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

121–130 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#121

Post by [deleted] »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #101
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got this far: Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. ... and stopped reading. Assange is wanted for arrest --- it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so. There are lots of great comments on Reddit, for whatever it's worth.

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#122

Post by tomjen3 »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #49
thom wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general gauge, I think a lot of people are hugely offended by the idea that some forms of non-consensual sex aren't rape.

Under what insane set of morals or laws is having sex with an unconscious person not considered rape?

Never had your girlfriend wake you up with a blowjob?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#123

Post by Dylan16807 »

nollidge wrote: post #76
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…

> everyone has a certain picture of it in their mind. Which is impossibly irrelevant. > consentual sex, supposedly started without a condom (contrary to agreement) If it's contrary to agreement in whole or in part, it's not consensual. > after the women agreed. Or she acquiesced. (EDIT: as in, surrendered resistance)

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, they still agreed to it. It's an awful behavior but I don't think it should be given the title of 'rape'. No one is being forced upon, whether through physical or psychological means.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#124

Post by tomelders »

tptacek wrote: post #30
tomelders wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, this is just completely wrong. Sweden, under the ECHR, cannot extradite people to face the death penalty either.

Oh, that's right, I forgot about the European Convention on Human Rights, I was too distracted by Sweden's consitent breaking of the rules by performing extraordinary renditions on Americas behalf.

But yeah, your probably right, there's no way Sweden will break the rules this time.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#125

Post by tptacek »

marvin wrote: post #112
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…

To answer your question about the article itself, some of its points are good. Point one ("the charges would not be rape under UK law") and point four ("Sweden could try Assange in London") seem both good and relevant. But like I said, they don't seem to have a lot of influence on the heart of the matter in this case. And I don't think it makes sense to discuss the other points without looking at the whole picture. T…

Ecuador is trying (a) to piss off the US and (b) to rally political support within Ecuador based on a phony issue, so as to avoid attention to Ecuador's very real problems with repression.

The idea that Ecuador (of all countries) would be taking a principaled stand against repression is actually the one that beggars belief, based on the recent history of the Correa administration.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#126

Post by freehunter »

sigzero wrote: post #105
freehunter wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well non-consensual doesn't necessarily imply unconscious. There are levels of force that could be considered rape, although some countries has laws on the books saying only women can be raped. I don't want look that up for proof at the moment, as I'm sitting at work.

I don't think you even came close to answer his question.

Where did his parent mention unconscious? He specifically called that out, so I responded with "unconscious isn't the only form of rape, and what people might call rape isn't always legally rape".

His question was a fallacy, I just pointed that out.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#127

Post by olifante »

tptacek wrote: post #113
olifante wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#128

Post by tptacek »

olifante wrote: post #107
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got this far: Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. ... and stopped reading. Assange is wanted for arrest --- it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so. There are lots of great comments on Reddit, for whatever it's worth.

The author of the reddit comment says something about that: Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. While the British High Court has decided that the current advancement of the Swedish procedure is equivalent to being charged in the UK, I consider this ruling to be an aberration; the common-law steeped High Court failed to understand a finer point of the civil-law influence…

This, directly from the Swedish High Court ruling, contradicts that:

    "7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be 
    taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian 
    Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". 
    It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden 
    and has been interrogated.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#129

Post by tomjen3 »

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…

Look at what we know about the case. Look at the girls hanging out with him _after_ the supposed rape. Does that sound like the actions of a rape victim to you?

Add to that the case has already been dropped by the first prosecutor _and_ the girls didn't want to prosecute him for rape (they merely wanted to know if they could force him to take an STD test).

Oh and supposedly the new prosecutor is friends with one of the girls!

Sorry, but this case stinks.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#130

Post by toyg »

scott_s wrote: post #97
lisper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's a straw man. The logic is: because the U.S. has a track record of punishing people deemed by the executive branch as threats to national security without due process of law (up to and including summary execution of its own citizens without so much as a formal charge -- e.g. Anwar Al Awlaki) it is not unreasonable for Assange to suppose that he might also be subject to such treatment if he happens to fall u…

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. Extraditing him after he's already been convicted by another country on character-smearing charges would be a page-ten item. (Also, it's an electoral year in the US, and Obama has enough problems with his own base as it is.)

To be honest, their current strategy is working wonders: the entirety of mainstream press (and not just them, even people who should know better like Amnesty International) has clearly decided he's a twat and does not deserve being defended. They are now covering these proceedings as a soap-opera in which he's a delirious dostoevskjian character running like a headless chicken. It doesn't seem to matter that a (idiotic) British government is so angered that is threatening to destroy the holiest diplomatic principle of them all.

Even assuming Assange is guilty, the current position of the Foreign Secretary, Rt. Hon. William Hague (Conservatives) is so appallingly overboard that either he's a complete nutter/idiot/incompetent hack (which he might as well be, to be fair, despite his first-class grammar-school education), or there's more to this story than a common case of rape.

Post reply on HN