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

171–180 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#171

Post by e12e »

dkrivndys456 wrote: post #165

On the I.Q.Org website, wasn't it Assange who said that he is someone who moves in spy circles? I wonder what happens to spies who are either doing their jobs correctly or become rogue? Manning/ Lamo chat logs also refer to Assange as having a level in the intelligence field. But legal case never mentions it.

This is actually a great point. How many of the people behind/in wikileaks are intelligence assets/agents? Certainly some of them are - or at least they will be monitored. Not doing so would pretty much amount to negligence on part of the intelligence services.

Personally I (somewhat naively perhaps) put more trust in cryptome.org than in wikileaks -- either way cryptome.org also have a few points on this whole thing:

http://cryptome.org/0002/assange-abuse.htm

And related to Assange and wikileaks, see eg: http://cryptome.org/0001/assange-cpunks.htm http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

Note, typically for cryptome.org, these are somewhat exhaustive posts, and leave all digestion very much up-front and in-the-readers-face -- to the point were every reasonable person should start to wonder which part is information, and which is misinformation.

This is AFAIK on purpose - and different from traditional reporting where the journalist will just pretend that whatever is written is the one and only gospel truth -- even though most of what is found in newspapers are riddled with (sometimes minor) factual errors and has an obvious slant ("edtiorial line").

Edit: punctuation.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#172

Post by e12e »

eli wrote: post #168
e12e wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with technology. I think (and the amount of comments on this story seems to support that) - many HN readers are interested in information transparency and possible clandestine agendas to against openness. If there turns out that (any number of) intelligence services have a hand in this -- I should think that would have implications for hackers everywhere. Even if most of HN is abou…

I think we should try to stick to the guidelines [1] even if there are off-topic stories that may get lots of comments and votes. My reasoning is there are many good sites on the Internet dedicated to politics and current events, but surprisingly few good discussion forums for tech startups. This story is really only tangentially related to information transparency; the text is entirely about international politics a…

Well, my understanding is that:

"If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

should be weighted more than:

"Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

Is that a radical interpretation of the guidelines?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#173

Post by rprasad »

hnolable wrote: post #40
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way. So why does Ecuador see it that way? Are they stupid or easily fooled? Do they want to start political controversy? Some other conspiracy?

Ecuador's Correa is attempting to establish himself as the replacement to Hugo Chavez as the South American counterbalance to American power in the region.

So...mostly, Ecuador is doing this to tweak America.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#174

Post by rprasad »

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 gets involved in rape cases all the time. Most of them do not make the U.S. papers or otherwise become international news.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#175

Post by rprasad »

freehunter wrote: post #74
tepotenk wrote: post #51

Ok, I'm from sweden, and I'm a supporter of wiki-leaks, this is my perspective on this: Why do everyone seem to become a tin-foil hat when it comes to Assange? Prosecuting Assange for rape in Sweden has nothing to do with prosecuting him for espionage in America. Sure, there are people trying to boost their careers by this case, being the one to convict Assange for a crime like this might be a great way to speed up y…

The problem is that it's just a little too convenient. He's suddenly wanted in the US for the Wikileaks piece, and right afterwards he's wanted in Sweden. The prosecutor drops the case, but then it's picked back up with an arrest warrant. Suddenly Interpol is brought into the mix for what really isn't typically an Interpol matter. That's a lot of money and time spent across international borders for an allegation wit…

It's convenient because he raped and/or sexually assaulted two women around the same time the Wikileaks leak happened.

The prosecutor also did not drop the case--he merely recommended that the charges than being considered not be made. His superior chose to disregard that recommendation and proceeded to charge Assange for the charges then being considered and additional charges.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#176

Post by rprasad »

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.

So does American law, but you are clearly misunderstanding what "precedent" means.

Judicial decisions operate as precedent. Executive decisions do not. A judicial decision that Pinochet could not be extradited would be precedent; a decision not to extradite him would not be. The distinction is that the actual decision to extradite or not is based on both circumstances unique to the case and to the particular views of the administration making the decision.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#177

Post by scott_s »

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.

As far as I'm concerned, Thomas is the voice of reason in this thread. (A few others have come in with similar positions, but he has done the brunt of trying to reason with people whose arguments are based on wild speculation.)

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#178

Post by Dylan16807 »

nollidge wrote: post #164
Dylan16807 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's contrary to agreement in whole or in part, it's not consensual. That's quite a statement to make as if it's universal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception >The crime—known in Tennessee and California as rape by fraud[1]—is only recognised in few jurisdictions; in all others the definition of rape actually involves lack of consent at the time of intercourse. Even if they agreed to sex based on lies,…

I wasn't speaking about the law, I was speaking about moral behavior. Consent which is anything less than enthusiastic should be frowned upon, at the very least, by all of us.

Well, morally, I feel that lying to someone to sleep with them is sleazy and wrong, but it doesn't traumatize them the way forcing the issue via threat will.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#179

Post by toyg »

Kell wrote: post #155
toyg wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I'm not sure about what you're saying... but if you're saying that the fact that ECHR considers judgments in absentia to be of no legal repercussions... means that a State can pursue charges in absentia even more easily... well... I think, in my understanding of Law, that you are wrong. It means that pursuing charges in absentia... is of no legal repercussions (duh). So the accused is entitled a right to a full fresh…

Charging or accusing is one thing, passing judgement another. From http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_... :

> The French penal procedure used to demand similarly that a suspect should surrender and go to prison on the eve of his criminal trial. The European Court consistently found this a violation of 6§1 in a string of cases (Omar, Guerin, Khalfoui, Goth, Papon, Coste, Morel, Walser, etc.) that eventually managed to have the French law amended. There is not much wiggle room here: Assange has a fundamental right to be questioned by the prosecutors without having to surrender to Swedish police.

And of course UK and Sweden are not China, but please point me to the law that says they will never become like China; in the UK, there isn't even a codified right to freedom of speech as it is, as witnessed by the horrendous libel laws. In any case, the US-led program of "extraordinary renditions", which was carried out by UK and Sweden in earnest, is not very different from what a Chinese government would enact; nor are the kangaroo courts that will judge (maybe, one day, if they ever feel like) Pvt. Manning, or the "legal acts" that put people in Guantanamo indefinitely and without due process. There are no "good governments" or "bad governments", they're all different shades of grey and they change with the times.

(Btw, I'm sorry that you fail to appreciate the extent of the current state of the "special relationship", but I can ensure you that it's really troubling. In the last 15 years, US foreign policy has been enacted without fail by successive UK governments, and the encroachment of US-born ethos and culture on British public discourse has been relentless. We joke of becoming "Air-Strip One", when in fact we're basically already there.)

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#180

Post by toyg »

scott_s wrote: post #139
toyg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So the most scandalous threat to basic principles of international diplomacy in 25 years, put in writing, is not "evidence"?

It might not be evidence of conspiracy, but it quite clearly is a symptom of political madness, wouldn't you agree?

Post reply on HN