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

61–70 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#61

Post by Tycho »

tptacek wrote: post #50
Tycho wrote: post #47

It's touching that the author of this article thinks the only relevant points are the legal small print of the UK and Sweden. But if you think about it some more, you might realise that Assange chose the UK as his destination because he felt the public and the press would exert enough pressure on the government to shield him from any political manoeuvrings. I propose a new metric for situations like this. Rate the li…

We could invent a "new metric for situations like this" involving estimates of the "likelihood" that suspects would "commit the act" and estimates of "the convenience of the situation to the enemies of those suspects" and the "ease with which the suspect's enemies could set them up". Or we could just have the rule of law.

I really want to revisit this post in a few months when Assange has either been jailed on extremely flimsy evidence or handed over to America using an extradition treaty, to see how you rationalise that sequence of events.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#62

Post by rsynnott »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #49
thom wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general gauge, I think a lot of people are hugely offended by the idea that some forms of non-consensual sex aren't rape.

Under what insane set of morals or laws is having sex with an unconscious person not considered rape?

In some countries it may not be _called_ rape (which is sometimes subject to rather strange and archaic definitions) but it will generally be an equivalent form of sexual assault. In any case, it's rape in the UK.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#63

Post by wes-exp »

tptacek wrote: post #45
hnolable wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This is a little like asking why Burma wasn't consulted in the extradition. The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material. Yes, I think the issue here is that Ecuador wants to start a political controversy. There is prima facie evidence, compelling and voluminous, that the principals Ecuador is "standing up for" in granting asylum are very much a…

"The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material"

On the contrary, Ecuador's independence from the controversy makes them seem more impartial and credible.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#64

Post by thro936287Waway »

tptacek wrote: post #59
thro936287Waway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is agreement that both parties consented to having sex and that there was no violence involved. A strange kind of rape, isn't it? The point here is, even if it turns out to be "rape", everyone has a certain picture of it in their mind. That is a picture of the random stranger preying on a woman. Or of parents/relatives abusing a girl. Or whatever. So speaking of rape is very misleading, bordering on lying. Bett…

Because an instance of rape does not follow your exact mental picture of what "rape" is, it does not follow that the allegation of rape is "bordering on lying". Very similar arguments were made during the formation of US jurisprudence on spouse rape (an unprosecutable offense in many states until the 1970s!) and "date"/acquaintance rape. If you had read the article, you'd see it contained a prominent link to Sweden's…

I thought you would say this. First, I have read the article. Second, spouse rape is different: a) If reported, it will always be reported, that the victim was the spouse. Therefore people adjust their mental picture and have a correct grasp of what happened. This is very important. b) In spouse rape, again, the sex will happen against the will of the victim (usually using force and in broken relationships). This is very different from failure to use a condom.

So why is it so important for you to call it rape? Just describe what happened, and don't lead your readers astray!

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#65

Post by tptacek »

thro936287Waway wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because an instance of rape does not follow your exact mental picture of what "rape" is, it does not follow that the allegation of rape is "bordering on lying". Very similar arguments were made during the formation of US jurisprudence on spouse rape (an unprosecutable offense in many states until the 1970s!) and "date"/acquaintance rape. If you had read the article, you'd see it contained a prominent link to Sweden's…

I thought you would say this. First, I have read the article. Second, spouse rape is different: a) If reported, it will always be reported, that the victim was the spouse. Therefore people adjust their mental picture and have a correct grasp of what happened. This is very important. b) In spouse rape, again, the sex will happen against the will of the victim (usually using force and in broken relationships). This is…

Because in both Sweden and the UK, the offense we are discussing has a name, and the name is "rape".

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#66

Post by tptacek »

wes-exp wrote: post #63
tptacek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little like asking why Burma wasn't consulted in the extradition. The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material. Yes, I think the issue here is that Ecuador wants to start a political controversy. There is prima facie evidence, compelling and voluminous, that the principals Ecuador is "standing up for" in granting asylum are very much a…

"The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material" On the contrary, Ecuador's independence from the controversy makes them seem more impartial and credible.

Why not poll all the countries before allowing extradition?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#67

Post by tptacek »

wes-exp wrote: post #54

"Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index of world press freedom" US is ranked 47th. This effectively puts Ecuador in the same category as the US. Look at the color codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index . Just because Ecuador isn't perfect hardly precludes it from trying to do the right thing in this instance.

The RSF full press freedom index isn't color coded. There are 57 countries --- 1/3rd of the entire survey --- in between the US and Ecuador, including several liberal European countries. This is a flimsy argument.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#68

Post by freehunter »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #49
thom wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general gauge, I think a lot of people are hugely offended by the idea that some forms of non-consensual sex aren't rape.

Under what insane set of morals or laws is having sex with an unconscious person not considered rape?

Well non-consensual doesn't necessarily imply unconscious. There are levels of force that could be considered rape, although some countries has laws on the books saying only women can be raped. I don't want look that up for proof at the moment, as I'm sitting at work.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#69

Post by hnolable »

tptacek wrote: post #66
wes-exp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material" On the contrary, Ecuador's independence from the controversy makes them seem more impartial and credible.

Why not poll all the countries before allowing extradition?

Equating the due diligence Ecuador _supposedly_ did before making the decision to grant asylum with "a poll" is unfair.

Honestly many of your responses to comments on this thread seem very unfair. And I'm not talking about the content of them but the manner in which you respond. You have a very good way of cheapening legitimate points that have been made.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#70

Post by thro936287Waway »

tptacek wrote: post #65
thro936287Waway wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought you would say this. First, I have read the article. Second, spouse rape is different: a) If reported, it will always be reported, that the victim was the spouse. Therefore people adjust their mental picture and have a correct grasp of what happened. This is very important. b) In spouse rape, again, the sex will happen against the will of the victim (usually using force and in broken relationships). This is…

Because in both Sweden and the UK, the offense we are discussing has a name, and the name is "rape".

Wrong. I already explained that the press always reports the context (e.g. spouse rape), but you ignored this. I have particularly observed this in a case that received a lot of publicity last year in Germany.

Please look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_rape

(I've just created this account in an incognito window, because my procrastination filter blocked me. ;-) Got to go now and won't able to answer again.)

Post reply on HN