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

101–110 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#101

Post by lawnchair_larry »

tptacek wrote: post #78
jseliger wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so.

You keep repeating this, and people keep demonstrating that it is untrue.

Edit: And just to be clear, you believe you know more about this than a constitutional law prof from the EU (the author of the reddit comment), correct?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#102

Post by chimi »

tptacek wrote: post #93
chimi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Things happening that have never happened before occur so frequently they invented a word for it: Precedent. And yes, the whole fiasco is silly.

Do you actually think this is about Sweden wanting to extradite him for accusations of rape? Seriously, compare this to Roman Polanski, who was actually convicted of the crimes and the Swiss still rejected extradition.

And no, for the record, I don't think the UK saying, "Okay Sweden, if you want him, he is in the Ecuadoran Embassy. Our relationship with Ecuador and honoring centuries of diplomatic customs between nations is a bigger deal than your rape case."

Rape is horrible and I acknowledge that. I also see that diplomatic relations are way heavier than crimes of that magnitude -- even greater magnitude -- and are consistently prioritized as such in countless diplomatic immunity cases throughout history.

Frankly I don't care what kind of clout you have around here, your condescending tone is unwarranted. Your superficial comments make you look like an arrogant dolt.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#103

Post by EdiX »

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 that the detention of Bradley Manning without due process for two years in inhuman conditions along with pressure made to Visa, Mastercard and Paypal to halt payment processing to Wikileaks (later found illegal), whatever they pulled to make amazon stop hosting Wikileaks, the potentially government sponsored DDOS attacks, the fact that UK is thinking about violating the Vienna Convention over a minor criminal charge suggest that "the US" (whatever that means) seem to not have qualms about going beyond legality to make an example of Assange.

It does sound like a conspiracy theory that the US would do that but so many things that sound like a conspiracy theory have happened around this case that it is no longer a valid proxy for truth.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#104

Post by olifante »

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.

The author of that comment summarized it himself:

  - Assange is not charged (yet) and the High Court is wrong 
    on that point

  - Assange has a fundamental right clearly recognized by 
    the ECHR not to surrender to Swedish police before 
    appearing in front of the Swedish prosecutor

  - The Swedish Prosecution Service has consistently refused 
    to promise that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the US 
    once in Swedish custody; this type of promise is common 
    in extradition cases and within the power of the Swedish 
    prosecution service

  - The Swedish Prosecution Service has refused the 
    opportunity to question Assange through videoconference, 
    while insisting on Assange's surrender to Swedish 
    custody; this is a clear and known violation of the ECHR 
    that the Swedish prosecutors can't ignore.

  There's only one possible conclusion:
  the Swedish prosecutors are acting in bad faith here.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#105

Post by sigzero »

freehunter wrote: post #68
tomjakubowski wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you even came close to answer his question.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#106

Post by tedunangst »

wes-exp wrote: post #90
tedunangst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I honestly don't know where the wikipedia ones come from. On the map you've linked to, they are different, but only by one.

On the map I linked to, Finland and Ecuador are only different by two.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#107

Post by olifante »

tptacek wrote: post #78
jseliger wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The author of the reddit comment says something about that:

  Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has 
  not been formally charged. While the British High Court 
  has decided that the current advancement of the Swedish 
  procedure is equivalent to being charged in the UK, I 
  consider this ruling to be an aberration; the common-law 
  steeped High Court failed to understand a finer point of 
  the civil-law influenced Swedish penal procedure.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#109

Post by tptacek »

chimi wrote: post #102
tptacek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Things happening that have never happened before occur so frequently they invented a word for it: Precedent. And yes, the whole fiasco is silly. Do you actually think this is about Sweden wanting to extradite him for accusations of rape? Seriously, compare this to Roman Polanski, who was actually convicted of the crimes and the Swiss still rejected extradition. And no, for the record, I don't think the UK saying, "Ok…

Yes. I think the Swedes want to extradite Assange to face rape charges. Also, the Swedes are not Swiss. Europe is tricky, I know.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#110

Post by eli »

danso wrote: post #38
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?

New Op Ed in the NY Times:

But the confusion in London has, in fact, little if anything to do with Ecuadorean-British relations and everything to do with regional and local politics in the Western Hemisphere. And it has little to do with protecting Mr. Assange’s right to a fair trial or freedom of the press — which Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, has trampled upon at home.

Instead, it is an attempt by Mr. Correa to settle old scores with the United States, display his political prowess in the run-up to Ecuadorean presidential elections next year and make a power play for a leadership role on the Latin American left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/why-correa-lets-as...

Post reply on HN