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

Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#131

Post by inflatableDodo »

monocasa wrote: post #128
inflatableDodo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even just refueling is something the MSPs demand action over. Yep, Members of the Scottish Parliament have been pissed off. Scottish police were blocked from doing anything however. Westminster unfortunately rides roughshod over both of them and has been a supporter of the rendition flights, as noted in the article from The Times. >"The CIA has been accused of using Scottish airports to facilitate the transfer of te…

Yes, it's contentious and causes a huge deal everytime it hits the media, but ultimately they allow refueling. They don't allow extraordinary rendition starting from the UK.

We do grab people and then give them to the USA, help set up the bases, let our airports be used for the flights, our officers take part in interrogations and our soldiers guard the whole thing while blocking our own police from investigating it, but no, we don't generally practice extraordinary rendition starting from the UK and ending up in the USA, for one thing our diplomatic agreements and cooperation mean it isn't neccessary.

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#132

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

fit2rule wrote: post #123
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're telling me everything Wikileaks has ever produced has proven to be demonstrably true? Because I don't know how you'd prove many extraordinary claims false. It's hard to prove the negative.

Got an example of something that Wikileaks has released that ended up being 'false'? Because Wikileaks isn't in the business of releasing 'opinions' or 'speculation' - it releases data and material facts, for the general public to make its own conclusions. Ask yourself this question: why is it so hard for you to consider that Wikileaks never lied to you ? Who has convinced you that it is an organization that cannot b…

I'm extraordinarily concerned if someone believes any source above reproach. Has every wikileaks leak been proven true, is it that there are a ton of unproven ones, and a handful of verified? What's the ratio?

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#133

Post by ChrisSD »

Tycho wrote: post #121
ChrisSD wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden followed all normal procedures for an extradition request within the EU. Both the UK high court and the appeals court ruled he should be extradited to answer for accusations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. If he feared the US, why the heck did he flee from Sweden to the UK in the first place? The UK is notorious for its one sided extradition treaty with the US.

Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit. Here's some of the ridiculous things: * the women admit to s…

Again, he was scared of the US so he fled to the UK. That makes sense to you?

He had sex with someone who is asleep. Some who is asleep cannot consent. You understand that this is rape, right? The women involved does still want to take him to court and the Swedish Prosecution Authority is currently reviewing the matter. The other allegations have passed the statue of limitation and cannot be prosecuted.

To be clear, the alleged offenses happened between 13 August 2010 and 18 August 2010. They were reported to the police on 20 August. Assange was interviewed on the 30th and had left Sweden by 27th September 2010, after an arrest warrant had been issued. They had tried to interview him before he left.

On the 26 November 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued after hearings in both Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal (in which Assange's lawyer was present). The arrest warrant was issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Subsequently this warrant was certified by the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency. It was also upheld by a district judge on 24 February 2011 and by the High Court on 2 November 2011.

So it's been thoroughly reviewed by two legal systems that both agree there is a case to answer.

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#134

Post by ChrisSD »

Tycho wrote: post #130
DanBC wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The case was ridiculous. So ridiculous he chose to hide in a broom cupboard for yearss rather than go to court for a trial.

He was hiding from extradition to the US. It's incredible that this is not obvious to you.

Hiding... in the UK initially. He would have been safer from the US in almost any other country aside from the US itself.

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#135

Post by Tycho »

ChrisSD wrote: post #133
Tycho wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit. Here's some of the ridiculous things: * the women admit to s…

Again, he was scared of the US so he fled to the UK. That makes sense to you? He had sex with someone who is asleep. Some who is asleep cannot consent. You understand that this is rape, right? The women involved does still want to take him to court and the Swedish Prosecution Authority is currently reviewing the matter. The other allegations have passed the statue of limitation and cannot be prosecuted. To be clear,…

It is not established that he 'fled' to the UK, versus leaving with permission, and obviously if they really wanted to they could have stopped him leaving.

It's not clear what exactly the accusation is or what the injured party actually wants. But the odds are that this is a ruse.

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#136

Post by Tycho »

ChrisSD wrote: post #134
Tycho wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was hiding from extradition to the US. It's incredible that this is not obvious to you.

Hiding... in the UK initially. He would have been safer from the US in almost any other country aside from the US itself.

I doubt it. Look at Gary Mckinnon. I would rather be in the UK than Sweden. But regardless, he was on Ecuadorian soil.

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#137

Post by u10 »

Tycho wrote: post #121
ChrisSD wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden followed all normal procedures for an extradition request within the EU. Both the UK high court and the appeals court ruled he should be extradited to answer for accusations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. If he feared the US, why the heck did he flee from Sweden to the UK in the first place? The UK is notorious for its one sided extradition treaty with the US.

Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit. Here's some of the ridiculous things: * the women admit to s…

> the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially

It follows that using your logic, a husband cannot rape his wife, no matter the circumstances, which is not only sexist but incredibly stupid logic

>the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station

Why does that matter?

>the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor

This happens all the time

>once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist

Interpol is not just for terrorists

>for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward

That's not how Swedish law works, he does not deserve special treatment

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#138

Post by saalweachter »

guitarbill wrote: post #28
Veen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't said what is dishonest? Did they do their sums wrong? Did it not cost £16m?

To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.

I will note that the "secret arrest warrant" (grand jury indictment) appears to have only existed for a little over a year; there is currently no evidence that one existed for the majority of Assange's residence in the embassy.

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#139

Post by [deleted] »

_petronius wrote: post #122
leereeves wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ecuador warned the US they would be kicking him out of the embassy, but did not warn Sweden Ecuador hardly needed to notify Sweden. It was international news. The Guardian article from five months ago that I linked was just one of many. "No one in the Swedish government reads international news" is not a credible explanation. I see two possible explanations: 1) Sweden doesn't place a high priority on prosecuting fa…

I don't think either of your "possible explanations" are borne out by the evidence, but then there are a dozen other explanations that are both more plausible, and whose truth-potential is not dependent on whether they make sense to you personally.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

#140

Post by astine »

GenghisSean wrote: post #118
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand we have reason to distrust the mainstream monolith, but I don't see why I should trust Wikileaks. You're not providing evidence for, just arguments against. "Because it's not mainstream" gains it nothing. So is Infowars.

I've seen two arguments on why to trust Wikileaks. Wikileaks itself likes to say nothing they have published has been disputed as being incorrect. Since 2006 they have never published a retraction/correction and Wikileaks claims that no one has proven a factual inaccuracy in any of the documents they published. I don't know of any factual inaccuracies myself, but if you know of any I would be interested to hear about…

"Another weaker argument is the incredible lengths various governments have gone to suppress Wikileaks."

This is an extremely weak argument. Various governments have gone through great lengths to suppress neo nazi propoanda but that's not because the neo nazis are actually speaking truth to power. Just because you are the underdog doesn't make you the hero.

More importantly, the argument begs the question: Who's to say that the US government is corrupt? Wikileaks is to say. How do we know that Wikileaks is telling the truth? Because the US government wants them gone. Why does the US government want Wikileaks gone? Because it is corrupt.

"Wikileaks itself likes to say nothing they have published has been disputed as being incorrect"

How would you fact-check Wikileaks? The majority of what they publish is leaked documents. The issue with those is not veracity but authenticity. Are all of the documents on Wikileaks authentic? Maybe but how would you know? You'd have to trace the source of the various leaks and Wikileaks doesn't usually share that.

"Since 2006 they have never published a retraction/correction and Wikileaks claims that no one has proven a factual inaccuracy in any of the documents they published."

This doesn't speak to their favor in my mind. Newspapers publish retractions not to cover for lies but to correct mistakes. Nearly everyone makes mistakes. If a newspaper doesn't publish any retractions ever, it's not because they have an amazing track record of journalistic excellence, but because they are unwilling to admit to their mistakes and makes them less trustworthy not more.

Wikileaks is not a newspaper and what they publish is not so much factual claims as simply leaked material as they receive it, so talking about factual claims in Wikileaks material doesn't really make much sense anyway.

"Wikileaks claims that no one has proven a factual inaccuracy in any of the documents they published."

What does this really mean? They published thousands of US diplomatic cables. Does Wikileaks really mean to claim that no US diplomat ever made a mistake or lied in any of those cables? I doubt it. Are they only talking about secret programs that they revealed? How could we verify that? This has the quality of forcing one to disprove a conspiracy theory. What's their standard of proof? Can you prove the Freemasons don't control the US government?

Post reply on HN