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

UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 287 posts

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#141

Post by ucee054 »

youngtaff wrote: post #57

About time we started applying the pressure... Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions? As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused' The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite…

If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US?

Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#142

Post by davorak »

cjensen wrote: post #100
_delirium wrote: post #26

Bizarre. The usual script for these kinds of things is a standoff where the host country denies passage out of the embassy, so the person being harbored in the embassy is stuck there until either that person gives up, the embassy gives them up, or some kind of deal for passage or exchange is struck. Threatening to the invade the embassy isn't usually on the table, at least in peacetime.

The difference is that Assange did not simply ask for asylum. He agreed to go through the British Court system including posting bail under the solemn promise to obey the court. Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."

> Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."

I do not see why this is always the case, care to elaborate?

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#143

Post by larrys »

_delirium wrote: post #26

Bizarre. The usual script for these kinds of things is a standoff where the host country denies passage out of the embassy, so the person being harbored in the embassy is stuck there until either that person gives up, the embassy gives them up, or some kind of deal for passage or exchange is struck. Threatening to the invade the embassy isn't usually on the table, at least in peacetime.

"embassy is stuck there until "

Or of course they need medical attention that can't be taken care of inside the embassy.

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#144

Post by vidarh »

objclxt wrote: post #121
mkramlich wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom. bingo. that's why, in part, this is clearly about something other than the alleged sex incidents. it's pretty obviously about Wikileaks, trying to impede/stop/punish it and him.

That's nonsense. You only have to look at Roman Polanski, who fled rape charges to a foreign jurisdiction and the amount of press generated over that. The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.

It is worth pointing out that the women in question did not go to the police to file a complaint. Nor have charges been taken out (there is an arrest warrant for questioning on suspicion).

This case was pursued by the prosecutor at the instigation of Swedish police, after a previous prosecutor had initially closed the case stating that there was no indication anything illegal had taken place.

The women in question does not under Swedish law legally have any say in whether or not the case is pursued or not - if a prosecutor believes a crime has taken place, it is their duty to pursue the case in the interest of the state, not on behalf of the women.

(What does make this case stink, though, is that one of the women in question at one point prior to the case against Assange published a blog post about leveraging this exact method to "legally" take revenge against a lover who she found had was involved with someone else)

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#145

Post by ucee054 »

objclxt wrote: post #115

I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the... Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism…

For the second time:

If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US?

Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#146

Post by arctangent »

ryanhuff wrote: post #80
jere wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may not answer your question, but it's somewhat related as it kind of did lead to war against Iran (at least that's what wikipedia tells me). >The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in su…

Sorry, but which war are you referring to?

jere is suggesting that it led to Iraq declaring war on Iran, as mentioned here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#Aftermath

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#147

Post by philwelch »

mkramlich wrote: post #139
philwelch wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.

if one were a rude asshole, one would make the comment you just made

The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent is pure misogyny. It outright justifies rape. I'm not going to give you a pass on making comments like that out of politeness. Ideas like that need to be called out for what they are.

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#148

Post by mkramlich »

objclxt wrote: post #121
mkramlich wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom. bingo. that's why, in part, this is clearly about something other than the alleged sex incidents. it's pretty obviously about Wikileaks, trying to impede/stop/punish it and him.

That's nonsense. You only have to look at Roman Polanski, who fled rape charges to a foreign jurisdiction and the amount of press generated over that. The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.

> That's nonsense.

that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds.

on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed by rude comments. something about the culture and the kind of people it attracts, perhaps an increasingly young male techie demographic, dunno.

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#149

Post by youngtaff »

ucee054 wrote: post #145
objclxt wrote: post #115

I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the... Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism…

For the second time: If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US? Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.

From memory the Swedish prosecutor first requested he came back only when he refused did it all go down the extradition route.

If Assange was so afraid Sweden would send him to the US why did he go there in the first place?

Re: UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

#150

Post by belorn »

objclxt wrote: post #125
guelo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecuador's justification is that they believe there is a chance that the USA is planning to extradite him from Sweeden and then charge him with a crime which is punishable by death. Ecuador believes that a death sentence is a violation of Assange's human rights.

Which is of course a highly suspect claim to make, since both Sweden and the UK do not extradite for crimes that are subject to the death penalty.

Sweden has done it before with the same laws that exist now. Simply put, there is no punishment if they would extradite Assange to the US.
Post reply on HN