

 

Well... ok. I must say, that's not something I've ever been accused of before, given my past! It's kind of novel actually. 

 

I don't know what views you gleaned from that paragraph. The only view that I was expressing was that, if a man touches his not-quite-sleeping girlfriend, on the assumption that as someone he has a current sexual relationship with this will be ok, and stops when she wakes up and says no, that this can hardly be called attempted rape. If she was a stranger, that's bad. If he was trying to keep her asleep until he finished without prior consent, that's bad. If he was her ex, that's bad. But I think most people would agree there is a certain amount of implied consent between people with a currently active sexual relationship. That doesn't mean she can't say no, of course she can and did. It means that it's not entirely unreasonable to assume, in the absence of comment either way, that the beginnings of sexual activity are permissible, with the assumption she will wake up before they get too intense. We see this implied consent all the time. You wouldn't touch a strangers butt, but many people will randomly, without gaining explicit consent, touch their partners butt. If the partner doesn't feel in the mood to be touched at that time, that's fine, they can say stop. But to call that sexual assault is beyond a stretch. I've certainly never heard of anyone charged for it. When you give consent, consent is generally implied until the time you do not give consent, not asked for every single time. My husband doesn't ask me every time we have sex, he assumes yes unless it's not (and, in the same way, when I do say no, he does not try again until I explicitly say or indicate yes again) The answer holds until it is changed, it's not a default no within an active sexual relationship. What was the answer last time? That remains the default answer until the person changes it, which they are completely entitled to do at any time, but until then, is he supposed to ask beforehand every single time he initiates sexual activity?

 

Does that mean, when I have been drinking and my husband gets frisky, but I'm not in the mood that night and he stops when I tell him to stop, he has assaulted me? Does that mean when he wakes me up in the morning for a quickie and I roll over and say not this morning, he has attempted to rape me? Believe me, I have an awful lot of knowledge and experience with the topic of sexual assault. But if all she's got is that someone she had said yes to recently, and had not yet said no to in any way, touched her and then stopped once she said no, I think that police resources could be spent elsewhere. 

 

As for the condom, that's not a matter of my view on rape, of course if it's true it is wrong. That's a matter of ability to prove it legally. It sucks, but sexual crimes are the hardest to prove, and the most common for people to falsely accuse. It's an awful situation, and we can't even do anything about the false accusations because it's so hard to prove that it's inevitable, if we tried, we would end up punishing real victims. There's no good answers to this. But her claim the condom had a hole, with no way of proving it wasn't already damaged or torn during the act, no way to prove she didn't put the hole in herself, and no admission at any time from him, means she has almost no case. It's a stretch to LEGALLY extrapolate, from a broken condom, that this man intentionally pierced a hole in it. If the accused wasn't as high profile as he is, the police likely would have never gotten involved at all. 

 

Now, I'm off to go tell people that I just got accused of having permissive views of rape, lol. People who know me in real life will find that hilarious. It's amazing what people think they know based off one paragraph on the Internet about an extremely biased and polarizing topic. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

With regard to the first part, many people disagree with you. As for the second, your manners (or lack thereof) are appalling.

No one with a bit of sense believes a sleeping person can consent. It isn't a difficult concept.

[abba12]

No one with a bit of sense believes a sleeping person can consent. It isn't a difficult concept.

 

They can, however, believe that a sleeping person has a standing default of "yes unless I say no" with her partner/husband/boyfriend.

 

I guess your husband never wakes you up in the morning with sexual touch, never touches you sexually during the night, and has never, ever had sex with you while you're under the influence of alcohol. 

That's your choice, and that's fine. But many many other couples are fine with those things because they have a standing agreement of consent or a default of yes. It's not unreasonable for him to have assumed he had the same with someone he had a currently active sexual relationship with. A relationship blunder, yes. A criminal act? Many would say no. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by abba12

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Source for the bolded?

 

It sucks, but sexual crimes are the hardest to prove, and the most common for people to falsely accuse. It's an awful situation, and we can't even do anything about the false accusations because it's so hard to prove that it's inevitable, if we tried, we would end up punishing real victims.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They can, however, believe that a sleeping person has a standing default of "yes unless I say no" with her partner/husband/boyfriend.

 

I guess your husband never wakes you up in the morning with sexual touch, never touches you sexually during the night, and has never, ever had sex with you while you're under the influence of alcohol. 

That's your choice, and that's fine. But many many other couples are fine with those things because they have a standing agreement of consent or a default of yes. It's not unreasonable for him to have assumed he had the same with someone he had a currently active sexual relationship with. A relationship blunder, yes. A criminal act? Many would say no. 

 

Obviously his belief was wrong.

 

To the second bolded, yes, and we call those people rapists or enablers.

[abba12]

Source for the bolded?

 

It sucks, but sexual crimes are the hardest to prove, and the most common for people to falsely accuse. It's an awful situation, and we can't even do anything about the false accusations because it's so hard to prove that it's inevitable, if we tried, we would end up punishing real victims.

 

 

I'm not even entering that debate. People falsely accuse rape, I know it for a fact, I know people who have done it, and admitted they did it. I have a very broad experience/knowledge base from which I am commenting.

 

That doesn't mean most, or even a large portion, of accusations are false. The majority are real victims. But there are false allegations, on a regular basis. Of this I have no doubt. 

 

But, I know some people honestly believe that no one falsely accuses rape, ever. Those people are deluded and naive. There's no point arguing it further. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 It's an unusual case. 

 

My other issue is that if he did break US law and is not eligible for whistleblower status, I am not sure why he should be immune to extradition back to the States.

[abba12]

yes, and we call those people rapists or enablers.

 

Wow. 

 

This is actually too ridiculous to be offended by. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not even entering that debate. People falsely accuse rape, I know it for a fact, I know people who have done it, and admitted they did it. I have a very broad experience/knowledge base from which I am commenting.

 

That doesn't mean most, or even a large portion, of accusations are false. The majority are real victims. But there are false allegations, on a regular basis. Of this I have no doubt. 

 

But, I know some people honestly believe that no one falsely accuses rape, ever. Those people are deluded and naive. There's no point arguing it further. 

 

You said it is the most common false allegation. That is a stiff allegation to make based on vague anecdotal evidence.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Curious - what makes people eligible for whistle-blower status in the US ?

 

Had to review Assange a bit, and he does not qualify, as it is employment based.  I mixed him up with Snowden who *could* have qualified had he went about things differently.

[abba12]

Do you know how all this works, legally speaking, given that he's not an American citizen, and was, at the time of WikiLeaks, acting in a journalistic capacity ?

 

It's so very interesting.

 

I'm not super keen on having a fellow citizen undergo rendition or extradition to the US on treason charges, I must say.

 

I don't understand how someone can be charged for treason against a country that isn't even his own country, frankly. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do you know how all this works, legally speaking, given that he's not an American citizen, and was, at the time of WikiLeaks, acting in a journalistic capacity ?

 

It's so very interesting.

 

I'm not super keen on having a fellow citizen undergo rendition or extradition to the US on treason charges, I must say.

 

It depends on how he accessed the information. He also wouldn't be facing "treason" charges in the US as he is not a US citizen.  If he did engage in/aid in someone stealing confidential US documents, then he would be in violation of US law, and I would expect him to be extradited in the same manner that a US citizen who did the same to your nation should be.

[shage]

It doesn't matter if it has happened before. Generally the person being investigated doesn't call the shots.

????

 

The US constitution and the laws of most democratic countries grant a number of rights to people being investigated. It is common in complex cases for terms to be negotiated--for example, a witness may offer information only after amnesty or a plea has been put in place.

[Ausmumof3]

It depends on how he accessed the information. He also wouldn't be facing "treason" charges in the US as he is not a US citizen. If he did engage in/aid in someone stealing confidential US documents, then he would be in violation of US law, and I would expect him to be extradited in the same manner that a US citizen who did the same to your nation should be.

I thought the Snowden revelations basically were about US accessing confidential info of other countries. And nothing happening to the people doing it.

 

What I'm afraid of in these situations is people with something to say that need to be said being silenced and intimidated. Even if ultimately they are found to have done nothing wrong they are positioned so they can't speak out for long enough hat their info is not relevant anymore.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[ChocolateReignRemix]

????

 

The US constitution and the laws of most democratic countries grant a number of rights to people being investigated. It is common in complex cases for terms to be negotiated--for example, a witness may offer information only after amnesty or a plea has been put in place.

 

A plea deal is an agreement between the parties.  If someone in the U.S. is wanted for questioning, they generally can't insist on where the interview takes place.  Having rights /= getting to call the shots.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I thought the Snowden revelations basically were about US accessing confidential info of other countries. And nothing happening to the people doing it.

 

What I'm afraid of in these situations is people with something to say that need to be said being silenced and intimidated. Even if ultimately they are found to have done nothing wrong they are positioned so they can't speak out for long enough hat their info is not relevant anymore.

 

There is a procedure in place to get Whistleblower status.  Fleeing the country and turning top secret data to another nation is not part of that procedure.  Had Snowden went about things differently, he would have had a strong case for protection.

[Melissa in Australia]

My other issue is that if he did break US law and is not eligible for whistleblower status, I am not sure why he should be immune to extradition back to the States.

'cause he is not American and wasn't in America and didn't commit any crime in America.

 

So why should he be extradited to America?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

'cause he is not American and wasn't in America and didn't commit any crime in America.

 

So why should he be extradited to America?

 

So if a person located in the United States hacked into a database in Australia and stole the credit card numbers and bank account information of Australians, you would argue that he didn't commit a crime in Australia and should not be extradited?

(Hint: under the US and Australian extradition treaty, the person could be extradited.)

[Ausmumof3]

There is a procedure in place to get Whistleblower status. Fleeing the country and turning top secret data to another nation is not part of that procedure. Had Snowden went about things differently, he would have had a strong case for protection.

Why do you think he didn't use the process?

 

Ok I did a quick search and it looks like this protection doesn't apply in cases that can be considered related to national security. So he probably wouldn't have been eligible even if the body was actually reliably able to protect him.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why do you think he didn't use the process?

 

Because he provided no evidence that he did so. 

[Ausmumof3]

Because he provided no evidence that he did so.

Sorry to make that clearer "why do you think he chose not to use whistleblower protection" what made him make that choice?

 

I believe that he was ineligible and I know if I was in his situation with the information he had I wouldn't put trust in any government provided protection.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sorry to make that clearer "why do you think he chose not to use whistleblower protection" what made him make that choice?

 

I believe that he was ineligible and I know if I was in his situation with the information he had I wouldn't put trust in any government provided protection.

 

Personally, I believe he is an idealistic attention whore.

[Ausmumof3]

Personally, I believe he is an idealistic attention whore.

Why do you believe that? Even if it's true do you think there is value in the information he revealed?

[shage]

A plea deal is an agreement between the parties. If someone in the U.S. is wanted for questioning, they generally can't insist on where the interview takes place. Having rights /= getting to call the shots.

If someone is in a good position to bargain, he or she can can call an awful lot of shots.

[Melissa in Australia]

So if a person located in the United States hacked into a database in Australia and stole the credit card numbers and bank account information of Australians, you would argue that he didn't commit a crime in Australia and should not be extradited?

(Hint: under the US and Australian extradition treaty, the person could be extradited.)

 more correctly if a journalist in in the United States was given information about WAR CRIMES that  another country was doing in a third country and leaked out that information. The giver of information was goaled for life in solitary confinement in other country.

 

 The journalist was in a different country   Journalist fled to an embassy then should they be extradited to first country? Or should they not - as a journalists job is to highlight things like war crimes that countries are doing in other countries.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 more correctly if a journalist in in the United States was given information about WAR CRIMES that  another country was doing in a third country and leaked out that information. The giver of information was goaled for life in solitary confinement in other country.

 

 The journalist was in a different country   Journalist fled to an embassy then should they be extradited to first country? Or should they not - as a journalists job is to highlight things like war crimes that countries are doing in other countries.

 

The difference here is that the suspected charges (note: there have been no formal charges brought against Assange nor has there been an extradition request from the United States) is that Assange participated in some manner in accessing the confidential information.  That is legally very different than a journalist publishing information given to them by a source.

Examples: Person A uses their security clearance to access confidential information, and then provides that information to Journalist B to use in a story to expose illegal behavior.  On that alone, B has not created a crime.

If Person A and Journalist B work together in illegally accessing the same information (say through hacking/stolen passwords, etc), then both A and B have committed a crime.

Edited February 7, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

lol, telling it how you see it!

 

She asked; I told. :coolgleamA:

[Ausmumof3]

Idealistic - yep but the world needs idealists!

Attention seeking - yep like most of the it security guys I worked with

Whore - probably got paid enough not to need that...

Lol

But I don't think personality comes into issues of politics or justice.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's all 'enemy of the state because you embarrassed us' stuff though.

 

Nobody believes Assange is going to get an open, unbiased, fair trial in the US, even if it can be proven he broke American law.

 

He also hasn't been charged with a crime. So there is that.

 

I would actually argue his case would be so heavily scrutinized that he would get a fair trial.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's what's bothered me about a lot of the coverage this week - it has focused on personality.

 

I don't think many people in AU like him - I'm just not sure that most people want to see him in a US jail.

 

I think that partly stems from a sense of being ignored and lied to over the US rationale for the Iraq War. It's hard to see the US as the 'good guys' here.

 

Her question to me was about Snowden, not Assange.  I don't know enough about Assange to have a strong opinion of him.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think they'd just grab him and put him on a plane to another country for a bit of a 'chat' before he landed in the US for a trial. 

 

It isn't like the US doesn't have form. 

 

Doubtful considering how high profile he is.  And again, he hasn't been charged with anything so some of the paranoia over this is a bit amusing.  And of course no other country has ever done such a thing. lol

[shage]

Doubtful considering how high profile he is. And again, he hasn't been charged with anything so some of the paranoia over this is a bit amusing. And of course no other country has ever done such a thing. lol

His paranoia is not over incarceration -- he has already subjected himself to that. It is over being silenced, whether by death or some other means. Given the level of controversy he invokes, I tend to think his paranoia is justified. As far as your last sentence: red herring. Whether other countries do that or not is irrelevant if you are arguing the US has moral authority. Edited February 7, 2016 by shage

[ChocolateReignRemix]

His paranoia is not over incarceration -- he has already subjected himself to that. It is over being silenced, whether by death or some other means. Given the level of controversy he invokes, I tend to think his paranoia is justified. As far as your last sentence: red herring. Whether other countries do tho or not is irrelevant if you are arguing the US has moral authority.

 

Name the last high profile critic a western nation has "silenced".

 

And no, it wasn't a red herring.  I just get a chuckle out of those who get the vapors about how the big, bad U.S. is stamping out dissent left and right.

[shage]

Name the last high profile critic a western nation has "silenced".

 

.

Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, for starters.

 

;-)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Eh, I wouldn't want to compare my nation to the other countries who are involved in rendition, but that's just me. 

 

I've read about sealed indictment orders issued by a secret grand jury. It might not be true, but it might be. That's the problem when we can't trust our governments to be transparent.

 

 

I have no doubt that if there was such a thing, the UK government would be falling over themselves to do their bit for the 'special relationship'.

 

I admit it's more puzzling that Sweden would.

 

I don't see the trust issue about the indictment.  There might be one, but indictments are often sealed for a reason.  As I stated before, if there is evidence he broke U.S. law then he should be indicted and extradited.

[horsellian]

I have no doubt that if there was such a thing, the UK government would be falling over themselves to do their bit for the 'special relationship'.

 

I admit it's more puzzling that Sweden would.

Agreed, I think the UK/US extradition treaty is incredibly one sided, and it runs thus:

US: Jump!

UK: How high?

 

I'm sure it would have been much easier to get Assange from the UK than from Sweden.

[MSNative]

I think the dissenting member of the working group says it best. The working group chose to define Assange's choice to hide away in the embassy as imprisonment. Um, no. Do we really want a world where hiding from the authorities is equated with prison time? Where accused rapists and people who breach bail conditions get to avoid standing trial because they successfully avoided interrogation for long enough?

 

 

"They had assumed that Assange had been “detained in the embassy of Ecuador by the authorities of the United Kingdom,†the Ukrainian lawyer wrote. In fact, the Wikileaks founder had fled bail in June 2012 and used the embassy “as a safe haven to evade arrestâ€. Fugitives often do that, Tochilovsky pointed out. But “premises of self-confinement cannot be considered places of detention for the purposes of the mandate of the working groupâ€."

 

"And then we get to the fatal flaw. The working group considers that Assange’s stay at the embassy “should be considered as a prolongation of the already continued deprivation of libertyâ€. Its members provides no justification for this leap of logic.""

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/un-julian-assange-wikileaks

Edited February 7, 2016 by MSNative