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

Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 784 posts

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#661

Post by lonelappde »

raxxorrax wrote: post #645
mcv wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is mostly self-inflicted, though. He chose that exile over facing justice for these charges. And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way. So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question r…

> And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole This is 1A 100% political persecution if you don't close both your eyes.

Is that torture?

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#662

Post by matthewdgreen »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #579
matthewdgreen wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being partisan is fine for a journalist! But your premise in the OP is that Assange had to choose between burying the documents and publishing them -- because he had a responsibility to inform the public over what were matters of public interest. I don't think he did either of those two things, I think he did a third thing.

What he did was perfectly in line with what he's always said he would do. The only reason people are upset is that they wish he wouldn't publish embarrassing things about politicians they support. If Assange had instead published Trump's dirty laundry, the very same people would be praising him. But as Assange said, it's hard to imagine what he could have published about Trump that would be worse than what was alread…

People are upset because the dream of WikiLeaks was that it would would help to produce a better, more open, just world. This was the thesis that Assange himself put forward [0].

But that didn’t happen. Instead, it seems likely that closed and secretive intelligence agencies were able to effortlessly repurpose WikiLeaks into a weapon for pursuing the foreign policy of an unjust government. That isn’t a crime necessarily. It just completely undermines the core argument that Assange and Wikileaks made for the organization’s existence.

If your argument is that an organization like WikiLeaks fundamentally has no choice but to allow itself to be misused in this way, then I think it’s reasonable to ask why we need such an organization in our world.

[0] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#663

Post by lonelappde »

mcv wrote: post #391
k1m wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to respond to this. UN experts on human rights have looked into his situation and been quite alarmed by it. I can't think of a group of people more respected in the field of human rights than the experts at the UN. And yet there are commenters here on HN who, I don't know on what basis, write that it's all mostly "hyperbole".

It is mostly self-inflicted, though. He chose that exile over facing justice for these charges. And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way. So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question r…

"persecution" and "prosecution" are different words.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#664

Post by lonelappde »

samdfonseca wrote: post #467
dingoegret wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you don't think a trial doesn't carry seriously negative and scary connotations, but it does and no rational person just subjects themselves to persecution.

I agree that standing trial for rape must be terrifying, but that doesn't mean he's being persecuted. We've agreed upon a system of justice that best protects the rights of both the accuser and the accused, and he decided to deny the alleged victim their day in court. He was free to leave the embassy, he was free to defend himself from humiliation, but he chose not to.

"We" didn't "agree" to anything.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#665

Post by whamlastxmas »

dominotw wrote: post #631
whamlastxmas wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be more clear: the women did not approach the police with the intention of them pursuing any allegations about sexual assault. The accusation was made by police after hearing the context around the women's request. So while the women communicated circumstances that the police interpreted as sexual assault, it was not their direct accusation

> the women did not approach the police with the intention of them pursuing any allegations about sexual assault. I don't understand what were their intentions then. Its hard to fathom for me as to why someone wouldn't pursue criminal allegation against a person who raped them. Really bizzare.

Because the alleged situation wasn't what we commonly think of as rape, and I agree the circumstances are bizzare - which is why I am skeptical of this entire situation.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#666

Post by InterimNew »

corporate_shi11 wrote: post #639
BookmarkSaver wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower Manning was a spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.

Don't forget that we hate the US government here, anyone that does anything to damage it is a hero and anyone that respects it is a menace.

I think most users would agree that HN hosts a variety of perspectives and is not a monoculture on most issues, including this one.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#667

Post by btilly »

RankingMember wrote: post #641
btilly wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our Constitutionally protected rights??? Amendment 1: Why is "In God We Trust" on our money? Amendment 3: The only time it ever was litigated (in Engblom v. Carey ) the government won because a bureaucrat cannot be faulted for not knowing such an obscure law. Amendment 4: Have you seen what the NSA is doing? Also "unreasonable search and seizure" is, under the doctrine of civil forfeiture, perfectly permissible as lo…

> Amendment 7: The point of a jury trial is that the jury can choose not to enforce a bad law. The legal system misinforms jurors about this to keep jury trial from being meaningful. I lean in favor of the practice of jury nullification, but I can't see how you can make the argument that juries exist expressly to judge good vs bad laws.

I say it because the historical debate on the 7th amendment centered on jury nullification. People from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Jefferson cited the fact that juries could refuse to convict under bad laws as a final defense against unjust government.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#668

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #662
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he did was perfectly in line with what he's always said he would do. The only reason people are upset is that they wish he wouldn't publish embarrassing things about politicians they support. If Assange had instead published Trump's dirty laundry, the very same people would be praising him. But as Assange said, it's hard to imagine what he could have published about Trump that would be worse than what was alread…

People are upset because the dream of WikiLeaks was that it would would help to produce a better, more open, just world. This was the thesis that Assange himself put forward [0]. But that didn’t happen. Instead, it seems likely that closed and secretive intelligence agencies were able to effortlessly repurpose WikiLeaks into a weapon for pursuing the foreign policy of an unjust government. That isn’t a crime necessar…

It was only misused in your eyes because you didn't like the leaks. But I think it's obvious that the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails were positive. They uncovered some really unsavory aspects of the American political system that Americans have a right to know about. WikiLeaks wasn't misused: it did a public service.

> I think it’s reasonable to ask why we need such an organization in our world.

So that information like the DNC's bias against Bernie Sanders doesn't get covered up by less ethical journalists who don't want to harm their favorite candidate.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#669

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

samdfonseca wrote: post #473
atoav wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Come out and we will tell you what you’re guilty of”. The US was once a great defender of liberty and democrac, but when you talk to its average citizen nowaday you start to get truely weimarian vibes.

His actions are entirely undemocratic. Sweden and the US have both democratically built a system of justice that we all agree to subject ourselves to. He decided to evade that system to serve his own self-interest. What about defending the liberty of the alleged rape victim? Do they only have the right to their day in court if the accused is ok with it?

A system of justice that can be abused to go after political enemies. The Espionage Act is a piece of anti-democratic legislation passed during WWI in order to shut down opposition to the war. It's ironic that you're portraying its use to go after a journalist as a democratic act.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#670

Post by magduf »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #563
magduf wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of them have already said they'd be fine with him shooting someone in broad daylight on a NYC street, and think that this isn't an impeachable offense.

That's hyperbole though. they're just showing that they are trumpers until something ridiculous like that happens. I'm sure there are some zealots but 99% of them would not be cool with him murdering someone in cold blood.

It's not hyperbole, this is directly from Congressional Republicans. They believe that "executive immunity" means the President can commit whatever crimes he wants in office, and is immune from prosecution until his term is over.
Post reply on HN