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

Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 396 posts

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#291

Post by easilyBored »

baldajan wrote: post #238

Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1]. And before that, for years, Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they reluctantly accepted) [2]. As @belorn noted [3], the prosecutors had 3 options, and given it seems like they didn't have enough to make a case or a plan to continue the investigation, it had t…

As the confinement in the Embassy is confinement. And he's been unjustly confined for a longer period than the maximum penalty for rape in Sweden.

That's valid if Sweden locked him in the Ecuador Embassy. He went there to shield himself.

Personally I think (my opinion, anyway) that the rape charges were work of the CIA, but that's another story.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#292

Post by abritinthebay »

pvg wrote: post #248
dalbasal wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he swung. He and Wikileaks were politically fringe people all along, and they were rude and confrontational all along. All of that may make you dislike him/them, but it doesn't make him a criminal or an enemy (as the CIA director labels him).

I don't think anyone anywhere has seriously claimed he's a criminal because he was rude.

Plus, most don't even say that: just that he's a dangerous propagandist.

Which is pretty undeniable at this point.

It's a shame, because the idea of WikiLeaks is decent... but it requires someone with no agenda to skew it. Assange isn't that guy.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#293

Post by CypressXM »

idlewords wrote: post #94
Sephr wrote: post #14

What about the secret US charges? I honestly don't understand how in our democracy there is even such a concept as "secret charges". It just sounds mind-bogglingly corrupt and out of place.

The closest thing to 'secret charges' is a secret indictment. This is a normal grand jury indictment, except its existence is not made public. "Prosecutors may request a secret indictment if they are concerned that someone may flee if he or she becomes aware that trial proceedings are being set in motion. It is also possible to ask for one to protect witnesses and other people involved with the case. " http://www.wis…

An indictment itself means nothing. A Grand Jury either returns "True Bill" or "No Bill". In this case it would be a sealed "True Bill".

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#294

Post by k1m »

burkaman wrote: post #289
k1m wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting the Swedish prosecution agreed to fly over to London just to sit and watch Ecuador interview Assange? I think we'd have heard more from Sweden about that if that were the case. :p

Yes, because that's what happened. "The questions were prepared by prosecutors in Sweden, where an arrest warrant for Mr. Assange was issued in 2010, but were posed by a prosecutor from Ecuador under an agreement the two countries made in August." - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/world/europe/assange-wiki... I think a key part of a police interview is asking new questions based on responses and having an actual c…

Your original comment made it sound like they had no input in the questions being put to Assange. Merely "present" to observe Ecuador. This article suggests Sweden was involved and I don't see anything suggesting the procedure (under "an agreement the two countries made") was problematic. Who asks the questions seems to just be a technicality here.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#295

Post by imron »

notahacker wrote: post #149
matt4077 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least in that case, I think the Russian translates more literally to "ineffectual fool". On a more serious note: did Wikileaks actually release the Macron files? I seem to remember they were only cheerleading it. But if they did, it's probably the nail in the coffin for their reputation, considering it was obvious for even casual observers to see that the dump contained altered documents, and that the leaker…

Wikileaks didn't release the cache, but they certainly did their best to boost its credibility with tweets like "We have not yet discovered fakes in #MacronLeaks & we are very skeptical that the Macron campaign is faster than us" (yeah, because there's no way alleged senders and recipients of emails could spot fakes faster than people analysing the meta data...) and the outstanding "assessment update: several Office…

> yeah, because there's no way alleged senders and recipients of emails could spot fakes faster than people analysing the meta data...

You're absolutely right, and in fact all the Macron campaign would need to do is point out a handful of them and it would call in to question the veracity of all of them. Did they do that though, or did they just insinuate that there might be fakes (like the DNC did but couldn't actually back up with evidence).

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#296

Post by glenstein »

PJDK wrote: post #204
toyg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you say, this is not a simple criminal case - criminals don't broadcast their location when skipping bail. So you have to deal with it politically. A reasonable government would have done that a long time ago, getting Sweden to change its stance sooner (as it eventually happened anyway, like most people asked for and predicted, since it had been done before). Once that is sorted, you can liquidate it all as "a big…

So a politically significant person should be able to leverage their celebrity and status to avoid a rape charge?

I don't see how that even comes close to being a good faith reading of toyg's point. Assange's "celebrity", to the extent that we can even use a term like that to describe him in this context, flows from the political controversy surrounding him. Calling it celebrity abstracts away the political nature of Assange's status which is critical to any consideration of the charges against him.

No one is suggesting that a celebrity like Drake could apply for political asylum at an Ecuadorian embassy to avoid rape charges. But if that's what you're taking away from the argument it's probably worth reading it again and engaging with more good faith.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#297

Post by jacquesm »

saalweachter wrote: post #267
jacquesm wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd still have to extradite. I don't see that happening in those cases, for one the EU in general (even the UK, or at least that was the situation in the past, May is an unknown quantity in this respect) has a dim view of the 'war on terror' as it is perpetrated by the US, for another the UK is pretty good when it comes to being consistent in their application of the law. More so than Sweden in any case.

I would also argue the international sentiments since 2012 towards the US's "war on terror" are radically different than they were in 2001-2003. In eg December 2001 the US leaning on a friendly European country saying "but 9/11" packed a much larger punch than the US standing on the corpses of Iraq & Afghanistan saying the same thing. I mean, I know the US burned a lot of international goodwill invading a country (Ir…

Not since World War II did the US have that much goodwill and they managed to squander all that and then some in a very few years.

You could very well argue that Bin Laden won, especially because I highly doubt a guy like Trump would be able to win the presidency if 9/11 never happened and Trump is doing more damage to the United States' interests at home and abroad than the last 6 presidents combined.

All that's still missing is a war.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#298

Post by burkaman »

k1m wrote: post #294
burkaman wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because that's what happened. "The questions were prepared by prosecutors in Sweden, where an arrest warrant for Mr. Assange was issued in 2010, but were posed by a prosecutor from Ecuador under an agreement the two countries made in August." - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/world/europe/assange-wiki... I think a key part of a police interview is asking new questions based on responses and having an actual c…

Your original comment made it sound like they had no input in the questions being put to Assange. Merely "present" to observe Ecuador. This article suggests Sweden was involved and I don't see anything suggesting the procedure (under "an agreement the two countries made") was problematic. Who asks the questions seems to just be a technicality here.

"Isgren is allowed to ask Assange to clarify his answers, but not to put additional questions, and will receive a written transcript of the exchanges from Ecuador after the interview has concluded." - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange...

This is problematic.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#299

Post by efraim »

gpm wrote: post #271
efraim wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Julian was invited back to Sweden and he declined. It's not the job of Swedish authorities to fly all over the world to question people of interest, they would get nothing done.

1. That's a false equivalence, and you know it. 2. The swedish courts have found that it was in fact the swedish authorities job.

1. No, Julian was the person of interest, he should come to the police, not the other way around. You claim the swedish prosecutor "was invited" but "declined" to question him where he wanted. Persons wanted for questioning regarding rape or any serious crime does not get to invite prosecutors where and when they want to have a conversation about it.

2. The Swedish court found that it was ok to do so because it was being dragged out, not that that it was their job.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#300

Post by micheljones »

youngtaff wrote: post #110
ageofwant wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was blindingly obvious that it was. Sweden's reputation took a huge hit because of this incident, and rightly so. They should have resolved the matter within 6 months. But it became such a hot potato that they were willing to sacrifice a man's live, and demonstrated to the world that principles and truth is inconsequential when the bully is sitting on your chest. The stench of this shit will cling to Sweden for ge…

Whether Swedens's reputation took a hit is a matter of opinion. If he was innocent why didn't he go back to Sweden and face the charges? All the stuff about the risk of US extraditing him in nonsense, they'd find it easier to do from the UK. All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault.

At the time, Sweden was a better candidate for extradition because it has less limitations on extradition than UK in Assange's case (because he is a Commonwealth citizen).

As for the 'if he was innocent', I see this argument quite often, and I have only this to say: his self-imposed punishment of being locked up in a closet for 5 years is worse than any possible punishment he would have received for the crime he was accused of. So tell me, if he was only looking to avoid punishment for the crime he commited, why did he impose an even worse punishment on himself?

Post reply on HN