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

51–60 of 67 posts

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

#51

Post by jobu »

rayiner wrote: post #23
gadders wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Accord…

This video does a pretty good job of explaining consent for those that don't think AA's description sounds like rape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 (Tea Consent)

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

#52

Post by TerryCarlin »

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…

>We're talking here about rape and sexual assault though.

No we're not we're talking about “sex by surprise”.

One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have “ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups,” according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.

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

#53

Post by rayiner »

another-one-off wrote: post #50
Tomte wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reacti…

You're ignoring the part where he's holding her arms down and forcing her legs open. He's no different than the "dragging women off the streets" rapist, he just didn't need to do that in this case.

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

#54

Post by anirul »

seren wrote: post #13
deanCommie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with your point in the specific case, but completely disagree in general. Justice IS political. Justices either run for office as political public figures or are appointed by political public figures. The justice system is an attempt to apply a subset of morality for the betterment of society, which is ultimately a subjective political exercise.

I don't disagree with your premise, but I can't think of any place outside of the US were judges are running for office and elected. In most places, they are more akin to some sort of civil servant, from an administration independent of the executive and legislative branch.

In switzerland (or at least Geneva) judges are elected.

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

#55

Post by another-one-off »

rayiner wrote: post #47
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…

> 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.

Later in the paragraph:

> After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. [...] Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom [...]

I can read this as being not that great at sex. Depending on how long "a while" is, he might just be in the habit of grabbing his partner. This doesn't seem malicious.

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

#56

Post by joesmo »

TerryCarlin wrote: post #52
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…

>We're talking here about rape and sexual assault though. No we're not we're talking about “sex by surprise”. One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have “ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups,” according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.

Yeah, that's called rape.

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

#57

Post by joesmo »

kiiski wrote: post #44
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 appl…

Yes, having sex with someone while she/he is sleeping is rape and yes, as far as statute of limitations, it should be treated like murder. The only reason to not make the punishment the same is that it would entice rapists to kill their victims. I think if you ask someone who has been raped how they'd compare that to murder, it'll be pretty damn close.

Even ten years is ridiculous for such a crime in a society that condemns this. What you're saying is that our societies don't really condemn this crime and it's not a big deal to ruin someone else's life by forcibly having sex with them. That's horrific, IMO, but seems to be the majority opinion.

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

#58

Post by rayiner »

another-one-off wrote: post #55
rayiner wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Later in the paragraph: > After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. [...] Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom [...] I can read this as being not that great at sex. Depending on how long "a while" is, he might just be in the habit of grabbing his partner. This doesn't seem malicious.

That might be reasonable, unmalicious behavior if you have a history with someone and can infer things about their state of mind. It's utterly reckless as to someone you just met.

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

#59

Post by another-one-off »

rayiner wrote: post #53
another-one-off wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reacti…

You're ignoring the part where he's holding her arms down and forcing her legs open. He's no different than the "dragging women off the streets" rapist, he just didn't need to do that in this case.

So my answer to that is below; just in closing the wikipedia article insinuates [1] that the reason that any of this was reported to the police was because the women involved wanted Assange tested for STDs, not because they wanted him prosecuted for rape. The Chief Public Prosecutor didn't think it was rape at the time.

This seems pretty reasonable, and to me says that rape in Sweden is potentially about as serious as a traffic violation - there was potential, if other things had gone wrong in a somewhat unusual conjunction of events, for someone to have been harmed. An unsavvy woman (potentially those involved) would have been completely unaware that she had been raped.

I'd need to see something new, but while Assange may have committed a crime in Sweden he shouldn't be stigmatised. The word rape, in this very specifc case, is being used in a very technical manner and is clearly a slightly arcane legal term. Maybe discipline is required, but it isn't clear-cut what sort of penalty is needed. Again, I think an apology and some time with a doctor seems in order. Maybe a fine. Possibly this could be handled outside the courts. An extradition is uncalled for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

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

#60

Post by TerryCarlin »

joesmo wrote: post #56
TerryCarlin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're talking here about rape and sexual assault though. No we're not we're talking about “sex by surprise”. One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have “ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups,” according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.

Yeah, that's called rape.

You are wrong,

Believe it or not, sex by surprise is actually not an euphemism for rape. It is sex without a condom after a woman requests it — even if the sex is consensual — and it's fine-able in Sweden by 5,000 kronor (about $715).

Source http://www.popsugar.com/love/Sex-Surprise-12390242 or http://jezebel.com/5711600/how-aol-news-started-the-sex-by-s... or http://www.newser.com/story/106802/assange-not-actually-want...

Given that the CIA have their agenda in this, it's no surprise that Americans believe the main stream media.

Post reply on HN