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

381–390 of 396 posts

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#381

Post by dragonwriter »

allover wrote: post #356
seppin wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, his 'conditions' for meeting with the Swedish government were absurd. Basically guaranteeing his freedom no matter what. That's not how criminal investigates are done.

He is supposedly in fear of being extradited to the US and then stuck in a hole to rot. On paper Guantanamo is 'not how criminal investigations are done' either.

> He is supposedly in fear of being extradited to the US and then stuck in a hole to rot.

If the US wanted him from Britain for national security reasons (or political reasons masquerading as national security reasons), they wouldn't try to get him extradited to Sweden to do it; the US has closer security cooperation with the UK than Sweden.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#382

Post by dragonwriter »

josteink wrote: post #182
k-mcgrady wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. I think there are one or two other possible charges but both are also unlikely to succeed. As long as they can make his life a living hell though (long trial, loss of freedoms until found innocent) that would hopefully (from the USG perspective) discourage other leakers.

> AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do? Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply? If we should comply with this for the US, surely we sh…

> So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do?

The US certainly has laws which criminalize behavior outside of the US by non-US citizens; and certainly has attempted extradition (and simple forcible seizure, even in the presence of an extradition treaty with the country where the target was located) based on those laws.

> Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply?

That depends on the specifics of the particular case.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#383

Post by dragonwriter »

zeckalpha wrote: post #214
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the US Bill of Rights talk in several places about "any person": Fifth Amendment to USA Constitution: >nor shall any person [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Sounds like quite a strong right. FWIW this contrasts with the pages referring to "the people" which are limited and not universal, "any person" means any person.

Yes, but Guantanamo is outside the US and so the Constitution doesn't apply.

> Yes, but Guantanamo is outside the US and so the Constitution doesn't apply.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any support for the idea that the Constitution only limits the actions of the US government that happen to be within the US rather than on territory leased from another country and subject to full control by the US government.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#384

Post by dragonwriter »

ekianjo wrote: post #376
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Declaration of war comes under "due process of law" surely.

> such laws generally don't apply to war. they don't even apply to soldiers. No declaration of war was made on Iraq.

> No declaration of war was made on Iraq.

Yes, it was; no special language is needed in a declaration of war; the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" was plainly and unmistakeably a conditional declaration of war, the conditions for which were fulfilled.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#385

Post by Sir_Substance »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #115
Sir_Substance wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the US traditionally sidesteps this legal thorn by detaining people without charge at gitmo for as long as they like. Non-US citizens have minimal to no rights under US law, so it's all just peachy

Doesn't the US Bill of Rights talk in several places about "any person": Fifth Amendment to USA Constitution: >nor shall any person [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Sounds like quite a strong right. FWIW this contrasts with the pages referring to "the people" which are limited and not universal, "any person" means any person.

Some quick Googling tells me that the fifth amendment was ratified in 1791, 74 years before slavery was abolished. So apparently the US didn't really take that one seriously from the start.

More recently, I recall the case of David Hicks, an Australian citizen. He was declared an "enemy combatant", detained without charge and tortured in Guantanamo bay until he signed a confession to a law which did not exist at the time he was detained.

You should read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks#Guantanamo_Bay

Regardless of the stupidity and provocativeness of Hicks' actions, he is a citizen of a nation that is supposedly a US ally, and one would think a person under the US constitution, but he received no protection. The US abused him while the AU government did nothing.

The US government ignores it's own constitution whenever it finds it inconvenient, and any objections are arm-waved away as being legal by the findings of a secret court no US citizen is allowed to know the inner workings of.

It doesn't matter what's written on some crusty paper in a museum somewhere if no one actually abides by it. The US constitution is dead, and I would certainly not trust my liberty to the tender mercies of those who have nailed it's corpse to their standard.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#386

Post by allover »

dragonwriter wrote: post #381
allover wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is supposedly in fear of being extradited to the US and then stuck in a hole to rot. On paper Guantanamo is 'not how criminal investigations are done' either.

> He is supposedly in fear of being extradited to the US and then stuck in a hole to rot. If the US wanted him from Britain for national security reasons (or political reasons masquerading as national security reasons), they wouldn't try to get him extradited to Sweden to do it; the US has closer security cooperation with the UK than Sweden.

You're overthinking it. Assange only has to be afraid of being arrested, for fear of being extradited somehow. The specifics of the UK/Sweden situation really don't matter.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#387

Post by youngtaff »

micheljones wrote: post #300
youngtaff wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because he's a narcissist and martyrdom suits his ego

(and perhaps he figured it would come to exile in an embassy, or for so long)

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#388

Post by allover »

Avalyst wrote: post #371
allover wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well let's assume he was scared of a random arrest before the allegations. He'd be extra scared when they emerged. Not sure what's to doubt.

The fact that he was in Sweden already? And the fact that he fled to the UK, the closest ally of the US in Europe as well as a NATO country, unlike Sweden? And perhaps the fact that he now plans to seek asylum in France, another NATO country? It's very convenient how this conspiracy theory of the US snatching Assange from Sweden cropped up just as he was accused of a crime in Sweden I would say.

None of this requires a conspiracy theory or 'snatching'. Assange is scared of being arrested, and once he is in custody, being extradited to the US somehow. The Sweden/UK details are irrelevant.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#389

Post by Avalyst »

allover wrote: post #388
Avalyst wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that he was in Sweden already? And the fact that he fled to the UK, the closest ally of the US in Europe as well as a NATO country, unlike Sweden? And perhaps the fact that he now plans to seek asylum in France, another NATO country? It's very convenient how this conspiracy theory of the US snatching Assange from Sweden cropped up just as he was accused of a crime in Sweden I would say.

None of this requires a conspiracy theory or 'snatching'. Assange is scared of being arrested, and once he is in custody, being extradited to the US somehow . The Sweden/UK details are irrelevant.

The conspiracy theory is the one that he will be extradited to the US on "secret charges" as soon as he is arrested in Sweden. Some others in this thread compared it to other CIA grabs, for example one in Italy.

Re: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

#390

Post by toyg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #384
ekianjo wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> such laws generally don't apply to war. they don't even apply to soldiers. No declaration of war was made on Iraq.

> No declaration of war was made on Iraq. Yes, it was; no special language is needed in a declaration of war; the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" was plainly and unmistakeably a conditional declaration of war, the conditions for which were fulfilled.

If you declare war, you have to follow Geneva rules, so you can't do Guantanamo detentions; if you do Guantanamo detentions, you're not legally at war. Pick one.
Post reply on HN