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

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#141

Post by Kell »

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…

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

I don't know about the rest, but of what I know of ECHR (which is not nothing, being a student in law in an european country), this is false. The ECHR actually rendered a decision about this in an affair concerning France (a very important affair that is changing a lot in procedural French law so it's troughtfully studied here in France). It's the case Medvedyev v. France (29 mars 2010 (yes it's that recent)). In this case a group of men were arrested in High Sea, by police, and they were then under arrest for days before appearing in front of a prosecutor. They contested this as contrary to their human rights to not be held under arrest without presentation in front of a judge. And they lost... (they lost on this point, they won other ones in the case) because the police did everything they could to actually be as fast as possible, so the article 5.3 of the ECHR was respected.

So Assange has a fundamental right to be presented to a judge/prosecutor before any arrest. BUT, he can be forced to appear in front of the judge. And he has no right to resist being arrested if this arrest has the sole purpose of putting him in front of a Swedish prosecutor.

So well... You know.. if this guy is wrong about one of the most important decisions by the ECHR in the last 10 years, then I tend to think that he may be wrong about other things he says with such "confidence".

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#142

Post by tptacek »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #137
tptacek wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure you're quoting context that wasn't present in the original comment I replied to.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#143

Post by rmc »

tomelders wrote: post #24
cube13 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what bothers me about the "Sweden will send him to the US" argument. I don't get why he's concerned about it, AND(at the same time) is in the UK, who, out of any country in the world, is quite possibly the MOST likely to agree to a US extradition request.

Not really. Britain's extradition agreement with the US is tougher than Sweden's. Britain can not extradite to the US where there's the possibility of a death sentence. The charges the US want to introduce would most likely come under the espionage act and he could face the death penalty. Plus, public support for Assange is greater in the UK than in Sweden. Even if the request were successful, which is unlikely, it w…

The UK does not have a strong record of protecting human rights of prisoners. Just look at their record in Northern Ireland.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#144

Post by rmc »

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…

Pinochet was protected from extradition because he, unlike Assange, was a head of state and enjoyed a supposed immunity from prosecution as a result.

I'm sure it was also quite helpful that he was friendly with various high ranking British politicians, meeting Thatcher several times, and helping them with a little war they had in the South Atlantic.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#145

Post by Kell »

tptacek wrote: post #120
Kell wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that's my point. But as I always forget, irony without smileys is difficult to convey over the wire.

(Well... maybe I'm just not good at it... )

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#146

Post by rmc »

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?

Political points. They can trade them in with the UK, or look good in Latin America.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#147

Post by rmc »

zb wrote: post #100
thro936287Waway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's also called rape because it involves sex with someone who was asleep and wasn't able to give consent.

If you see someone asleep and go up to them and start having sex with them, that's rape!

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#148

Post by rmc »

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…

Assange is wanted for 4 offences in Sweden. One of them is the "sex without condom one". Another is "sex with someone who is asleep". That is the one that is refered to as rape, and that is rape.

Stop spreading the ideal that this isn't a "real rape" or "legitimate rape" case.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#149

Post by brudgers »

tptacek wrote: post #140
tomjen3 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe the precedent being cited is that the general welfare may be more important than black letter law.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#150

Post by Kell »

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…

Interpol is not qualified to judge if what a full member country calls rape is really rape. They received a request from the country, and they charge it (well... they do filter non-serious charges... but this almost never happens to fully respected democracies).

And yeah... rape is actually one of those things that Interpol almost always investigate if it's crossborder. It's actually not strange at all... To Interpol, it's rape. Which is considered a very serious crime. Period.

Post reply on HN