Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

jackofkent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

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

#41

Post by Tomte »

another-one-off wrote: post #38
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Accord…

The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent. A lot of the evidence is what she thinks he was thinking - this is not high quality evidence. He seems to have done everything she asked him to do. The last dot point is from the other set of charges (SW rather than AA). That one is a fairly clear case of straight up exceeding the scope of consent. If it happened like…

So you're saying Assange should be allowed to do whatever he wants, because USA?

And re: Ecuador, there are certainly reasons why they have granted asylum.

Wanting to protect a victim of persecution is virtually guaranteed not to have been a real consideration. Pissing off the USA and the UK is the obviously much bigger motivation.

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

#42

Post by belorn »

alkonaut wrote: post #12
agd wrote: post #5

Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly. I haven't seen any plausible reason why the prosecutor couldn't question him in London, especially given the exceptional circumstances of the case. edit: Yes, I have seen the reasons put forward by the SPA me…

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".

There seem to this normally accepted statement that Sweden do not "normally" perform questioning in other nations, but doing just a lazy google search I find plenty of examples where Swedish police has ventured to other nations to conduct questioning with suspects, victims or relatives. Normally those news articles are about murders, but that is the focus of most news articles when dealing about crimes.

I would be very interested to see statistics on how often police from Scandinavian countries visit each other, interview criminals that jump borders, or simply ask the local police to do the questioning. I personally doubt its such a rare and exceptional occurrence, as I saw a article where police from south of Sweden was lobbying to address speeders who cross the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.

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

#43

Post by draugadrotten »

kiiski wrote: post #35
gadders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison? (One year based on the fact that the five year limit only applies if the maximum penalty is at most 2 years[1], and presumably a first timer would not spend the whole 2 years in prison (and the actual sentence in this case might be below 2 years anyway)) The general principle, as far as I know, is based on the idea that the need for…

> Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison?

No, clearly not, especially considering the circumstances of the evasion is similar to a Swedish prison. He probably doesn't have a playstation in the Embassy, but he could have had one in his prison cell.

The only reason Assange submitted himself to being locked up into the embassy for 5 years is because he truly fears extradition to the US. In my opinion, rightly so. Remember Sweden allowed secret CIA extraordinary rendition, aka torture flights only a few years before the Assange event[1].

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05...

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

#44

Post by kiiski »

joesmo wrote: post #31

Although this particular case is highly political and likely fabricated, the tragedy of such a law of limitation applying to rape is sickening. That's not just in Sweden, but many other jurisdictions, including most of the US states. The real question here isn't about Assange--that's an uninteresting political aside. The real question is why do states have a statute of limitations on a crime that's sometimes a lot wo…

As I've understood, the accusation for rape in this case is for Assange starting to have sex with the alleged victim while she was sleeping, without wearing a condom (the "not wearing a condom" is the key part here; otherwise it apparently would have been technically illegal, but "consentual" in practical terms). Are you really saying that that is "only slightly less bad" than murder?

The 5 year limit, btw, only applies to the accusations for "Unlawful coercion" and "Sexual molestation" (times two). The rape accusation will remain open for another five years (unless the prosecutor decides to drop it).

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

#45

Post by Tomte »

draugadrotten wrote: post #43
kiiski wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison? (One year based on the fact that the five year limit only applies if the maximum penalty is at most 2 years[1], and presumably a first timer would not spend the whole 2 years in prison (and the actual sentence in this case might be below 2 years anyway)) The general principle, as far as I know, is based on the idea that the need for…

> Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison? No, clearly not, especially considering the circumstances of the evasion is similar to a Swedish prison. He probably doesn't have a playstation in the Embassy, but he could have had one in his prison cell. The only reason Assange submitted himself to being locked up into the embassy for 5 years is because he truly fears extraditio…

You don't truly believe that the UK, being "cousins" and with all the "special relationship", would be a less probable actor to allow this dreaded extraordinary rendition, do you?

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

#46

Post by Trombone12 »

agd wrote: post #5

Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly. I haven't seen any plausible reason why the prosecutor couldn't question him in London, especially given the exceptional circumstances of the case. edit: Yes, I have seen the reasons put forward by the SPA me…

Dude, it's not like Assange is chained to a pipe inside the Ecuatorian embassy, he has been free to get a flight to Sweden for YEARS.

His continual refusal to do so is not a very convincing reason to concede to his demands, to quote Green:

"It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise."

Some of the complications that have arisen, providing assurances that cannot be given under Swedish law, might well have been foreseen as part of the near futility of the entire attempt to get access to Assange.

Also, we can be fairly sure that Assange has no credible evidence for an extradition to the US being planned, as else he would have shared it as soon as it came in his possession.

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

#47

Post by rayiner »

another-one-off wrote: post #38
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Accord…

The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent. A lot of the evidence is what she thinks he was thinking - this is not high quality evidence. He seems to have done everything she asked him to do. The last dot point is from the other set of charges (SW rather than AA). That one is a fairly clear case of straight up exceeding the scope of consent. If it happened like…

> The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent.

Whether or not it was a broken condom or he ripped it on purpose is a red herring. If the allegations are true, he was trying to have sex with a woman he just met while holding her arms down and trying to force her legs open. That's attempted rape.

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

#48

Post by pgeorgi »

youngtaff wrote: post #29
agd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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

Because if he was innocent, why should some random person in Sweden, in office or not, be allowed to mess up his travel schedule, just because they want him for "questioning"?

If St. Kitts and Nevis were to file an Interpol Red Notice tomorrow, seeking a person going by the alias "youngtaff" on hackernews: would you drop everything and fly there to sort out whatever mess they've made?

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

#49

Post by Asbostos »

hahainternet wrote: post #10
agd wrote: post #5

Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly. I haven't seen any plausible reason why the prosecutor couldn't question him in London, especially given the exceptional circumstances of the case. edit: Yes, I have seen the reasons put forward by the SPA me…

> Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly. Which is Assange's fault, as he's fleeing justice at the same time as demanding others face justice. I can't stand the hypocritical bastard, he's damaged his movement more than anyone else ever could.

But what if he's right about the risk of being extradited from Sweden to the US? If that happens, the US will surely be far more brutal and punish him for Wikileaks things. We've seen them to it to Manning and threaten it to Snowden.

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

#50

Post by another-one-off »

Tomte wrote: post #41
another-one-off wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent. A lot of the evidence is what she thinks he was thinking - this is not high quality evidence. He seems to have done everything she asked him to do. The last dot point is from the other set of charges (SW rather than AA). That one is a fairly clear case of straight up exceeding the scope of consent. If it happened like…

So you're saying Assange should be allowed to do whatever he wants, because USA? And re: Ecuador, there are certainly reasons why they have granted asylum. Wanting to protect a victim of persecution is virtually guaranteed not to have been a real consideration. Pissing off the USA and the UK is the obviously much bigger motivation.

I'm being quite specific, saying that this extradition order for these specific charges should be ignored, because USA.

If they had solid evidence that he was dragging women off the streets and threatening them with a knife then this is all reasonable. No-one is alleging anything like that.

I'm also throwing in an uninformed opinion that people are throwing 'sexual assault' and 'rape' around expecting a strong reaction, but I don't see the justification for getting worked up here. Setting aside any STDs (basically, assuming Assange doesn't have aids), the issue is that he did something that didn't hurt anyone, doesn't appear calculated to humiliate, was in circumstances where he might have misunderstood as having consent (given he was already having sex with these women), and can be rectified in 24 hours with drugs and a doctors visit. This would be grounds to discipline him, but not grounds to get worked up.

Post reply on HN