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

161–170 of 173 posts

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

#161

Post by CHY872 »

thekingofspain wrote: post #131
afarrell wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cr…

The thing about rape is that the intent and the act are very much intertwined with the victim's feelings of it. If the victim does not appreciate whatever is going on, the onus is on the perpetrator to realize that and stop. Failure to do so is "the act" and the intent is.. well, the state of mind where you do not choose to find out/acquiesce to the other person's desires. However, if the "victim" says there was no r…

In this case, the alleged victim when interviewed described events that could certainly constitute rape - for example waking up and finding Assange having unprotected sex with her.

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

#162

Post by deciplex »

rmc wrote: post #154
deciplex wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, note that Assange was obviously in Sweden when the rape allegedly happened, and only became conveniently afraid of extraditiom to US after those allegations surfaced. The allegations surfaced in August 2010, four months after Collateral Murder and one month after the Afghan War Diary was released. Also earlier that year the diplomatic cable releases began, and while most hadn't been released yet by August, so…

No, the charges are that the crimes were committed in August 2010. See the UK High Court appeal to the extradition[1]. [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

I'm not sure what your point is. The crimes were allegedly committed that August, the two women went to the authorities to ask about a compulsory STD test in August, and the investigation by the Swedish authorities of suspected rape began in August.

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

#163

Post by trevelyan »

tedunangst wrote: post #146
trevelyan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Section 142 and particularly sections 7 through 10 are all about extradition. The reveal is the defense of Assange's case as being in the "preliminary investigation" stage and the catch-22 logic used to justify the Swedish refusal to move beyond it. As any schoolboy can find out by reading up on the matter, it is critical for extradition to the US that the investigation does not pass this stage, since actually charging Assange would give him legal protections which make extradition difficult, some of which are even outlined for you in Section 144.

Of course, since your objection is disingenuous (you cannot possibly be so naive as to believe that the Swedish prosecutor will publicly state that her goal is to indefinitely detain a suspect), let us just force your actual beliefs into the open: (1) why do you believe that an interview with Assange will provide the Swedish prosecutor evidence to prosecute if she doesn't already have it? (2) why do you coonsider it reasonable to extradite someone who has never been charged with a crime to answer questions instead of asking them over the telephone, Skype or in person?

Not even the UK High Court considered the Swedish position reasonable (see Section 160), so it is hard to imagine any sentient person coming to the opposite conclusion.

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

#164

Post by trevelyan »

rmc wrote: post #152
trevelyan wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> Assange has never been ... charged with one The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says: > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been cha…

Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks adequately to his goals.

> The UK legal system says...

Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations may constitute parallel crimes. Objections on factual grounds (the woman was not asleep, provided consent, relationship context, etc.) "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125)

> one of which is the charge that[1]:

Note the sleight of hand. There have been no charges.

> Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide.

The Swedish courts are not involved until Assange is charged. Until he is charged he will be imprisoned and face indefinite detention. This inconvenient point is of course ignored.

If RMC was honest and believed Assange should face trial he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime. Instead, his defense of prosecution either makes him corrupt (for demanding prosecution without reasonable evidence of wrongdoing), an obvious fool (for believing Assange will incriminate himself) or an apologist for what is clearly an abuse of due process, basic human rights and the welfare of the British and Swedish taxpayers.

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

#165

Post by rmc »

deciplex wrote: post #162
rmc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the charges are that the crimes were committed in August 2010. See the UK High Court appeal to the extradition[1]. [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

I'm not sure what your point is. The crimes were allegedly committed that August, the two women went to the authorities to ask about a compulsory STD test in August, and the investigation by the Swedish authorities of suspected rape began in August.

Because you made a claim that the "allegations surfaced in August" and that it was related to things that happened before and was "awfully convenient". But there appears to be no sinster motives to the timings.

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

#166

Post by rmc »

trevelyan wrote: post #164
rmc wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assange has never been ... charged with one The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says: > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been cha…

Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks adequately to his goals. > The UK legal system says... Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations ma…

> "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125)

Yes, Assange hasn't been tried. The courts want to try him, but he's avoiding them. Yes, that High Court judgement is not a trial, but Assanges challenge to the Swedish extradition request. Which was upheld, and found to be valid and legal under UK law.

> he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime

He has been charged.

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

#167

Post by kagamine »

rmc wrote: post #100
kagamine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says who? Sweden? The UK? Assange? The US?

UK is in Five Eyes, Sweden is not. The UK is a co-founding member of NATO, Sweden is not in NATO. The USA & UK have a "special relationship", Sweden & USA don't. UK helped the USA invade Iraq, Sweden did not.

Half of which if not all of which had absolutely no bearing on whether or not Sweden were more or less likely to extradite Assange as a result of pressure to do so by the US.

The "special relationship" is not a cover-all term for the US & UK to do anything on a promise like a teen couple in love. It covers a lot of military and trade stuff, which wikileaks is a part of, but in this case Sweden clearly acted as a player in a larger game. Assange seems to have presumed an ulterior motive in the charges brought against him and proceeded accordingly.

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

#168

Post by rmc »

kagamine wrote: post #167
rmc wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK is in Five Eyes, Sweden is not. The UK is a co-founding member of NATO, Sweden is not in NATO. The USA & UK have a "special relationship", Sweden & USA don't. UK helped the USA invade Iraq, Sweden did not.

Half of which if not all of which had absolutely no bearing on whether or not Sweden were more or less likely to extradite Assange as a result of pressure to do so by the US. The "special relationship" is not a cover-all term for the US & UK to do anything on a promise like a teen couple in love. It covers a lot of military and trade stuff, which wikileaks is a part of, but in this case Sweden clearly acted as a play…

People have claimed that "Sweden has links to NATO" as a reason why Sweden might extradite Assange to USA[1]. So, yes, the fact that the UK co-founded NATO is very definitly relevant.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988782

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

#169

Post by trevelyan »

rmc wrote: post #166
trevelyan wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks adequately to his goals. > The UK legal system says... Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations ma…

> "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125) Yes, Assange hasn't been tried. The courts want to try him, but he's avoiding them. Yes, that High Court judgement is not a trial, but Assanges challenge to the Swedish extradition request. Which was upheld, and found to be valid and legal under UK law. > he should…

> He has been charged.

"Sweden has yet to formally charge Assange with any offense." - The Guardian

"Sweden has yet to formally indict Assange." - New York Times

"Mr Assange has not been formally charged with any offense." - BBC

"Sweden does not have a time limit on how long the pre-trial stage will last or how long a person can be held in pre-trial detention.... only when an indictment is brought does the suspect acquire the formal rights of the accused." - United Nations UPR http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session...

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

#170

Post by rmc »

trevelyan wrote: post #169
rmc wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125) Yes, Assange hasn't been tried. The courts want to try him, but he's avoiding them. Yes, that High Court judgement is not a trial, but Assanges challenge to the Swedish extradition request. Which was upheld, and found to be valid and legal under UK law. > he should…

> He has been charged. "Sweden has yet to formally charge Assange with any offense." - The Guardian "Sweden has yet to formally indict Assange." - New York Times "Mr Assange has not been formally charged with any offense." - BBC "Sweden does not have a time limit on how long the pre-trial stage will last or how long a person can be held in pre-trial detention.... only when an indictment is brought does the suspect ac…

> 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

It's almost like directly translating a word from one language and one country's legal system to a different language and a different legal system can be misleading.

If only there were some sort of body of legal experts who decided this, some sort of "court" of people to "judge" meanings.

Post reply on HN