Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days • Hacker News Board

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#21

Post by trevelyan » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:26 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #3

Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)... Regardless of what you think of the charges against him (personal take: No way to know for sure, but gut feel is he made poor choices and wound up in the grey area of undesired sexual experiences that our society is currently struggling with how to properly define. In our natural humane desire to protect potential vic…

They certainly can charge in absentia and issue extradition warrants afterwards - read the UK high court judgment. The problem is that as soon as they charge they have to share evidence to get an extradition warrant, and Assange could have beat the request on substantive grounds by demonstrating that there was no crime under British law, something that would have been particularly easy since the Swedish prosecutor would be required to share evidence, including the exculpatory texts.

They did not charge because the requirements to extradite for "questioning" are much weaker and require no proof, just a statement from the Swedish prosecutor that cannot be challenged on any substantive grounds.

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#22

Post by Zenst » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:29 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #16

It does seem unbelievable that you can in essence go on the lam for five years and then you're free to carry on your life as before.

Agreed and very much a case of using the letter of the law to abuse the spirit of the law and in this case, avoid it.

He has argued all along that if he left he would be whisked away for nefarious trials by America and if that was the case then this 5 year date of his hiding will make no difference. Unless he just wanted to avoid the trial for whatever reason.

Still for a trial you need a victim and in this case, that victim was not Assange and we have a trial and victim who will not see justice or any form of trial - fair or not. So can imagine how they feel about this.

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#23

Post by rayiner » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #18

hahainternet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)... Probably a rapist?

Worth reposting the link from the article which explains what Assange actually did (or was alleged to have done): http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...

Worth quoting too:

> As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom.

> Indeed she was concerned he had not put a condom on. She felt his penis with her hand to check he had really put it on. She felt that the edge of the condom was in the right place on the root of his penis. They therefore continued to have sex, as she said that she thought that she just wanted to get it over with. After a while AA noticed that Mr Assange had pulled his penis out of her and started to arrange the condom. Judging by the sound AA thought he was removing the condom. He then penetrated her again and continued sexual intercourse.

> When she started to move her body she noticed something was seeping out of her vagina and understood it must be his semen. AA told the police she was convinced that Mr Assange, when he pulled out of her, broke the condom by the glans and then continued the intercourse until he ejaculated.

> Her statement then describes in some detail the conduct that forms the basis of Offence 4. She fell asleep, but was woken up by his penetration of her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered to the effect that he was not. She felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. She had never had unprotected sex. He then ejaculated inside her.

Not a "grey area of undesired sexual experience" here. Just straight up exceeding the scope of consent.

EDIT: downvoted by either the pro-rape crowd or the anti-copyright infringement crowd.

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#24

Post by panglott » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #18

hahainternet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)... Probably a rapist?

Worth reposting the link from the article which explains what Assange actually did (or was alleged to have done): http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...

Thanks, that's much worse than I recalled.

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#25

Post by youngtaff » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

agd wrote: post #17

alkonaut wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? It's not normally acceptable to demand to be questioned in another country, and when the prosecutor agreed to make an exception, a new (and impossible) condition was added. This is what the author of the article called "calling the bluff".

Yes I have read the article. The Swedish prosecutor has had at least 3 years to organize questioning in the embassy but has left it until the last moment. Now it appears there is not enough time to sort out the (obviously complex) details. Whose fault it that? The obvious counter-argument to 'calling the bluff' is that the prosecutor has kept the case in limbo for 5 years and then left it too late to organise questio…

Since when have suspected sexual offenders been the ones to set the rules on when and where they're interviewed?

Assange has played his supporters and the 'Sweden are going to extradite me to the US' line to avoid facing being questioned over his behaviour

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#26

Post by gadders » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

Zenst wrote: post #22

gadders wrote: post #16

It does seem unbelievable that you can in essence go on the lam for five years and then you're free to carry on your life as before.

Agreed and very much a case of using the letter of the law to abuse the spirit of the law and in this case, avoid it. He has argued all along that if he left he would be whisked away for nefarious trials by America and if that was the case then this 5 year date of his hiding will make no difference. Unless he just wanted to avoid the trial for whatever reason. Still for a trial you need a victim and in this case, tha…

Even if we leave aside the specifics of the Assange case, I still find it astonishing as a general principle.

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#27

Post by Zenst » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:40 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #26

Zenst wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed and very much a case of using the letter of the law to abuse the spirit of the law and in this case, avoid it. He has argued all along that if he left he would be whisked away for nefarious trials by America and if that was the case then this 5 year date of his hiding will make no difference. Unless he just wanted to avoid the trial for whatever reason. Still for a trial you need a victim and in this case, tha…

Even if we leave aside the specifics of the Assange case, I still find it astonishing as a general principle.

More so when if this was TAX evasion then Sweden have no time limit, which is really putting how messed up this is into perspective.

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#28

Post by agd » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 1:40 PM UTC

youngtaff wrote: post #25

agd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I have read the article. The Swedish prosecutor has had at least 3 years to organize questioning in the embassy but has left it until the last moment. Now it appears there is not enough time to sort out the (obviously complex) details. Whose fault it that? The obvious counter-argument to 'calling the bluff' is that the prosecutor has kept the case in limbo for 5 years and then left it too late to organise questio…

Since when have suspected sexual offenders been the ones to set the rules on when and where they're interviewed? Assange has played his supporters and the 'Sweden are going to extradite me to the US' line to avoid facing being questioned over his behaviour

Assange is not setting the rules. The Ecuardorians set the rules for questioning in their embassy and the Swedish have no rules against questioning suspects abroad if necessary.

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#29

Post by youngtaff » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

agd wrote: post #28

youngtaff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when have suspected sexual offenders been the ones to set the rules on when and where they're interviewed? Assange has played his supporters and the 'Sweden are going to extradite me to the US' line to avoid facing being questioned over his behaviour

Assange is not setting the rules. The Ecuardorians set the rules for questioning in their embassy and the Swedish have no rules against questioning suspects abroad if necessary.

Assange is trying to set the rules…

He only claimed asylum when British courts rules he should go to Sweden.

If he was innocent why did he argue against going to Sweden?

He was in greater risk of being extradited to the US from the UK than he was from Sweden!

Re: Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

#30

Post by Bohahahaha » Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

Well waiting 5 years and then switching to strategy B (interview in London) 1-2 months before the last possible moment was obviously not the best strategy for the (potential) victims.