Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange

govwaste.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 152 posts

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

#121

Post by belorn »

SilkRoadie wrote: post #12

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…

Are we saying here that having a cap on 10,000,000£ for on-going spending in criminal cases that carries a maximum of 4 years in prison, would result in an unwanted precedence?

I would be happy to read a historical list of such cases. It would not surprise me if the case of Julian Assange is the single most expensive criminal case ever conducted where the maximum punishment is 4 years or less. Instead of asking how many teachers could get paid from that, maybe we should ask how many criminals got away scotch free because there was no money left to investigate.

How many violent rapes (i.e. not those of lesser degree) has been overlooked because a lack of funds? Police funding, which this 10,000,000£ is drawn from, has a real impact on peoples lives. Any unwanted precedence should be balanced to that cost, and those in charge should be ready to defend how they chose to spend it.

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

#122

Post by Tomte »

parennoob wrote: post #119
PlzSnow wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... )

It's technologically possible, but not legally.

Shall we rehash all the facts again?

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

#124

Post by ahallock »

SilkRoadie wrote: post #12

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…

Governments have the means to escalate situations to Moby Dick levels of megalomania, especially when it's other people's money funding it. Until we have the power to withdraw funding from crap like this -- much more powerful than voting -- the insanity will continue.

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

#125

Post by jeltz »

rmc wrote: post #45
madaxe_again wrote: post #27

I wonder how many would argue that Assange should "face the music" while simultaneously arguing that Snowden shouldn't.

Assange is wanted for crimes that are unconnected with his political activism is. Everyone is human, incl Assange, everyone can make mistakes. Don't think your heros are perfect, they might not be.

Many political prisoners around the world are locked up from crimes unrelated to their activism. It is a popular method for locking up your political enemies.

Now I do not believe this to be the case for Assange, but seeking political asylum when faced with allegations of non-political crimes is normal.

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

#126

Post by vdaniuk »

wmil wrote: post #116
vdaniuk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Your thinking is double-plus good, citizen.

While we are on the topic of crimes involving sexuality, "... of the nine undercover police identified by the Guardian over the past two years, eight are believed to have slept with the people they were spying on. In other words, it was the norm."[0]

Now, pick up that can.

[0]http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/17/spies-sexual-relat...

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

#127

Post by parennoob »

Tomte wrote: post #122
parennoob wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... )

It's technologically possible, but not legally. Shall we rehash all the facts again ?

Don't understand the patronizing tone here. For a start, the BBC Q&A I've read on this says that it's basically the Swedish prosecutors saying, "No, because of circumstances, we want him here", not "It is legally forbidden". The prosecutor saying "We want him here, and we aren't going to tell you why" doesn't exactly radiate fairness and transparency.[1]

Maybe I'm wholly mistaken, but it stands to reason that should be a legal possibility that an individual can be questioned over video link. For example, consider a Swedish invalid who is in delicate condition in a London hospital and is medically forbidden to travel.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382

"Karin Rosander of the Swedish Prosecution Authority told the BBC on 21 August 2010 that "because of circumstances in the investigation, [the prosecutor's] opinion is that it is necessary that he is present in Sweden".

Ms Rosander said the prosecutor had not made clear exactly what those circumstances were. "At this stage of the investigation, [the prosecutor] does not want to specify," she said."

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

#128

Post by PlzSnow »

Jedd wrote: post #114
PlzSnow wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm still baffled by your arguments. We live in a modern democratic society. Professionals in the law system examined the Assange case and decided that there was a case to answer. Just because someone on the Internet is "dubious about it" doesn't change that, and I would never want to live in a society where it did.

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

#129

Post by honeybooboo123 »

PlzSnow wrote: post #107
Jedd wrote: 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?

Because due process doesn't apply when your rulers don't want it to.

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

#130

Post by honeybooboo123 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #64
barrkel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had two motorcycles stolen in the UK. The police gave me a crime reference number and sent out a victim support letter; that was the sum total of their apparent effort.

Well, presumably they'll also have placed the VIN (or equivalent) on their watchlist. But aside from that – what do you expect to happen in the case of a crime like that?

We'd expect the police to do their best to catch the filthy criminals, just like in the movies!
Post reply on HN