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

131–140 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#131

Post by tptacek »

olifante wrote: post #127
tptacek wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consi…

Quoting the author again: What Assange wants is not a decision from Sweden's government, but a promise from Sweden's prosecutors [...]. 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

You're repeating the same assertion I questioned, verbatim. The author of this blog post quotes an article that itself quotes practically chapter and verse for why this type of promise is not feasible under Swedish law. I then said, if these promises were common, surely there's an example to be found of them somewhere.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#132

Post by tomjen3 »

tptacek wrote: post #55
brudgers wrote: post #23

The article fails to point out that there is substantial precedent for the UK to ignore extradition requests by other EU members. Augusto Pinochet is perhaps an obvious example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August... Although I am loathe to rank vile behavior in general, crimes against humanity would seem to demand more careful consideration during extradition proceedings than the allegations…

This seems to be an allusion to the popular principal of "The Law Of Travesty", which asserts that if someone has benefited from a legal travesty (such as Spain's inability to extradite Pinochet from the UK), justice demands that everyone else benefit from the same travesty. In fact, justice demands the opposite. Pinochet was protected from extradition because he, unlike Assange, was a head of state and enjoyed a sup…

I believe the English law system is based on common law, meaning that cases stack and can use precedents from earlier cases.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#133

Post by tptacek »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #119
tptacek wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't follow what you're trying to say at all, but the comment I replied to was edited extensively after I wrote my response (I haven't re-read it).

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#134

Post by chimi »

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.

You're being a presumptive jerk. Several people throughout this thread have told you so and you keep digging yourself deeper.

The writing is on the wall.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#135

Post by tomelders »

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.

This may be difficult for you to hear tptacek, but the world doesn't run on logic.

If you want to survive, you have to join the dots. People lie. People cheat. And if you fail to infer their motives from their actions, then you will be eaten alive.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#136

Post by brudgers »

tptacek wrote: post #55
brudgers wrote: post #23

The article fails to point out that there is substantial precedent for the UK to ignore extradition requests by other EU members. Augusto Pinochet is perhaps an obvious example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August... Although I am loathe to rank vile behavior in general, crimes against humanity would seem to demand more careful consideration during extradition proceedings than the allegations…

This seems to be an allusion to the popular principal of "The Law Of Travesty", which asserts that if someone has benefited from a legal travesty (such as Spain's inability to extradite Pinochet from the UK), justice demands that everyone else benefit from the same travesty. In fact, justice demands the opposite. Pinochet was protected from extradition because he, unlike Assange, was a head of state and enjoyed a sup…

English common law operates on precedent.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#137

Post by lawnchair_larry »

tptacek wrote: post #133
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't follow what you're trying to say at all, but the comment I replied to was edited extensively after I wrote my response (I haven't re-read it).

>> Frankly I don't care what kind of clout you have around here, your condescending tone is unwarranted.

> Also, the Swedes are not Swiss. Europe is tricky, I know.

Let's talk about silly. As of this post, you've commented in this thread 31 times. Just let it go man.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#138

Post by toyg »

Kell wrote: post #118
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 On…

Yes, and the EU court determined that such a requirement does not waive the right to appeal a sentence. Which means somebody can actually be charged in absentia without legal repercussions, so it doesn't really matter whether they're present or not. From what I've heard, France is currently changing its system to reflect these rulings.

Btw, your own appeal to authority is pointless: I'm sure the courts of China are also always right in their decisions.

We're all human, we all make mistakes, we all suffer from external pressures. The UK High Court is as highly politicised as any similar body around the world, and has quite an appalling record on civil liberties in general (from libel laws to Pinochet). It's not unthinkable that they might have ruled as they did because the UK establishment is aligned to US interests -- they are even adopting names from the US system! We now have a Supreme Court and a number of Secretaires who used to be Ministers...

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#139

Post by scott_s »

toyg wrote: post #130
scott_s wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is an opportunity cost in the US attacking Assange. It's pretty clear that they couldn't "just do it": international condemnation would be huge. So they have to discredit him first; once he's "fallen" and not under the spotlight, then it will be much easier. Extraditing him now, from the UK, would be seen as a brazen attack on civil liberties, press freedom and whistleblowing, hitting front-pages hard. Extradit…

Yours, olifante's and others' arguments for why Assange is more vulnerable in Sweden, as far as I can tell, are basically: "because I can concoct a scenario in which it is so." That is, it's based on speculation, not evidence.

In other words, it's a standard conspiracy theory.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#140

Post by tptacek »

tomjen3 wrote: post #132
tptacek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be an allusion to the popular principal of "The Law Of Travesty", which asserts that if someone has benefited from a legal travesty (such as Spain's inability to extradite Pinochet from the UK), justice demands that everyone else benefit from the same travesty. In fact, justice demands the opposite. Pinochet was protected from extradition because he, unlike Assange, was a head of state and enjoyed a sup…

I believe the English law system is based on common law, meaning that cases stack and can use precedents from earlier cases.

The precedent that you are referring to here is what? That Assange, as a foreign head of state, is immune to extradition?
Post reply on HN