Your parallel is not analogous. The reason is that Ecuador, like Assange, can and presumably does claim to legitimately believe that this is not really about rape but some political motivation.
Whereas the UK has to act commensurately with their official belief that it's "just" a rape charge.
The comment you are responding to is a response to the argument that since the UK is doing something unusual in rape charges (discussing their options to get Assange out of the embassy), this is not really about the rape charges.
But that doesn't follow. It is ABSOLUTELY relevant that UK's unusual actions occur in an unusual context they didn't set up: indeed, most rape charges do not coincide with diplomatic shielding by an embassy, so diplomatic issues do not arise.
Nefarious, deceptive motivations on the part of the UK are not a necessary condition for its response, because shielding someone from the host country's criminal justice system is highly diplomatically sensitive even where it is justified.
Yes, for the UK it CAN be about something other than the rape charge, WITHOUT it being about some nefarious plot to assassinate Assange for Uncle Sam: it can be about what the UK sees as abuse of the privileges it gives to the embassy.
Allow me to paraphrase your point (not to ridicule it, just to (i) make sure I understand and (ii) maybe help someone else follow it):
"Yes, it absolutely would be common practice to raid an embassy over (what started as) a rape charge, in the unlikely event that the accused and the embassy had both been silly enough to escalate it into a faux diplomatic immunity situation by unreasonably seeking and unreasonably granting asylum."
OK, now I've thought about it and I'm going to ridicule your point :).
The situation is that Assange says he's politically persecuted in the UK and therefore his asylum request is legitimate, the UK says he's not and it isn't.
But what else was the UK going to say? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to have the UK be the final arbiter on this point.
Since there's no other authority we can reasonably appeal to, we must accept Ecuador's judgement as final, and consequently, the UK should not override this judgement by force.
You can't very well ridicule my point when you haven't understood it; when you do, I will welcome any genuine and honest criticism you have.
- Ecuador decides to harbor a fugitive from British law. This itself is not 'standard practice' and it may or may not be justified.
- This alone can create a sensitive, high-profile diplomatic situation. There is really no 'standard practice' for when an embassy harbors someone over a rape charge. It is already an international incident.
- That situation easily explains the sharpness of the exchange, including e.g. legal discussion of the UK's rights with respect to embassy closure - and, in reply, public statements to pressure the UK. In both directions, such sharpness is not at all unexpected for a dispute like this. There is no international law principle of 'well, it's only rape so there is nothing we can do about it.'
- So it is not necessary to assume other motives for the UK to explain the UK's actions (whether they are sensible actions or not is a separate issue from whether there are other motives - they can be idiots who are very concerned with some matter of the international relationship or principle far out of proportion with the practical importance of Assange)
- So it cannot serve as the basis to an 'argument to the best explanation' concluding with an ulterior UK motive
That's all I argued in the post you were replying to.
APART from that, you seem to want to talk about other things . I don't want to encourage you to conflate those with the argument I gave above, but it seems rude to ignore your distinct topic, so I'll write a paragraph about it as well.
I can't say that your reasoning makes sense to me: 'it is unreasonable for the UK to be the final arbiter, therefore Ecuador must be the final arbiter.' If this argument has a basis, you haven't stated it; by what principle do you reject 'it is unreasonable for Ecuador to be the final arbiter, therefore the UK must be'? Insofar as they are both sovereign states and one does not start out with partisan assumptions, any legal basis for settlement would lie in the mutually agreed terms for the hosting of the embassy. And the upshot of this is not 100% obvious because sovereign countries do have the right under international treaties to close embassies - although that does not necessarily mean it is a prudent thing to do in any case, or in this case.
That isn't at all what I said, it is exactly ridicule.
The UK didn't raid the embassy.
If the embassy says 'we are harboring this criminal' that is inherently diplomatically difficult. There is absolutely historical precedent for sharply worded letters back and forth.
IIRC he hasn't even been charged with anything yet. They are still at the "we would like him to help with our inquiries" stage officially.
There are provisions in place between us and Sweden for relevant interviews to be done by video phone, by their police visiting, or by proxy (with our police handling the interview). Apparently all such options have been offered and refused.
If this were just about the rape case, there would be no such effort to retrieve him physically until charges were officially recorded.
Even if the general conspiracy theory is complete hogswash, there is definitely something extra to be considered here. The rape allegations and the way he has been pursued have become two separate matters because the way he has been pursued is significantly disproportionate to how such a case would normally progress. Whether he did it or not (and if he did significant punishment should be served) the authorities still have questions to answer as to why they are pushing in an unusual manner.
How about you stick to the facts and you reword your statement to:
"Is it common practice to grant asylum to a man wanted for questioning over accusations that he sexually assaulted two women?"
Not as much punch?
What's with all the miss-leading statements? Is it safe to assume they're intentional? After all, this is Hacker News, and people wouldn't just pipe in on a topic without having at least a tiny bit of information on the subject right?
While beating your breast about intentionally skewed wording and heavily implying that the other guy is lying by omission, you do the same thing yourself!
Is it normal for an embassy's shielding of someone from the host country's criminal justice system to become a diplomatic issue? Yes, of course it is. Even if the accusation is minor, the diplomatic issue is between the UK and Ecuador and its severity is not determined by the accused, but by the legal interactions of the UK and Ecuador.
However, if you are on one side of the issue it is much more persuasive to say that the UK is treating Ecuador like a colony, that the UK wants to send Assange to Sweden so he will be secretly sent someplace and assassinated by the CIA. None of which is actually substantiated.
It is common for it to become a diplomatic issue. It is NOT common for one party to threaten to enter the other partys embassy. That is, in fact, quite unheard of.
In the UK, as far as I know it has happened exactly _once_: To evict squatters from the Cambodian embassy after it had been unused by the Cambodian government for nearly 12 years in order to prevent them from gaining title to the property.
The UK has, despite having had this law on the books for 25 years, not used it a single time against an embassy that is actually in use. Most countries does not have laws authorising this kind of entry at all.
Even dictatorships none of us like to compare us generally treat embassies as entirely inviolate, and more than once have provided free passage for people who have obtained asylum in an embassy. Many of said regimes routinely claim these people are common criminals.
In other words: The UK has done something that is absolutely outrageous by even bringing this up.
On the other hand, what is not unheard of, is CIA agents getting people of interest gift wrapped by Swedish police in violation of Swedish law, and being allowed to strip them, drug them, chain them and ship them off to be tortured by dictatorial regimes.
That is something the Swedish government has admitted to having been complicit in.
However, I believe what Ecuador has done is also unheard of. Based off a pedantic reply to my mail, has anyone else ever given asylum to somehow who is wanted for questioning over accusations that he sexually assaulted two women.
The UK government claims all that is happening here is that normal UK, Swedish and European law is being applied to investigate a sexual assault charge.
One important thing, which I'm not sure I'll word right which is unfortunate. One important thing to remember is that by giving asylum Ecuador can be seen as highly insulting the UK, by effectively saying they can not be trusted to deal with this issue in a fair, non-political way. The UK government must respond to this accusation in the highest possible terms.
I'm saying it is outrageous for the UK government to use a UK law that was put in place to deal with extreme circumstances involving terrorism and threats to national security as a thinly veiled threat in a case that revolves around someone wanted for questioning about a rape and sexual assault, yes.
Especially when making use of said law might very well be in violation of international treaties, and have severe implications for the diplomatic protections of embassies worldwide.
You're mixing up "mention" and "use", which makes it very hard to understand which you mean. Maybe what you're trying to say is that it would be outrageous if they invoked that statue.
No. I meant what I wrote. It is outrageous that they are using the law in question as a threat.
I'm sure I could have formulated it otherwise, but your suggestion states something different, which implies no condemnation of the action they have already taken: They have already used the law in question as a threat by mentioning it in their letter to the government of Ecuador.
Actually making use of it would not merely be outrageous, it would be a violation of international law.
I actually never weighed in with an opinion on whether he should be have been granted asylum or not. I simply said that I prefer fact over fiction and miss-leading statements whether intentional or out of ignorance. I don't see how that puts me in the same boat.
Saying "wanted for rape" gets people riled up and makes him look like a douche (which he may very well be, but that's irrelevant). It derails intelligent and logical discussion in favour of emotional reaction. Fox News 101.
