Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 16

How Come the West Opposes the Partition of Kosovo?

If they're arguing for self-determination, wouldn't it be best to allow the Serb-majority areas in North Kosovo to rejoin Serbia? Also, I really don't see how Serbia would agree to (eventually) recognize Kosovo without getting the Serb areas of Kosovo back. Futurist110 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Did they become Serb-majority areas by ethnic cleansing ? That is, by moving in Serbs and killing or moving out the natives ? If so, you could see why supporting their desire to rejoin Serbia amounts to endorsement of ethnic cleansing. Imagine if, post-WW2, Poland had said "well, these areas were Polish, but since the Poles were all moved out or killed, and Germans live there now, I guess we should just give it to Germany". StuRat (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, No, I don't think so. Kosovo's population was about 1/3 Serb in 1900 or so (if I remember correctly), but it's less than 10% Serb now. I would assume that Serbs were a majority in North Kosovo for several hundred years, and probably previously in some other parts of Kosovo where they recently lost their majority to the Albanians. Futurist110 (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they should all just move to Serbia and then everyone would be happy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The comparison with Poland and Germany after WWII is singularly unhelpful as what actually happened was that Poland (having had large parts of its pre-war territory in the East taken by the Soviet Union), took areas of land in the West that historically had significant ethnic German populations and expelled (almost) all the Germans. See Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. (This is a contentious issue and I'm not interested in a debate on the moral rightness or wrongness of this, just pointing out the actual events). The comment that all the Serbs in Kosovo should move to Serbia and then everyone would be happy would seem frighteningly simplistic and wholly unhelpful in answering the OP's question. Valiantis (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of "the West" opposing a partition of Kosovo... Its more a question of "the West" recognizing that the government of Kosovo strongly insists that the territory in question is part of Kosovo, and that the Kosovars would totally reject the idea of having it be part of Serbia ... to the point where the war would re-start over the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Kosovars might reject giving up the Serb-majority areas of North Kosovo to Serbia, but the Serbs in those areas want to rejoin Serbia. I don't see how one can argue for self-determination (even in "special cases" of ethnic cleansing) and refuse to let North Kosovo rejoin Serbia, since if I recall correctly, the KLA also committed some crimes against the Kosovo Serb population during the 1990s war with Serbia. Futurist110 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that saying that Kosovo shouldn't give up Serb-majority areas because most of Kosovo's Albanians oppose it is like saying that Serbia shouldn't give up any of Kosovo in the first place due to the fact that most Serbs in Serbia oppose it. If both sides want to resolve their dispute, they will both need to make some painful compromises. Futurist110 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Or they could do something incredibly annoying. Find all the houses occupied by Serbs, and declare the discontinuous piece of land that forms to be part of Serbia. Then you wind up with the borders of Kosovo looking like those of Baarle-Hertog, but at least each family will be in the country it wants to, and no one has to move! (or die.) Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite impractical. More realistically, the part of Mitrovica on the north bank of the Ibar river and immediately adjacent areas near the Serbian border (i.e. North Kosovo) will probably continue to be somewhat independent of central Kosovo government authority. Of course, North Kosovo does not include several smaller remaining Serbian-majority areas in Kosovo, nor certain historical and cultural sites important to Serbs, such as the 1389 battlefield and the Medieval Monuments in Kosovo... What seems to me to be more unhelpful than opposing the partition of Kosovo is the international community insisting for the last 20 years that Nagorno Karabakh must remain under the sovereignty of Azerbaijan, despite a complete lack of any evidence that this can or will form the basis of an acceptable settlement or agreed resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. We're coming up on the 25th anniversary of the disturbances of 1988, and all the main international players seem to be sticking with a consistently-losing strategy... AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the harm at all in giving North Kosovo to Serbia, since that will not create any messy boundaries and since both the Serbs and Albanians will end up in the country that they want to. As for the 1389 battlefield and the Medieval Monuments, they could either be turned into Serbian enclaves inside Kosovo or be turned into international zones. Futurist110 (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if those are Serb majority areas, there are bound to be non-Serbs there, too, and they would then be in danger, judging from how the Serbs treated non-Serbs in the recent wars (executing the men and raping the women). StuRat (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You could just as well make the same argument for refusing to allow the Albanian-majority parts of Kosovo to secede because there are some Serbs there who would then be in danger considering how badly Albanians there (such as the Kosovo Liberation Army) have treated Serbs in the past. Futurist110 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Serbs in Kosovo actually are already de-facto in Serbia, as they are formally citizens of Serbia and they behave in that way (they refuse to pay their taxes, they get their passports, pensions etc. from Belgrade etc. etc.). The Kosovo government has tried but failed to reign them in, the standoff is continuing to this day. E.g., border posts are erected by KFOR but they are then vandalized by the Serbs.

Unless the Serbs voluntarily decide to become citizens of Kosovo, there is no way Kosovo can force them to become citizens. It is not practical to designate them as illegal aliens and forcefully deport them nor can they all be imprisoned for having violated the laws.

This situation will be formalized as soon as the international community decides that KFOR's mission should have a deadline. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They could confiscate their homes for failing to pay taxes. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And to see how that type of policy works in practice, see ethnic cleansing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as they confiscate property from anyone who refuses to pay their taxes, it's not ethnic cleansing. StuRat (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You know from the outset that the only ones who will refuse to pay taxes are the Serbs. Whatever particular basis you use to disriminate between Serbs and others is irrelevant. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If the confiscation of property for nonpayment of taxes was applied unevenly, then you'd have a point, but if the laws and enforcement are the same for all, then they'd have nobody to blame but themselves if they lose their homes. StuRat (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That won't work in a free democratic country. In Kosovo you can't have a democratic system that includes the Serbs if the Serbs do not want to be part of it, and this is true in general. If 99% of the population want to have a certain system but 1% would oppose it, then to forcefully deal with this problem, you would have to throw the 1% in jail, which you won't be able to handle within the usual democratic setting. The majority only really decides things in a democracy because you got nearly 100% support for the particular democratic system that is in place. If everyone agrees with the rules of the system, then everyone will be able to agree or agree to disagree with election results, the government making new laws etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That 1% seems a bit extreme (according to Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Prison_population, more than 1% are in prison in the US, and less than 38% of the eligible US population voted in 2010: [1]). I'd say it's more like 10% against democracy where democracy can't function. According to Kosovo#Demographics, the Serb population is only 4%. And they don't all need to be thrown in jail permanently. Fines and the threat of seizing their property and possibly short jail terms should be enough to get most to cooperate. And, ultimately, they may see that participating in democracy will get them a few Serbs in the legislative body, to at least voice their concerns. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If an apparently neutral policy disproportionaty effects one identifiable segment of the community, people regard it as "indirect discrimination". It's a lot like some of thedisenfranchisement of citizens during the reconstruction era in the USA or mandantory sentencing in Australia. . 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point -- even supposing that that were a useful and productive strategy, the Kosovo government does not exercise practical governing authority north of the Ibar. The Serbs are already disgruntled with the changeover from troops under UN command to troops under EU command (i.e. excluding Russians), and using those troops to intrude the Kosovo police into north Kosovo would start another war which nobody needs right now... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

At this rate, Moos, by 2050 every man in the Balkans will constitute the Independent Republic of Himself. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The nationalities already exist, you just need to draw the borders that accordingly and/or let people move voluntarily to the newly created countries. In the West we are opposed to doing that, but then we end up hindering the resolution of these sorts of conflicts.

Another example is Lebanon. There you have a complicated power sharing system that works. In the West we tend to think of that as an "unresolved" situation just because they don't have a system like we are used to having. But if this works well for them, and something similar to what we have would re-start the civil war, then perhaps we should think of this as a normal system which works well. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Lebanon, the French chose to expand a smaller area inhabited mainly by Druze and Maronites (what was usually meant by "Lebanon" before the 1920s) to include extensive areas inhabited by Sunnis and Shi`ites. Lebanon would almost certainly have been stabler if that had not been done (it would not border on Israel, for one thing)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the raw number of total import entries into Canada in 2011?

I'm looking for the number of import entries made, not the dollar value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.98.14 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What does "import entry" mean? --Tango (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumably individual imported items. (Chips...potato, some corn. Long matches.) I can't find any info aside from dollar value, and I'm not sure it would be feasible to count them like that. We may be able to find the number of items for particular kinds of imports, but probably not all of them. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Shipments is my guess. In other words, number of sets of import paperwork. —Tamfang (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Entering an embassy to detain a person

Apparently the UK might "storm", as the news put it, the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange. I thought that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations didn't allow that. I know that diplomats can be considered persona non grata and I suppose that there might be some method to close a foreign embassy and remove it's protection. What are the rules under international law that would allow the UK to enter the embassy without Ecuador's permisson? Sjö (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no rules that would allow UK forces to ender the Embassy without permission. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is very clear: "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] So any "storming" would be in breach of the Vienna Convention, which is quite serious. The UK's choices, if it really wants to extract Assange, are to convince Ecuador to invite them to intervene or hand over Assange, or to do so without authorization and then plead extraordinary circumstances, invoking motives of health and safety. What would happen in practice, if they breach the Vienna Convention ? Ecuador could suspend or cut off diplomatic relations, or retaliate aggainst UK interests on its territory, and perhaps convince allied countries to do the same; in addition, it could seek international condemnation of the UK's action by the United Nations, the Organization of American States, etc. It's unlikely that the UK would like to be seen as behaving as a rogue state, just for the sake of Julian Assange. --Xuxl (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One must set aside the intentionally inflammatory and eye-catching title carefully crafted by the newspaper editor in order to actually understand what is bring proposed here. As quoted in this article, 'Under British law we can give them a week's notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesman said. So there is a British legal mechanism for shuttering embassies which allows for seven days' notice. If this action was taken, Ecuador would either be forced to release him into British custody or declare him an official diplomat of Ecuador (and presumably a citizen? not sure about this) which gives him diplomatic immunity that even the closure of the embassy cannot overcome. It's an interesting development to be sure, but one best avoid the idiotic article headlines. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

However, that provision is under British law and is not covered by the Vienna Convention, so it would be considered a breach of diplomatic protocol, with the serious repercussions outlined above. So it depends on how badly the UK wants to get Assange. I get a sense that there is some posturing going on to see how far both sides want to take this dispute. After all, the Ecuadorians have no great attachment to Assange, but they do place a high value on the protection of their diplomatic premises - as do all countries. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Vienna Convention says the embassy is inviolable. It doesn't say that once you grant a country an embassy you can't take it back. --Tango (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the British interest in him, anyway? He's not a British citizen and he's been charged with no crimes in any country. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK has agreed to the European Arrest Warrant system, which means the UK must comply with Swedish requests. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can unilaterally declare someone a diplomat. They have to be recognised by the host country as such when the enter the country. --Tango (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK is quite within its rights to do so, and it's consonant with its treaty obligations. The immunity to the legal processes of the host country enjoyed by diplomats and diplomatic premises is a grant made by the host country, by dint of those treaties, not a right enjoyed because the diplomat's home country says so. The treaties' grants are not permanent - the host country can remove those privileges as it wishes. Host countries often say that a diplomat to whom they have granted protection will shortly no longer to be so protected; the host country has to allow a (pretty short) notice period, so that person can leave while still under the treaty protections. Similarly a host country remains sovereign over embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic premises, but agrees not to enter them under the treaty terms - but these grants too can, and occasionally are, rescinded. Again the diplomats have a notice period to remove themselves and either destroy or remove (by diplomatic bag) sensitive diplomatic documents. Such a removal of protection is pretty rare, and most commonly occurs on the outbreak of war - for example, on the outbreak of WW2 the UK told German diplomats to leave, and once they'd gone it seized the German embassy at Carlton House Terrace as enemy property. Similarly, during the Libyan civil war, the British government told the Gaddafi-aligned diplomats to leave, and once they were gone took the Libyan embassy in London and gave it to the rebels[3]. But the removal of an embassy's status is a big step, one usually reserved for outright military conflict or total breakdown of diplomatic relations. Ecuador would really have to reciprocate in kind, and without premises to work from, those diplomatic staffs that remained in each country would be greatly impaired in their work. I can't think of any situation where a western country has done this other than during a major breakdown of relations. Some countries don't allow foreign embassies freedom of location, forcing them to be located in a controlled diplomatic quarter, and very occasionally host countries will force embassies to move. I really don't think the UK is serious about doing this, as they can get what they want by just sitting outside the (surely very small) embassy for a year or two until the Ecuadorians or Assange get sick of the arrangement. The Ecuadorians disclosing the contents of a private meeting (in, if I might opine, rather theatrical terms) might suggest they're preparing to refuse Assange's application, but they'll do so saying "we woz bullied by evil imperialists", to save face. Embassies usually hate this kind of thing, and try to chuck such folks out whenever they can. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that removing the protection of an embassy is spelled out in the convention, but perhaps it's more a question of case law or some other conventions that are relevant?Sjö (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall if any action was taken against Iran in 1979 when they stormed the US embassy and took about 50 Americans hostage for the next year-plus. Meanwhle, the articles I've seen indicate the Brits aren't ready to storm the embassy, they're merely watching it 24 x 7 to try and grab this guy who, by the way, has jumped bail and is in violation of British law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A number of countries (Canada for one) pulled their diplomats out of Iran and kicked Iranian diplomats out of their countries as a result of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy; Iran was an international pariah for a number of years afterwards. So there were consequences. --Xuxl (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. As our article Iran hostage crisis says, there were diplomatic and economic sanctions and even an attempt at a military intervention.Sjö (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The letter from the British Government to the Ecuadorians says "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's [5] an interesting article on using the 1987 Act. It was not designed for a case like the current one, and it's unlikely a British court would uphold its being invoked. Here's a direct quote: "Former [UK] government lawyer Carl Gardner says a court would likely rule that using the law against Assange would be inconsistent with the intent of the law." --Xuxl (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it the 1987 act resulted directly from the Yvonne Fletcher shooting. It was put in place to provide the legal framework for resolution of situations where diplomatic staff were perpetrating crimes from within the building, for example a diplomat firing a sniper rifle from an upper window. In a case like that the procedure would presumably be to evacuate the area, give the seven days notice and then enter the building. The current situation is unlike that.Blakk and ekka 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In the Yvonne Fletcher case, the Libyan diplomats had been expelled from the embassy by radical pro-Gadaffi students with the approval of the Libyan Government. They had established a "Libyan People's Bureau" in the building, which was still protected by diplomatic immunity even though the diplomats had departed. I'm not much of a lawyer, but I suspect that the 1987 Act was intended to close that particular loophole; ie it gave the Home Secretary the power to withdraw the diplomatic status of a building or piece of land "if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law." Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The building in question is shared with the Colombian embassy, which allows them to enter the lobby. 71.215.68.200 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two precedents in international law for storming the embassy to seize Assange. First is the abuduction of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina by Israeli agents and the second is the abduction of Osama Bin Ladin from Pakistan. Both of these technically violated international law and both of these involved criminals. One Legal scholar has found two criteria for violation of the Vienna Conventions: the criminal must have executed heinous crimes, and the hosting state is active in harboring the criminal.[6] This case will be interesting for international law because Assange's crimes, although heinous to his female victims, do not rise to the level of a terrorist or Nazi. Should the UK storm the embassy, Ecuador is free to seek relief from the UN Security Council. The UK is sure to veto any resolution against herself. There would be diplomatic fallout between the two countries which could harm long term relations and trade. To learn more about this, do an internet search for United Nations Security Council Resolution 138. Scholarly articles on international law which cite this resolution and those written about extraordinary rendition will discuss all of the legal ramifications of an arrest of Assange before he can be secreted away to a life of exile in Ecuador before he is finally abducted there by some government. Please excuse my mild sarcasm. Gx872op (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alleged crimes and victims, please. Unless you have some information the rest of us don't? --Trovatore (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would never use the term "alleged" when speaking to a rape victim. It diminishes their story. It is very difficult to encourage women to testify against their attackers, most decline but this does not mean that they are alleged victims. Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Just as rape is a terrible crime, to be falsely accused of being a rapist is likewise a terrible thing and can ruin someones life. To state as fact that a woman was raped automatically implies the accused is a rapist, which is worse than to remain neutral about the truthfulness of the accusations (indicated by the term 'alleged'). Note that the distinction is not between women who do press charges and women who don't; but rather between those that are really raped and those that forge the charge (which does happen). - Lindert (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Gx872op, you do not know that these women are telling the truth, and you should not assume it to Assange's detriment.

Note that even if they are telling the truth, matters are a bit murky, as the acts the women are reporting seem by all accounts to have been in the context of a larger consensual sexual encounter. According to Assange's article, the reason they lodged the accusation was to make him take an HIV test. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, when you state alleged victim, you assume these two independent women are not telling the truth. When you say the victim of an alleged crime, you accept how they feel about what happened to them while accepting that the crimes have not yet been proven. The question is which story do you believe and it is apparent that you believe Assange without knowing all the facts. You may be critical of someone believing the victims, but you are doing the exact same thing with blind faith in Assange based on his politics. Regardless, Assange can never leave the embassy legally. Ecuador could attempt to hide him away to the airport where British customs would deny him from leaving. They could try to use diplomatic channels to get him out of Britain like Israel did with Eichmann, but that would be a violation of international law and British sovereignty. Britain or the U.S. would be just as bad if they were to take him back out of Ecuador through the same diplomatic channels, except in that case, they would have a basis in international law under the precedents of Bin Ladin, Eichmann and others. Indeed, if the U.S. really wants Eichmann, they would want him to travel to Ecuador. If the U.S. can get Bin Ladin, they can get anybody. However, I don't think the U.S. is going to prosecute. The only one who is saying this is Assange and that is an effort to escape investigation of the sex crimes alleged by his victims. Gx872op (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you're quite wrong. When I say "alleged victim" I do not in any way exclude the possibility that she is a real victim. I simply limit myself to reporting what I know, namely that there is an allegation, and not what I do not know, which is whether or not there was a crime or a victim. --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But is the Vienna Convention relevant to the Eichmann and Bin Laden cases, where the actions took place on foreign territory, not in an embassy? There is no mention of the Vienna Convention in the article by Marshall Thompson that you linked, either.Sjö (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Eichmann case did involve the Vienna Conventions. Israel sent its Minister of Security to represent Israel during Argentina's Independence Day celebrations via an Israeli plane on a diplomatic mission. That same plane returned to Israel without the minister but carrying a drugged Eichmann. To answer your question, "Is the Vienna Convention relevant to the Eichmann and Bin Laden cases?" Yes, the convention is relevant as are all other treaties having to do with national sovereignty and what happens when it is violated. The persona non grata provision is usually discussed under the broader chapter of sovereignty in a law school textbook on international law. I gathered from your response that you believe that there is no relevance. Reading a law school textbook on international law would makes things clearer (or possibly more confusing for some people). Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I failed to consider the "precedents in international law for storming the embassy" at the top of your text as I was more interested in the if and how an embassy's protection can be withdrawn. If that protection can be withdrawn, I suppose that the police could enter under the same regulations as on any other piece of British soil, couldn't they? Sjö (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What still mystifies me most is how any charge in the U.S. is even conceivable. Even American journalists have pretty routinely published classified and leaked documents when they received them - for example, in the Plame affair when Robert Novak published the leak that Valery Plame was a CIA agent, he was not put on trial. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any charge would come from the United States. It is such a weak case, any criminal defense attorney would jump at the fame that high profile, winning representation would bring. The claims of Assange mostly detract from the focus on his actual criminal investigation in Sweden. If Assange assisted in plotting and obtaining classified material, that's one thing, but what is known is that he merely accepted the information from others, which is not a crime in the U.S. Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Err, not to contradict, but my understanding is that while accepting information from others is pretty safe, republishing it is pretty clearly a crime in the US. ("Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, [etc.] relating to the national defense ..., willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, [etc.] to any person not entitled to receive it, [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.'') Whether the law that makes it a crime is constitutional is a different story. Depending on how one interprets the intent of the distribution (something Assange's public statements probably wouldn't help), the sentencing varies (if you do it while intending to hurt the US or help a foreign power, the punishment goes up — all the way to capital punishment and/or life imprisonment if done during wartime). There's a fine line between the power of the Espionage Act and the safety of the First Amendment (see e.g. New York Times Co. v. United States), to be sure, but I see little reason to assume a priori that Assange's work would be protected by it. And of course it's true that newspapers are not usually prosecuted for reprinting leaks, but that's usually because they sit pretty clearly on the side of the First Amendment issue; I'm not sure if Assange would, being more anarchist than journalist. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any aspect of Wikileaks' activities that is anything but journalism, and the release of these particular cables was done in collaboration with well-known newspapers from several countries. What is clear is that if Assange were prosecuted for reprinting these things, for "not being a journalist", then the classification system would be very clearly established as an intellectual caste system - one in which over 500,000 people could have free access to a large number of "secrets" on SIPRNet, but where the population at large would be denied access to them even after even the illusion of secrecy had been broken, with journalists defined as a specially selected group of licensed go-betweens with a carefully regulated power to give hints and intimations to the underclass about what weighty matters their masters and superiors might be contemplating. Wnt (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I can't read the minds of hypothetical US federal prosecutors, but it's possible he could be charged not with publishing or receiving, but with obtaining. If a prosecutor alleges that Assange was an active participant in the espionage, perhaps by encouraging Pfc. Manning, they may try to pin him with something that can't be excused by the first amendment. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think having a high profile criminal defense attorney is much of a consolation when they wisk you off to Bagram Air base, Guantanamo bay or extraordinarily rendition you to some other hell hole. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why Assange would fall under US jurisdiction. China doesn't consider the CIA to be an illegal organization, despite the CIA working with illegally obtained classified information from China. If a Chinese organization were to do that, they could be prosecuted under Chinese law. But China won't pretend that their laws apply to US citizens if they aren't in China. So, why does the US want to enforce US laws on non-US citizens in their own countries? Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Eichmann didn't commit his crimes in Israel. In fact, his crimes were actually done to enforce compliance with local laws, so there's precedent for this sort of thing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly consensual intercourse accompanied or followed by alleged "molestation" followed by refusal to take an HIV test makes someone comparable to Eichmann and Bin Laden? Surely this is an insult to victims of the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks. And it justifies the British government imitating a 1979 mob of Iranian students and invading an embassy? Amazing! Edison (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- regardless of dismissive airy hand-waving and/or the laws and conventions governing diplomatic enclaves, Assange largely brought his troubles on himself by poor decision-making on several separate occasions (whether or not he has committed a crime), and therefore he has few to blame other than who he sees when he looks in the mirror... AnonMoos (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The US placed an allegedly troubled Army Specialist (one click above Private First Class) in a situation where he had unrestricted access to masses of classified info which he seemed to have little plausible need to see, and let him download hundreds of thousands of documents, such as old diplomatic cables? No one ever took a look at a log of what secret files he was accessing, and asked why? An intelligence organization with no internal checks? Then they want so badly to"render" the guy who published the stuff, that the Brits are ready to storm an embassy and send him to Sweden in preparation for the "rendition?" Edison (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure AnonMoos is primarily referring to his decisions relating to sexual intercourse and the events that follow, not what he may or may not have done re: wikileaks. I rarely agree with AnonMoos but for once I do. The idea Sweden would be more willing to cooperate in some sort of rendition of such a high profile but controversial target to the US, let alone somewhere like Guantanamo, let alone that the UK would be willing to storm the embassy but for some reason didn't just sent him themselves or keep him under closer watch is just strange. (Or for that matter that the US didn't if they're allegedly so desperate to get him.) The US has and continues to do many dodgy things but the conspiracies surrounding them and Assange are mostly just silly. And really from some of the dodgy things they did do, why would they be displeased about him going to the Ecuador? The US seems to think of the Americas (at least all countries southern of them) as their playground. If they really wanted Assange, getting him from Ecuador doesn't seem like a big problem. It's not like governments there have tended to be particularly stable. And besides if Assange really did matter to those in the US, you would think some in the US would prefer it this way. Another black mark on that 'wacky leftist government of Ecuador' another reason to push for 'regime change'. Why risk losing those supposedly friendly UK and Swedish governments by making them do something unpopular with their voters like rendering Assange? Frankly as wacky as this theory is, it makes more sense thet a lot of the stuff others are spreading around. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

W203.27.72.5, I don't think your analogy with Eichmann holds, because Eichmann was involved in the persecution of Jews. Also Israel did not use the accepted legal rules to get hold of Eichmann. So, the question remains why US laws also apply to citizens who live in other countries, while the same laws of those other countries don't apply to US citizens in the US. So, Assange could be prosecuted in the US, but the American version of Assange who works with Russian classified information in a way that would be criminal in Russia would never face prosecution in Russia. Count Iblis (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See universal jurisdiction: many countries' legal systems can prosecute people for crimes that took place outside their borders. Assange could only be prosecuted in the US if he went to the US, either by extradition or free choice, and I don't see why someone who had similarly enraged the Russian government wouldn't be prosecuted there. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Per 81, that article on universal jurisdiction is informative. I don't see what the fact that Eichmann persecuted Jews has to do with anything. He did it in Germany. You're whole argument above seems to be based on the concept that you can only be guilty of a crime if you did it in the jurisdiction where it's illegal. On a related note, the Australian government threatens it's citizens with charges if they bribe officials or engage in sexual conduct with minors (using Australian definitions of the age of consent) in foreign countries, even if it's legal or de facto legal in the jurisdiction where they do it. See [7]. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Ecuador is concerned about Sweden trying Assange on rape charges, their concern is the apparent willingness of Sweden to turn him over to US authorities for as-yet unspecified crimes. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the statute of limitations in Sweden for what Assange is accused of there?

Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The statute of limitations is ten years for rape and five years for sexual molestation. However, he was häktad on November 19, 2010, which means that he can be charged even after more than ten years.Sjö (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know, but bear in mind as per our Statute of limitations the time limit is sometimes suspended when on the run. although he hasn't been charged, since they are waiting to interview him to decide whether to charge him, this may apply. In other words, don't trust any raw number unless the source also appears to have consider whether this is an issue. Although [8] suggests the law in Sweden is or was somewhat different, at least when it comes to actual convicts. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter. In most jurisdictions the statute of limitations only applies to crimes for which there is no suspect (or more precisely, no indictment of a suspect). Once an indictment has been handed down, that person must stand trial for his/her crimes or remain a fugitive. For example, if one robs a bank but remains unidentified until the statue of limitations in that jurisdiction has expired, legal action, in most cases, can not be taken. However, if a definite suspect is identified sufficiently to warrant legal proceedings and said proceedings are begun (even if in absentia), then the statute of limitations will not apply.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the case in Sweden. If a person is häktad or is served the indictment against him or her, the statute of limitions no longer applies, according to the Swedish Penal Code (Brottsbalken), chapter 35, 1 §.Sjö (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/swedens-reputation-is-on-trial-in-julian-assange-case/story-e6frfhqf-1225965772832

• Assange got accused of having consensual sex with two adult women without using a condom, which is a crime in Sweden apparently based on some extremely old and obscure law that no one enforced before nowadays. Yes, I'm completely serious. Futurist110 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it seem reasonable to you that condoms would be mentioned in 'extremely old' laws? 81.170.148.21 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because 100+ years ago most Europeans had a pretty conservative morality. Futurist110 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They had condoms then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lord Byron supposedly used condoms made from lamb intestines. Anyway, it seems that Assange could have kept events from spiraling out of control if he had agreed to get STD tests (as was asked of him long before any criminal charges were thought of)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

From the lede section of Condom: Condoms have been used for at least 400 years. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There's even a separate article on the History of condoms, which says, "The oldest claimed representation of condom use is a painting in the French cave Grotte des Combarrelles; the paintings in this cave are 12,000–15,000 years old." Pais (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(to Futurist). The HeraldSun editorial doesn't say anything about an old or obscure law. BTW don't really want to do this for BLP reasons but I see no choice given this existing diversion. Have you actually read the charges [9]? Without commenting on the accuracy of the claims, it's more complicated then simply non condom usage as you seem to be suggesting. Personally as a male, if I clearly tell a woman I will only have sex with a condom, and wake up to find her fucking me without one, I would consider that some sort of assault even more so if I clearly tell her to stop upon waking up and she does not. I will probably try quite hard to stop her, and you can debate what it means if I don't or if I remain close to her after the event, but I would find the claim I wasn't assaulted just because I was able to stop her rather offensive. Whether I will consider it worth persuing may be another matter (if I later find out it's a regular pattern with her, this will likely affect the chance I will try). Similar to the way I would feel, if I agree to receive and perform oral sex on a random woman and wake up to find her pegging me. But perhaps that's just me.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Or the way I feel when I agree to perform and receive oral sex on a random woman only for her to back out once I've finished doing my part... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a habit of making such agreements with random women? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the most involved discussion I've seen of these issues in general was in a TV series [10] which postulated the scenario of a "reproductive abuser" intentionally putting holes in condoms to deceive women. In principle there are many situations in which these things come up. Women who lie about taking birth control pills so they can write themselves a meal ticket. Men who lie or omit information about HIV or hepatitis. In some of these situations people can be sent to jail for very long terms - more often nobody can touch them. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My brother found his girlfriend putting holes in their condoms. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think of scribd as a spam site, which contains nothing but content copied from somewhere else locked up under a mass of annoying scripts that make it difficult to read, let alone use. As such I note the document appears to be from [11]. The document isn't very clear on specifics, but seems consistent with the impression I've gotten so far that basically Assange is accused of shucking the condom when the women weren't paying attention, tricking them into having a sort of sex they didn't want, and thereby committing all these other improper actions because they were being subjected to an act they didn't want, plus also a claim that he initiated sex again later on ? when they were sleeping (literally) with him. It's all very confusing, and of course there's a tendency of some of us to be suspicious of whether this situation was procured by some means. Wnt (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for their input! Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also see [12] which provides as detailed a timeline as I've seen. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Democracy in India

India claims to be a democracy; how democratic is it actually in practice? --168.7.236.49 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are free and contested multiparty elections. See Constitution of India, Politics in India and Elections in India You'll have to be more specific if you have a more specific concern, because we avoid opinion and do not engage in general debates at the Reference Desk. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Democracy Index rates India at 7.3/10, placing it in the category "Flawed Democracy", which is actually pretty good compared to other Asian coutries. - Lindert (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

NB France only gets 7.7 - still in the "flawed" bracket - so not that far behind some in the west. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See Corruption in India for some of the reasons why its democracy is considered flawed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A wonderful and enlightening fictional take on democracy in India is the book The White Tiger, published a few years ago and winner of the Man Booker Prize. Excellent book, and it helped me understand the depth of the problems of India's democracy, which are not limited merely to corruption. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Spiess date of birth?

I'm putting together some details for a brief article about Joseph Spiess who patented a rigid airship some months before Ferdinand von Zeppelin recorded his first musings on the subject. He finally got around to building his airship which had its first flight in 1913; the first and only rigid airship ever built in France. He donated it to the French Army on the eve of WWI, but they weren't really interested and it was scrapped soon afterwards. He's buried in the Cimetière du Père Lachaise whose website gives a date of birth of 1839, however another website says 1856. Can anybody confirm either date? French Wikipedia gives him no mention at all, even on their Fr:Ballon dirigeable page. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

From the third photo down on this site, it would appear that 1838 is the recorded birth date on his grave. Sazea (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This website says 1838, which is also inscribed on the tombstone (see image 3 of 4). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. Alansplodge (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone can find what he did for a living? He obviously didn't make any money from airships as he gave his only one away to the army as a present. It tends to suggest that he had a considerable income from somewhere else. Also, he was a Chevalier of the Legion d’Honneur. Is there a French equivalent of the London Gazette online that might say why and when he was honoured? Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Spiess was born in 1838 see his birth certificate. This "proposal" explains why is was awarded the "Légion d'Honneur" and when (7 August 1913) — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)