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

111–120 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#111

Post by wes-exp »

tptacek wrote: post #87
wes-exp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it is color coded on wikipedia. Further, a gap of 1/3 might not be very significant if the scores are closely packed. Also regardless, stack ranking is known to be bullshit. Ask any current or former Microsoft employee :)

The scores are not closely packed. Not only that: the US was #20 on the World Press Freedom Index in the survey immediately prior to this one, and lost places due to municipal arrests of journalists covering Occupy. The idea that the press freedom situation in the US is comparable to the press freedom of a country in which the ruling party seizes television stations, jails the owners of newspapers for allowing the pu…

I'm not saying the press freedom situation is comparable... Reporters Without Borders is. Maybe their index is total nonsense. I would readily believe that. However, in the absence of better data, I'll take the word of an organization dedicated to the issue, over your opinion.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#112

Post by marvin »

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…

To answer your question about the article itself, some of its points are good. Point one ("the charges would not be rape under UK law") and point four ("Sweden could try Assange in London") seem both good and relevant. But like I said, they don't seem to have a lot of influence on the heart of the matter in this case. And I don't think it makes sense to discuss the other points without looking at the whole picture.

To bring up two concrete misgivings I have with the article:

    Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA
Extradition cases are almost always a political issue, subject to treaties that are often negotiated outside of the normal legislative authorities. So there is definitely something to the objections people have to this point, and this article doesn't give justice to the objections.

    By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press
Maybe not freedom of the press. But Equador did offer Assange political asylum. The reason is up to debate. If you take it at face value, they believe that Assange is the victim of political persecution. Otherwise you'll have to say they're trying to piss off the US, or maybe somehow protect their own interests. But they offered him asylum for a reason, and this is very relevant to discuss. In fact, it's very strange that we have a world where a former banana republic offers political asylum to a guy who's wanted in the West.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#113

Post by tptacek »

olifante wrote: post #104
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.

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…

I think this is incorrect in a number of ways:

* The Swedish High Court held specifically that Assange cannot be charged at this stage of the process; under Swedish law, with a domestic arrest warrant issued, he must first be arrested and face his prosecutor.

* The Swedish High Court specifically considered the videoconference option, which is not required under the ECHR, and, at the level of the High Court and consistant with the demands of the prosecution, rejected it: he needs to be questioned in person, and, depending on his responses to questioning, the Swedish may need to employ physical forensic science (as they would in any rape case).

* Swedish law requires the Prosecutor General to evaluate extradition requests on a case-by-case basis; under Swedish law, the government cannot offer Assange a blanket protection from extradition to the US. Incidentally, if this type of promise is common, I'd point out that the examples of it seem to have eluded the press; can you provide any yourself?

Most of these issues are helpfully excerpted by the author of this particular column from the Swedish High Court opinion upholding the EAW. You don't even have to search for it, or read the whole opinion.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#114

Post by Kell »

Tycho wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if he's actually found innocent or guilty with serious evidences ? Will you also come back and say that you are sorry ?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#115

Post by tptacek »

wes-exp wrote: post #111
tptacek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scores are not closely packed. Not only that: the US was #20 on the World Press Freedom Index in the survey immediately prior to this one, and lost places due to municipal arrests of journalists covering Occupy. The idea that the press freedom situation in the US is comparable to the press freedom of a country in which the ruling party seizes television stations, jails the owners of newspapers for allowing the pu…

I'm not saying the press freedom situation is comparable... Reporters Without Borders is. Maybe their index is total nonsense. I would readily believe that. However, in the absence of better data, I'll take the word of an organization dedicated to the issue, over your opinion.

RSF is not saying that. Your argument is innumerate and, in suggesting that "I'm not saying the US and Ecuador are comparable, RSF is, and I'll take their word over yours", illogical.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#116

Post by eli »

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…

Moreover, why is this article here at all? I appreciated it, but I've also flagged the submission. It has nothing to do with hacking or startups or technology. There are many other, more appropriate sites for discussing politics, crime, and current events.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#117

Post by olifante »

scott_s wrote: post #97
lisper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sweden is a huge country with very low population density and one of its neighbors is Russia, a formidable military power. This means it is very dependent on the US for its security, and more likely to be vulnerable to explicit or implicit pressure from the US than an island nation of 60 million people that is also a nuclear power.

I'm convinced this is also the case with Australia, which is why they're so unwilling to stand up for Assange.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#118

Post by Kell »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #101
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Huh ? Where ? I've seen one intent to show it's untrue (in this thread) and honestly the arguments where bogus.

I don't know Swedish law at all. But actually in French law (my domain of study) in a criminal case assigned to a "Juge d'instruction" (who acts more or less like a prosecutor), no indictment ("mise en examen") is possible without a physical presentation to the "Juge d'Instruction".

So I know of at least One other set of laws where the idea that someone cannot be charged without a formal presentation to the "prosecutor" is a fact, so it's not unthinkable that the Swedish law can be similar in that matter. And you will need more than : "No it's not true" to convince me that three consecutives Courts including a High Court made a mistake on this point.

Edit about your edit : I think that your argument of authority is invalidated by the presence of three decisions by UK courts that took their decisions after hearing counsels and legal experts on both sides of the question.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#119

Post by lawnchair_larry »

tptacek wrote: post #109
chimi wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If this thread is annoying you enough that you become more of a jerk immediately after being called out on it, you should probably just chill out for a bit.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#120

Post by tptacek »

Kell wrote: post #114
Tycho wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if he's actually found innocent or guilty with serious evidences ? Will you also come back and say that you are sorry ?

Nobody is apologizing to anybody for discussing an issue on HN. This subthread is silly.
Post reply on HN