Live data from Hacker News

Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

govwaste.co.uk

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question in all of this is why does Sweden have an extradition treaty with a country infamous the world over for torture of detainees?

Well, you could ask roughly half of the world's sovereign states the same question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_...

I would be happy to. "Because everybody else is doing it", is not exactly the most convincing of arguments.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#112
post #4

Send the bill to Ecuador, or slap a duty on imports. Job done.

Assange is well within his rights to apply for asylum, and Ecuador is well within its rights to accept his application. Assange is inside the embassy legally. It's the UK who are choosing to monitor the embassy with police officers (rightly so IMO, mind), not Ecuador.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#113
post #26

Wouldn't it set an unwanted precedence if the British Government just let this go? There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out. If they do not carry it out then theoretically anyone on the run could seek asylum in a foreign embassy knowing that if successful it was just a matter of time before they could make their escape. I also wonder what would happen when the U…

Any policing priorities set a precendent of expectation. For example, because of the way car and property crime are (not) investigated, a petty car criminal can reasonably expect to get away with their crime. There are plenty of other crimes where a police authority would choose not to take dramatic action and save a £10m cost of policing. The suggestion isn't Assange be allowed to walk. If he were able to be afforda…

> This kind of performance wouldn't be put on, at this expense, if a random alleged-rapist took shelter in an embassy. The police would leave them to it, and act when they had intelligence that they'd slipped out.

An embassy would never shelter a non-citizen unless the case was politically sensitive. Sheltering someone free on bail is particularly insulting to the UK's judicial system.

The UK would never just leave them to it and accept that kind of insult.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#114
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. These questions can evidently not be asked within the embassy. (Ignoring the various, and I concede very loaded, discussions around the validity of the allegations.) > Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. Substitute 'American intelligence agencies' for 'Assange' in that se…

I am genuinely baffled by your reply. Assange is wanted for questioning for allegations of sexual assault, and you say he shouldn't have to follow due process and answer them because... because what? Because his political ideals are aligned with your own? Because of an absurd conspiracy that he will be secretly abducted to Central America?

Don't be baffled.

There are, at the very least, some very dubious aspects surrounding the original claims: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-...

I guess I am suggesting that due process, in this case, should be avoided - but only because this is clearly an exceptional situation, with some profound risks for Assange and other whistle-blowers.

The idea that any change to due process should be avoided because it 'sets precedent' I think is a misdirection. There appears to be not substantial reason for Swedish prosecutors to attend London and talk to Assange directly before making their (next) decision.

To be candid I don't really understand what his political ideals are - but I am informed enough to understand that it's more complicated than the way one might explain it to a 5yo.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#115
Assange is there of his own free will as he chose to go there rather than be extradited to Sweden.

He chose to go through the legal process in the UK while it suited him and then when it didn't suit him he decided to seek asylum.

I hope the UK Gov sends him the bill for wasting my tax money

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#116
post #32

Wouldn't it set an unwanted precedence if the British Government just let this go? There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out. If they do not carry it out then theoretically anyone on the run could seek asylum in a foreign embassy knowing that if successful it was just a matter of time before they could make their escape. I also wonder what would happen when the U…

>There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out. I wonder why the same law enforcement rigor wasn't applied in these cases, which are undoubtedly so much worse? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_sc...

Not even remotely the same thing. Those are cases of the police failing to investigate and file charges.

The Assange case is about the enforcement of valid judicial warrants. The police don't have the same discretion.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#117
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

treaties work in both directions

Hardly a justification for cooperating with torturers, more of an excuse.

Will you kindly stop referring to the United States as a whole as "torturers"? Not everyone here agrees with our government's use of torture and there is a continuing debate going on here on its usefulness and the need to prevent further abuses.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#118

Just to play devil's advocate here: How are Sweden supposed to promise not to extradite him to the US? Wouldn't that depend on what kind of possible extradition request would arrive, if any?

That story has never made any sense to me. The U.S. and Britain are far closer allies with a much longer history of extradition. If the U.S. wanted to extradite Assange they would have done it from Britain. Extraditing him to Sweden first only to later extradite him to the U.S. is non-sensical.

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#119
post #99
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law is littered with unwanted precedents. They are not, generally, compelling reasons to act in a sane and thoughtful way, and rarely (especially with such obvious edge cases as this) inform future decisions. Is there actually an arrest warrant in Sweden for Assange? It's a highly convoluted arrangement between the UK (ostensibly keen to arrest, to satisfy their Swedish colleagues) and Sweden (who wish to question).…

Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did. EDIT: The article says "He has been in a cell, under house arrest, or effectively detained at the Ecuadorian Embassy since De…

> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault.

If this was the only neccessity, why not do said questioning over video link? This is possible – at least, in England, there is even a company that specializes in it (http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-confere...)

Re: Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

#120
post #81

Wouldn't it set an unwanted precedence if the British Government just let this go? There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out. If they do not carry it out then theoretically anyone on the run could seek asylum in a foreign embassy knowing that if successful it was just a matter of time before they could make their escape. I also wonder what would happen when the U…

Law is littered with unwanted precedents. They are not, generally, compelling reasons to act in a sane and thoughtful way, and rarely (especially with such obvious edge cases as this) inform future decisions. Is there actually an arrest warrant in Sweden for Assange? It's a highly convoluted arrangement between the UK (ostensibly keen to arrest, to satisfy their Swedish colleagues) and Sweden (who wish to question).…

Yes, there is an arrest warrant for Assange in Sweden.

Assange is mechanically harder to extradite to the US from Sweden. Extradition from the UK requires only the approval of the UK. Extradition from Sweden would at this point require the approval of both Sweden and the UK. Both Sweden and the UK are bound by the ECHR.

Post reply on HN