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

71–80 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#71

Post by tedunangst »

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.

Where do those color codes come from? The Reporters Without Borders map puts the US and Ecuador in different colors. http://en.rsf.org/IMG/jpg/carte2012.jpg

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#72

Post by mcantelon »

tptacek wrote: post #58
doe88 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 undocumented (and undisclosed) but nevertheless clear and immediate effort to haul Assange to the US and try him with e…

The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur.

>The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur.

The US punitive pre-trial treatment of Manning indicates that the matter is of sufficient concern that they're willing to endure international criticism for the sake of making an example out of him. If Sweden will do America's bidding over a commercial copyright matter, it seems quite possible they will also do so for what the US characterizes as a national security matter. As we saw with the MegaUpload incident the US doesn't let little things like the law stand in the way of it defending its interests.

The fact that the UK is flirting with violating the Vienna Convention over a "rape" case says a lot about this situation. In the 80's Libyans shot a British policewoman dead from their embassy and the UK didn't raid the embassy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#73

Post by jseliger »

tptacek wrote: post #58
doe88 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 undocumented (and undisclosed) but nevertheless clear and immediate effort to haul Assange to the US and try him with e…

The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur.

Actually—as shocked as I am to write this sentence—a comment on Reddit explains some of the bizarre legal wrangling behind the Assange case: http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_... .

I'm looking for a way to excerpt the comment, but it's sufficiently cohesive that there's no good way to do so.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#74

Post by freehunter »

tepotenk wrote: post #51

Ok, I'm from sweden, and I'm a supporter of wiki-leaks, this is my perspective on this: Why do everyone seem to become a tin-foil hat when it comes to Assange? Prosecuting Assange for rape in Sweden has nothing to do with prosecuting him for espionage in America. Sure, there are people trying to boost their careers by this case, being the one to convict Assange for a crime like this might be a great way to speed up y…

The problem is that it's just a little too convenient. He's suddenly wanted in the US for the Wikileaks piece, and right afterwards he's wanted in Sweden. The prosecutor drops the case, but then it's picked back up with an arrest warrant. Suddenly Interpol is brought into the mix for what really isn't typically an Interpol matter. That's a lot of money and time spent across international borders for an allegation with no evidence. It's too convenient to not raise questions about ulterior motives.

He might be guilty, I don't see anyone credible saying he's not. What I hear people saying is "why is this suddenly an international incident?"

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#75

Post by tptacek »

hnolable wrote: post #69
tptacek wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you say so. I find dubious any assertion that Ecuador is making a principled stand for transparency. The Correa administration took office in 2007 and almost immediately seized major television stations and revoked licenses for additional TV and radio stations. It sentenced the directors of newspapers to prison time simply for allowing columns critical of Correa to be printed. It charged journalists with crimes for writing books critical of the administration, "pardoned" them, and then had its corrupt judiciary "overturn" those pardons and levy farcical fines against those journalists.

The idea that Ecuador as a disinterested third party is somehow objective or fair about the Assange incident is to my eyes laughable. The Correa administration is despicable.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#76

Post by nollidge »

thro936287Waway wrote: post #56
nollidge wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if he really did commit rape, and Sweden really does just want to arrest him for that, and has no plans to extradite him? How would this situation look different to you? > The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. And here's where you reveal that you did not read the article.

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…

> everyone has a certain picture of it in their mind.

Which is impossibly irrelevant.

> consentual sex, supposedly started without a condom (contrary to agreement)

If it's contrary to agreement in whole or in part, it's not consensual.

> after the women agreed.

Or she acquiesced. (EDIT: as in, surrendered resistance)

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#77

Post by lisper »

tptacek wrote: post #58
doe88 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 undocumented (and undisclosed) but nevertheless clear and immediate effort to haul Assange to the US and try him with e…

The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur.

No, that's a straw man. The logic is: because the U.S. has a track record of punishing people deemed by the executive branch as threats to national security without due process of law (up to and including summary execution of its own citizens without so much as a formal charge -- e.g. Anwar Al Awlaki) it is not unreasonable for Assange to suppose that he might also be subject to such treatment if he happens to fall under the physical control of the U.S. or one of its vassal states. IMHO this fear is not entirely unjustified.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#78

Post by tptacek »

jseliger wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur.

Actually—as shocked as I am to write this sentence—a comment on Reddit explains some of the bizarre legal wrangling behind the Assange case: http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_... . I'm looking for a way to excerpt the comment, but it's sufficiently cohesive that there's no good way to do so.

I got this far:

Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged.

... and stopped reading. Assange is wanted for arrest --- it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so.

There are lots of great comments on Reddit, for whatever it's worth.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#79

Post by lttlrck »

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 color-codes do not denote categories...

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#80

Post by white_devil »

lolcraft wrote: post #35
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 I…

> Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist?

When does the Interpol ever get involved in a rape case? Especially one where someone is suspected of not-actually-rape -"rape", and supposedly only wanted for "questioning"?

What the fuck? Does this not sound suspicious to you at all?

> 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?

Who knows? Maybe they came up with the bullshit rape charges in Sweden first, before someone thought of doing that? At least at this point, they kind of have to go through Sweden to maintain any tiny shreds of credibility.

Post reply on HN