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

61–67 of 67 posts

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

#61

Post by bruceb »

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…

"sometimes a lot worse than murder and in the best cases" Statements like this has tinge of judgement that a woman is less "pure" after being raped. This of course is ridiculous. Rape is a horrible crime. I doubt most rape survivors would rather have been murdered.

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

#62

Post by Ntrails »

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…

> 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.

I honestly can't conceive that you could apply this logic. Not all rape is the same in severity or impact - but it is sure as hell all rape. And feeling like someone had sexual contact with you in a way that you did not want is pretty much the end of the story. Whether there are explicit physiological medical repercussions or not.

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

#63

Post by joesmo »

TerryCarlin wrote: post #60
joesmo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-w…

You just proved yourself wrong with your own link:

"The allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are pretty straightforward in terms of Swedish law: he's been accused of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

"The charges allege that Assange held one woman down using his body weight to sexually assault her and that he raped another woman while she was sleeping." (http://jezebel.com/5711600/how-aol-news-started-the-sex-by-s...)

Yeah, that's rape. Please stop defending rape. Even if it wasn't considered rape in the law, which it is, it should be.

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

#64

Post by hahainternet »

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…

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

Wow, I never thought I'd see someone advocating that rape / coerced sex / exceeding consent repeatedly is totally fine because the person might be wanted internationally for other crimes.

Great use of logic there.

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

#65

Post by hahainternet »

Asbostos wrote: post #49
hahainternet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Then perhaps he should become a martyr instead of a pariah. I certainly don't think that he can morally justify some of his Wikileaks actions and the resultant drama around it has completely ruined the cause.

He has done more to harm the movement for greater transparency than anything else. There are people who quote him saying he doesn't mind the death of civilians as they are complicit due to their actions. This is the motivation used by terorrists.

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

#66

Post by another-one-off »

Ntrails wrote: post #62
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…

> 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. I honestly can't conceive that you could apply this l…

I'm in agreement with you; I listed 4 things and medical outcomes were only a part of it. But I'm not sure that my point was clear so I'm going to restate it while choosing my words as carefully as I can:

For the sake of argument I'm happy to say that this is a rape, that it is bad and that it does deserve some sort of punishment.

Leaving aside any legal framework which isn't at all relevant to what I'm saying (and how many people on HN are up-to-date on Swedish law anyway). But that leaves the question of what punishment is appropriate (not necessarily mandated by law, but appropriate given a reasonable person. Opinions will differ).

I think that a sincere apology and a monetary fine seem like an appropriate level of punishment. I don't think international condemnation by strangers is called for.

1) No actual harm appears to have been done done

2) As I've said in other parts of the thread:

2a) The evidence that this was intended to humiliate or remove any sense of agency is not convincing

2b) There is evidence he complied with everything the women asked him to do, except in one instance where he should have worn a condom

I don't think these circumstances raise grave questions about Assange's moral character. If this is rape, which strictly speaking it may be, then I ask rhetorically why is it outrageous?

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

#67

Post by JoachimS »

deanCommie wrote: post #4
belorn wrote: post #2

This is now a prime example in what happens when politics gets involved with justice. The police interviewed everyone involved, including Assange. The district chief prosecutor looked at it and concluded to drop it. Almost a month later, even through there had been no new information available, the political assigned director of Public Prosecution decided to reopen the case and immediately issues a international arre…

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.

As long as you mean judges, prescutors in Sweden then NO, they are not elected to their positions like politicians.
Post reply on HN