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

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#31

Post by mattvanhorn »

e12e wrote: post #20

I'll be a little impolite and reuse my comment on a previous, somewhat similar story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4404549 I think it contains some information that is relevant for those trying to make sense of this: I found this overview from the Swedish prosecutor to be very helpful: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/T... Obviously this is "biased" -- but I've not been able to spot a…

Virginia Woolf died in 1941, so either the piece must be really old, or you must mean Naomi Wolf. ;-)

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#32

Post by ChuckMcM »

marvin wrote: post #16

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts. But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would l…

A couple of things, one of the tenants for democracy was that a government elected by the people is more trustworthy than a self selecting government. There are lots of discussions on why this may (or may not) be true, but historically it comes down to whether or not you believe the people are willing (and able) to replace an ill-behaving government.

The point about Assange being 'easier' to extradite from the UK than from Sweden is pretty key here. The US is on much better terms with the UK government and any extradition that would be possible in Sweden would be even easier to do in the UK. So I agree with the OP that its unlikely he is ever going to be extradited here, or perhaps even charged here.

A much simpler explanation however is that Assange uses his situation to both keep himself in the spotlight (attention on him and by reflection his cause) and to promulgate a message. The way he currently positions himself is as a persecuted rebel fighting the good fight, its a much better and engaging narrative than narcissistic dilettante with poor impulse control. Not being inside his head we cannot know which characterization is closer to the truth of course but we do know what he would like us to believe.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#33

Post by tptacek »

mattvanhorn wrote: post #29

Now that we know Karl Rove is advising the Swedish government in the prosecution of Assange, I think it is completely reasonable to assume the worst with regard to Sweden's intentions about extraditing. I think this article makes a much more convincing argument about what is going on than the one in the post: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with...

Wow.

First: your very first sentence does not appear to arrive at its conclusion via logic. Because [KARL ROVE], it asserts, we can assume [INTENT TO EXTRADITE TO US]. That's not even wrong.

Second: it is very much not known that Rove is advising Sweden on the prosecution. The only thing that is known is that Rove, a phenomenally well-known political consultant, was at some point advising the governing party in Sweden. It is not remotely uncommon for US political consultants to work overseas. They aren't advancing US interests when they do that (how could Rove be? He's not an agent of the US government); they're advancing their own wallets.

Your claim is identically as strong as virtually every conspiracy theory ever. Syllogisms with an identical structure are behind the claim that "9/11 was an inside job" and that "Obama is part of a communist conspiracy".

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#34

Post by chimi »

marvin wrote: post #16

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts. But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would l…

My question is: If Sweden wants Assange, why is Britain the one saying they'll invade the embassy? Shouldn't it be Sweden who is invading the Ecuadoran Embassy instead of Britain? I really don't see Britain bending over backwards to break the diplomatic status quo for Sweden, but I do see them doing that for the U.S. or themselves and that's why I think this is about more than a rape case in Sweden.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#35

Post by lolcraft »

marvin wrote: post #16

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts. But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would l…

Now, if you wanted to argue that the rape charges look strange, because those charges were dismissed at first, both victims do not want to prosecute further, the accussed is kind of a target, so on... well, OK.

But your argument here amazes me. Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on. And it should. I would be surprised and enraged if the Interpol had an arbitrary threshold of violence by which it would decide to act or not, as if they were nobles graciously granting the plebs the gift of international justice.

Now, I don't buy that this rape accussations are pretexts. If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pressure the U.K. to extradite him? Sweden is now full of U.S.'s lackeys, but the U.K. isn't? Or, shit, just send a CIA agent there and get him on a plane. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#36

Post by rjsamson »

I really thought the HackerNews readership was better than this, but a great majority of the comments here have people getting into full-on conspiracy mode in ignorance of basic facts that have been presented. I know these folks don't necessarily represent HN as a whole, but doesn't the HN community pride itself on valuing measured factually based responses over uninformed emotional ones?

I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but I had to get it off my chest.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#37

Post by tptacek »

chimi wrote: post #34
marvin wrote: post #16

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts. But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would l…

My question is: If Sweden wants Assange, why is Britain the one saying they'll invade the embassy? Shouldn't it be Sweden who is invading the Ecuadoran Embassy instead of Britain? I really don't see Britain bending over backwards to break the diplomatic status quo for Sweden, but I do see them doing that for the U.S. or themselves and that's why I think this is about more than a rape case in Sweden.

Did this really seem like a good question when you typed it? "If Sweden wants Assange, why don't they send armed people to UK soil in order to violate the privileges of Ecuador's diplomatic mission to the UK?"

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#38

Post by danso »

icebraining wrote: post #10

“By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press” This is perhaps the strangest proposition. / Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. The proposition doesn't actually say that protecting the freedom of the press is their motivation . Good things can arise from bad motives.

I guess I hadn't wondered about this yet...why IS Ecuador granting him asylum? Is there any quid pro quo?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#39

Post by doe88 »

tptacek wrote: post #6
jeltz wrote: post #4

"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition in the United States in such circumstances." Except that law has been violated before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Ze... Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assan…

The article does not make the point that, having been delivered to Sweden, Assange would be protected by an impregnable shield against extradition to the US. Rather, the article simply points out that the protections Assange has against extradition in Sweden are comparable to the ones he has in the UK --- perhaps better, in fact, given the ease with which the US has extradited people from the UK. More importantly, si…

I have not seen Assange asking any promise to Swede. Ecuador did, Assange I don't think so. I think you nailed it though on what kind of guarantee he could hope for. I think he knows very well that's impossible to juridically formulate the kind of protection it would want to have. Therefore yersterday he didn't even formulate such request he took a higher stance (and even more improbable to succeed) by asking the US of stopping the FBI investigation.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#40

Post by hnolable »

tptacek wrote: post #28
marvin wrote: post #16

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts. But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would l…

The Swedish government cannot guarantee Assange won't be extradited; it falls on the Swedish judicial system to do that. Your comment again puts forward the idea that the political forces aligned against Assange are so great that no amount of critical thinking, due process, or countervailing concern for the rights of victims can apply: it is, to use your word, "obvious" that the case isn't about "rape", but about an…

> No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way.

So why does Ecuador see it that way? Are they stupid or easily fooled? Do they want to start political controversy? Some other conspiracy?

Post reply on HN