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

Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#111

Post by hahainternet »

Sone7 wrote: post #54
hahainternet wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation-needed]

"On a point of law, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided Ny can continue to obstruct on the vital issue of the SMS messages. This will now go to the European Court of Human Rights. What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She…

I can't find any primary sources for the witness statement quote. Do you have anything with direct citations? Obviously googling for this is almost impossible.

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#112

Post by Tloewald »

There's a concrete dispute mentioned in the article. Assange says the Swedes can interview him any time in the embassy, the Swedes say they've asked, and been waiting months, for permission. The article blithely quotes these conflicting statements and makes no attempt to find out who is telling the truth or what the details are.

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#113

Post by yclept »

littletimmy wrote: post #29
youngtaff wrote: post #12

Oh such crocodile tears… He could have avoided disappointment by allowing the Swedish authorities to question him! All that time he was stuck in a Norfolk mansion he could have travelled to Sweden been questioned and if he was innocent as he claims be free to travel the world again.

Obviously he couldn't. He needed refuge from oppressive governments which he now has at the Ecuadorian embassy.

Ecuador isn't exactly known as a bastion of freedom.

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#114

Post by littletimmy »

yclept wrote: post #113
littletimmy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously he couldn't. He needed refuge from oppressive governments which he now has at the Ecuadorian embassy.

Ecuador isn't exactly known as a bastion of freedom.

Neither is the US.

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#115

Post by pfg »

hahainternet wrote: post #111
Sone7 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On a point of law, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided Ny can continue to obstruct on the vital issue of the SMS messages. This will now go to the European Court of Human Rights. What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She…

I can't find any primary sources for the witness statement quote. Do you have anything with direct citations? Obviously googling for this is almost impossible.

Here's the full protocol in english:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#116

Post by jazzyk »

PJDK wrote: post #99
jazzyk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago, I would have said it was pure paranoia/conspiracy theory to suspect Sweden would extradite Assange. However, look at what happened to Snowden, stuck at the Moscow airport, because no country in the world (bar Ecuador and Cuba, I think) was brave enough to take him (fearing US wrath). The pressure from the US was immense. At some point a plane flying from Moscow to Ecuador (via Paris) was intercepted…

The cases aren't really comparable. No matter what you think of Snowden, he definitely broke US law in a pretty serious way. Assange is a publisher, as far as anyone can tell he's not broken any US laws.

This is all about finding a convenient law to exert political power, not legal comparability.

From The Guardian: "The US government is conducting an active, long-term criminal investigation into WikiLeaks, a federal judge has confirmed in court documents"

Feinstein (and other Congressmen/Senators) wanted Assange – who isn’t even a U.S. citizen and never served in the U.S. Government – prosecuted for espionage for exposing war crimes.

More here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/05/us-government-s...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/12/dianne-feinste...

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#117

Post by andyjohnson0 »

knodi123 wrote: post #102
pfg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. That makes sense. However, there's a difference between acknowledging that and ruling on whether the allegations have merit. They specifically didn't look at anything other than the allegations made on the European Arrest Warrant. From the High Court decision: > In respect of each offence, Mr Assange contended that…

> I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. Although to be clear, there are no rape charges involved in the Assange case. The crime he is accused of in Sweden is not even illegal in some countries.

The BBC [1][2] and Guardian [3] are describing the remaining charge as rape. [1] quotes the Swedish prosecutor (in 2010):

"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed," she says in a statement. "Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape."

Wikipedia [4] gives the Swedish term as "våldtäkt", which Google translates as "Rape":

"On 18 November 2010, the Stockholm District Court ordered Assange detained in absentia, on request by prosecutor Marianne Ny. As basis for the ruling, the court stated Julian Assange to be suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed rape (våldtäkt), unlawful coercion (olaga tvång), and three cases of sexuellt ofredande — which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment" [3]

(The above, to be clear, are allegations).

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33907874

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/13/julian-assange-...

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

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#118

Post by afarrell »

stephengillie wrote: post #108
afarrell wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rape is a crime defined by its elements, not by whether or not the victim feels they were wronged. With all crimes, if a person commits a certain act with a certain intent/state of mind, they've committed a crime and the victim's feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Now, in a rape case, without the cooperation and testimony of the victim it is very hard to present enough evidence to convict a jury that the governme…

So you're saying that if I take something that belongs to another person, but I believe that I should have it, no crime has been committed? That sounds like an interesting theory on Crime and Punishment . Edit: If you feel I've misunderstood the parent comment, please provide a better explanation.

If you take something that belongs to another person, but you believe you do own it, no crime has been committed. For example, if walk out of a store thinking you paid for a bag of groceries when in fact the card reader had errored and you need to swipe again. That isn't shoplifting, that is a mistake of fact.

This concept is called "mens rea" or "guilty mind". A statute for each crime should define what type of mens rea it requires. As an example, generally murder requires an intent to kill or seriously injure someone. Manslaughter only requires a reckless disregard for whether or not you've harmed someone. However, some crimes do not have a mens rea requirement. They are usually minor, like speeding.

For a better explanation of mens rea, see this part of the linked site: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173

EDIT: For an interesting example of when the mens rea requirements for a crime are unclear, see Elonis v. US: a free speech case involving intimidating speech posted to Facebook. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s...

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#119

Post by afarrell »

talmand wrote: post #101
afarrell wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rape is a crime defined by its elements, not by whether or not the victim feels they were wronged. With all crimes, if a person commits a certain act with a certain intent/state of mind, they've committed a crime and the victim's feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Now, in a rape case, without the cooperation and testimony of the victim it is very hard to present enough evidence to convict a jury that the governme…

So, you are saying that while watering my lawn if I feel deep in my heart I'm committing a crime then I am, in fact, committing a crime? Plus your stabbing example doesn't explain anything since you would have indeed physically harmed someone which is against the law in most jurisdictions. Considering your rape/not-rape example, a better example is that you would be arrested for thinking about stabbing someone in the…

No, you need two things: the intent* and the act. If the act of watering your lawn isn't an element of any crime, then you're fine.

If the victim says that the accused did X, Y, and then Z, that is a statement of fact about what happened. If the victim then says that he doesn't think that X, Y, and Z constitute a crime, that is a statement about the law..which might just be incorrect.

* except for strict liability crimes like speeding

Re: Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped

#120

Post by philh »

Tloewald wrote: post #112

There's a concrete dispute mentioned in the article. Assange says the Swedes can interview him any time in the embassy, the Swedes say they've asked, and been waiting months, for permission. The article blithely quotes these conflicting statements and makes no attempt to find out who is telling the truth or what the details are.

I don't think those are quite conflicting. It sounds like Assange says he's happy for the Swedes to do it, but the Swedes are saying they can't get permission from Ecuador.

OTOH we have Assange saying "this Swedish official refused both", which could be conflicting, but it's pretty vague.

Post reply on HN