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

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#91

Post by streptomycin »

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I found this a very interesting article, particularly the first 4 points (the last is a little more vague). However, this article mainly helps formalise my previous beliefs, so I wonder if I found it interesting just because it agrees with my point of view?

As a test, you could read another article by a legal expert that has a very different tone: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...

Both articles are fact-based, and neither contradicts the other as far as I can tell. But it's very easy to put a bias on fuzzy political issues.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#92

Post by readymade »

tptacek wrote: post #33
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 Swede…

Please re-render your response in predicate calculus

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#93

Post by tptacek »

chimi wrote: post #88
tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Do the words you put in quotes actually sound like what I said to you? Bit of a straw man. But even if you want to argue to that extreme, then well, yeah if you consider the USA sent its military into Pakistan without them even knowing. The USA does that kind of stuff all the time and at least in this case, the UK will know about it and is cooperating with Sweden on the issue. Even further, Sweden has an embassy ther…

Has that ever happened in the history of modern diplomacy? The guards of one embassy sent to invade another embassy? This doesn't sound silly to you?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#94

Post by scott_s »

white_devil wrote: post #80
lolcraft wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pres…

Sweden does not want him for questioning. They want to arrest him for rape.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#96

Post by ahelwer »

rjsamson wrote: post #36

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 downv…

If people care deeply about something, they will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to maintain their worldview. I'd say it's a root cause of a whole lot of problems in developed societies. Nobody is immune, even (especially?) those who extoll reason and logic like it's the drive of existence.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#97

Post by scott_s »

lisper wrote: post #77
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.

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 u…

But then the question becomes: why would he be more vulnerable in Sweden than in the UK? The linked article argues that he is more vulnerable to extradition to the US in the UK. I buy that argument. What is your argument that he would be more vulnerable in Sweden?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#98

Post by graue »

rjsamson wrote: post #36

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 downv…

No, I agree with you. There are an awful lot of people failing to engage with reality, stubbornly insisting what this article just debunked. I like the OP's name for these — "zombie facts" — you shoot them down and they just keep getting repeated.

We all have strong feelings on this issue. My original pro-Assange feelings are getting weaker, however. Sure, the accusation is terribly convenient for UK and Swedish governments, whose responses still seem suspicious in their vigor. But Assange should face those sexual assault allegations, if that's really all that's going to happen. If they are true, then what he did was reprehensible. Ultimately, we can't know what's going on behind the scenes here, if anything.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#99

Post by wes-exp »

tptacek wrote: post #75
hnolable wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Correa's view, not that I know enough to endorse it or not, is that Ecuador's press is dominated by corporate influence. This creates a situation not unlike in the US, where the mainstream media is not always fair in its reporting.

In fact, the wikileaks cables even showed something about how Ecuador's media was happy to attack the government, but not the actually powerful corporate interests.

Therefore, going after "the press" in Ecuador may have been more about ending libellous attacks from corporate special interests rather than some sinister intolerance of legitimate criticism. Not that this makes restricting speech okay, but it does help to explain it.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#100

Post by zb »

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…

It's called rape because of the psychological effects on the (alleged, in this case) victim, not because of the psychological affects on people who read about it in the paper, and a lot of people here on HN would do very well to stop trivialising it.
Post reply on HN