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

141–150 of 173 posts

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

#141

Post by trevelyan »

rmc wrote: post #97
trevelyan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth remembering also that the reason Sweden wanted to extradite for questioning is that if they charged him first they would have been required to actually make the evidence public and Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Apologists for Sweden never seem to have read the UK high court judgment or seem familiar with the actual legal reaso…

> Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Extradition is only allowed if it's for a crime that's illegal in both countries. Assange's legal team repeatidly challenged the extradition on the grounds that it wasn't a crime in the UK. The UK legal system consistantly said that it was. Remember one of the charges/claims is that he had sex with so…

Assange has never been found guilty of a crime or even charged with one. The British legal ruling was not over guilt or innocence but simply over the bureaucratic definition of a crime. If the Swedish government reprinted the exact same request with your name on it, you would also face extradition without the ability to challenge the request on the grounds that its allegations are not factual.

This is the key point that apologists for Sweden miss. The prosecution could have charged Assange and got an extradition warrant that way. They didn't because doing so would have required a court filing and granted Assange rights to a speedy trial and freedom from indefinite detention. Interviewing Assange in London was equally impossible -- once it was done the Swedish prosecutor would have been legally required to either charge Assange or close the case. And charging the case would have required a court filing, etc. etc.....

Arguing that Assange would have been found guilty of rape also shows a lack of knowledge of the case. Despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep and has in fact made statements contradicting your claims and accusing the authorities of railroading her. I do not personally know what happened that evening, but her description is striking in showing Assange complying with every request she made. The only possible breach of consent lies in the possibility that Assange broke a condom deliberately, but this is apparently contradicted by forensic evidence which shows the breakage was due to wear and tear. Add on the woman's affectionate treatment of Assange both before and after the night in question, and the way her change in behavior followed her realization that he was sleeping with someone else, and it seems rather obvious that while Assange may have been a cad the rape allegations simply don't hold water.

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

#143

Post by nedwin »

jbssm wrote: post #134
nedwin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read in an article posted here yesterday that the reason for the stalemate is that Ecuador is demanding Sweden make statements to the effect that Assange is in a legal asylum at the embassy. Sweden don't want to get involved in that side of things, they just want to interview him and so have refused that demand.

That doesn't stick because Sweden has refused to interview him in the UK like Assange asked them to do it before he asked Ecuador for asylum. Instead, at the time, Sweden asked UK for his extradition back to Sweden.

Another reply to my comment has disputed the claim but on a different reason. Sweden is saying they're happy to do the interview now - they weren't previously - in the UK now but can't get permission from Ecuador.

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

#144

Post by AnimalMuppet »

cmdkeen wrote: post #23
wereHamster wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that they agree to something that they legally cannot agree I'm curious what that was.

That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. There is a good writeup from a British legal blogger at http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-... It's worth picking out as well that Assange faces British legal issues from breaching his bail conditions. The bail set during his very lengthy legal process which valida…

> That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do.

I wonder what recognizing that asylum would do to Sweden's ability to prosecute. If Assange (or Ecuador) is, in effect, saying "you can talk to him about it, but you can't prosecute him for it", that's a pretty cheap trick to avoid the charge.

But even if it's only talking about whether it's valid for Assange to claim asylum to avoid extradition to the US, why should Sweden have to agree to that before investigating a sexual assault accusation?

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

#145

Post by gamblor956 »

jbssm wrote: post #133
stenl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that link: "the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington." Weeeell, maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings. Also, note that Assange was obviously in Sweden when the…

"maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings." An extradition is not a legal proceeding, it's a diplomatic one and being a democracy they can very well agree not to engage in a diplomatic exchange beforehand.

Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is sought for charges not covered by the treaty.

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

#146

Post by tedunangst »

trevelyan wrote: post #85
tedunangst wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That explains a possible UK -> Sweden extradition, not a Sweden -> US extradition.

As stated above, you need to read the UK Court Ruling at a minimum, since there is no point in discussion if you are not familiar with even the basic legal issues involved. And once you are done that you should read up on Swedish extradition policies. The fact that extradition is legally possible and the Swedish prosecution is proceeding against all common reason and established judicial practice in the only way that…

Is this the ruling you're talking about? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

The paragraphs are conveniently numbered. Which one discusses extradition to the United States?

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

#147

Post by ryanlol »

gamblor956 wrote: post #145
jbssm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings." An extradition is not a legal proceeding, it's a diplomatic one and being a democracy they can very well agree not to engage in a diplomatic exchange beforehand.

Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is sought for charges not covered by the treaty.

Treaties are not laws.

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

#148

Post by hahainternet »

pfg wrote: post #115
hahainternet wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The quoted section does not appear in this document. It makes pretty nasty reading too.

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

#149

Post by mike_hearn »

juliangregorian wrote: post #123
afarrell wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's unfortunate that you're absolutely correct. Mens rea is one of the worst concepts to ever enter the legal system.

It's a vital protection. Look at how messed up anti-money laundering enforcement became in the USA after the PATRIOT Act removed the mens rea requirement.

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

#150

Post by arjunnarayan »

ryanlol wrote: post #147
gamblor956 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is sought for charges not covered by the treaty.

Treaties are not laws.

> Treaties are not laws.

Well, I don't know what treaties are to the United Kingdom and Sweden, so I can't speak to the relevant matter, but there is a general sense (insofar as "international law" can be thought of as an actual concrete thing) that treaties are laws. To the United States, for example, treaties are explicitly treated as laws (see http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-...). Most other countries take their treaty obligations very seriously, although the actual mechanics depend on each country's legal/political system.

Post reply on HN