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

Assange in Court

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 173 posts

Re: Assange in Court

#141

Post by UncleSlacky »

matthewheath wrote: post #124
UncleSlacky wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, she never had diplomatic immunity - her husband works for the NSA, and was not on the official list of diplomats (those whose credentials are presented and accepted at the Court of St James).

You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are chefs, drivers, etc. who have diplomatic immunity but are not on the official list (because that would unreasonably lengthen it). Additionally, the RAF base her husband was stationed at is legally considered an annex of the US Embassy in London, so arguably sh…

There's an interesting analysis here which (mostly) agrees with you, with the proviso that we only have Boris Johnson's government's word (for all that's worth!) that she was covered by a form of immunity:

https://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/the-sacoolas-affair-diploma...

Re: Assange in Court

#142

Post by BLKNSLVR »

deelowe wrote: post #126
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed. (Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)

> It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. Can we just stop with this? Bringing this up distracts from the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with China or 'The West's' opinions of it. Regardless, is it not quite clear at this point that the issue is the elite of the world and not one specific nation?

I was hesitant to make the comment. However I decided to post it because the current political climate makes it relevant. The situation in Hong Kong, democracy, human rights abuses, it's all part of the current discussion-fabric of politics, and the treatment of Julian Assange fits perfectly as a piece in that puzzle, as does Snowden.

China are just the Eastasia of the moment, which is why that example was chosen.

Yes, the 'elite' of the world are a problem, if not THE problem. I'm trying to point out that the soft-power that 'The West' had, as a point of difference, as a rallying cry for the moral high-ground, is rapidly disappearing, and the lines separating Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are blurry at best and non-existent at worst.

I've said before, there are no good guys in the world of major political powers. It's sad, but it appears to be fairly plain fact, and potentially a human inevitability.

That's the issue at hand. The treatment of Assange is a symptom of it.

Re: Assange in Court

#143

Post by roenxi »

ben_w wrote: post #140
roenxi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> demonstrates that his claim “going to Sweden will cause me to be face the death penalty in the USA” is bogus Doesn't matter; what matters is what Assange thought would happen. He clearly thought that if he left the Embassy he would be promptly sent to the US. And lo and behold, it is shaping up that he was right. Did he know the exact legal mechanisms that would be employed - apparently not. But his overall read of…

It most certainly does matter, as he only went into that embassy in the first place to avoid going to Sweden. He would have been at least as safe in Sweden as in the UK, even if convicted.

> he only went into that embassy in the first place to avoid going to Sweden.

His attempt to avoid that was basically 10 years of self-imposed jail in Ecuador's embassy and his health gave out.

His decisions make sense if he thought he was at risk of being black-holed in America. They don't make sense if he thought he was only up for what Sweden is accusing him of. The Swedes are going to be charging with relatively minor non-violent crimes like otherwise-consensual sex without a condom.

Re: Assange in Court

#144

Post by roenxi »

oliwarner wrote: post #132
roenxi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that. It depends what they find him guilty of and what the sentence is. It is unacceptable to have someone on trial for openly telling the truth about what a foreign country is doing. He went into the Ecuadorian embassy saying that the Swedish case against him was basically trumped up and that he was going to be extradited to the United States. His justificati…

Well it seems there's always something else. He's a journalist. He's committed a political crime and that rules out extradition. He's being targeted by a state entity so this isn't fair. The only crime he may have committed is only a minor felony. He probably didn't know that it was a minor felony. Sweden weren't going to treat him fairly. She was a CIA plant. Uruguay didn't treat him fairly. The US won't treat him f…

You've identified 9 good reasons there.

There probably weren't any CIA plants involved and the US is unlikely to execute him.

Re: Assange in Court

#145

Post by knocte »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #119
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed. (Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)

The US having a corrupt and unaccountable elite class of politicians is not equivalent to China having a single dictator whose whims are law

It is not equivalent, it is worse, because in the west people have a false sense of security.

Re: Assange in Court

#146

Post by nkurz »

UncleSlacky wrote: post #141
matthewheath wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are chefs, drivers, etc. who have diplomatic immunity but are not on the official list (because that would unreasonably lengthen it). Additionally, the RAF base her husband was stationed at is legally considered an annex of the US Embassy in London, so arguably sh…

There's an interesting analysis here which (mostly) agrees with you, with the proviso that we only have Boris Johnson's government's word (for all that's worth!) that she was covered by a form of immunity: https://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/the-sacoolas-affair-diploma...

Since we are discussing this in the context of a Craig Murray article, here's Craig arguing that Sacoolas clearly lacks diplomatic immunity, and that an RAF Base in no way can be considered an annex of the US Embassy: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-....

Re: Assange in Court

#147

Post by AnimalMuppet »

tomp wrote: post #62
pjc50 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Swedish case was a separate issue; he hid in the embassy until the clock ran out on that. It's difficult to say how differently things would have gone if he'd simply gone to Sweden, but I would have expected them to be less likely to re-extradite than the UK. It's perfectly possible for the US to be overreaching in its "national security" prosecutions and also for Assange to have sexually assaulted someone in Swe…

This is a lie. "The clock ran out" only on some of the crimes he was accused of. Sweden simply dropped the case (i.e. decided not to proceed with extradition request) after he got out of the embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_... > the questioning pertained only to the open investigation of "lesser degree rape", whose statute of limitations is due to expire in 2020 > Following Assang…

It might be less inflammatory to say "this is incorrect" rather than "this is a lie".

Or do you have reason to think that pjc50 is deliberately lying?

Re: Assange in Court

#148

Post by friendlybus »

HeckFeck wrote: post #52
chippy wrote: post #9

"The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election" I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who…

The real gripe: he revealed too much. Now the political and security classes are just looking to make an example of him, to deter anyone else who would unveil their crimes and abuses.

I don't think anyone would look to repeat assange's life story at this point. A decade in semi self-imposed detention before being dragged before the judge and jailed for breach of bail and then a long drawn out court hearing. It hardly seems worth leaking state secrets that a lot of military/industry guys knew about anyway.

Re: Assange in Court

#149

Post by friendlybus »

kaolti wrote: post #110

Funny to read through the comments going back and forth on definitions of journalism and the details of extradition treaties. Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really. If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable, bu…

The difference might be life in prison and being able to see your kids in visits vs being killed on the spot in less civilized countries.

Re: Assange in Court

#150

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Escapado wrote: post #5

If even a quarter of this went down as described in the article this is seriously fucked up beyond measure.

I have no information about whether it went down that way or not. All I know is that this article set of my "extremely biased source" warnings quite strongly.

Is there any coverage of this in the mainstream press? Any verification of any of the content of this article? Anything?

Or are we getting all riled up because one person wrote an article with the intent of riling people up?

As I said, I don't know. I would welcome other sources.

Post reply on HN