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

151–160 of 287 posts

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

#151

Post by philwelch »

rosser wrote: post #133
bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be more to the point to say that they are harboring him from espionage charges. We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom.

But he's not being shielded from any charges. The extradition request is for questioning ; he simply hasn't been charged yet . It's his story that, upon extradition to Sweden, the Swedes will turn around and hand him over to the US to be Gitmo'ed with extreme prejudice, but that's all it is thus far: his story. That said, it's certainly plausible; he's mightily pissed off the US government, which does seem to have a…

> Personally, I'd vastly prefer he not be subject to "extraordinary rendition"

If he was subject to extraordinary rendition, they'd have him by now. That's the whole point of extraordinary rendition.

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

#152

Post by philwelch »

mkramlich wrote: post #148
objclxt wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Criticizing people for being impolite when you're all but justifying raping women isn't exactly arguing from a moral high ground.

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

#153

Post by guelo »

tokenadult wrote: post #87

How rapidly people forget their history. Britain has a specific law on the subject because of an incident that occurred in Britain within my memory, a shooting of a police officer from within the grounds of the Libyan embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from contin…

Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law for non-citizens. Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating Assange under the Espionage Act[1]. Joe Biden has called him a terrorist [2]. Others have called for his assassination [3]. Sweden was involved in the CIA's illegal rendition program and sent people to be tortured in Egypt[4]. Assange has every reason to fear for his life.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tec...

[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in...

[4] http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...

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

#154

Post by vidarh »

philwelch wrote: post #14
billswift wrote: post #4

If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.

It could always be both. Assange is probably persona non grata to the British authorities, but even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden. At most, the British authorities are reacting opportunistically to an otherwise valid, legitimate charge.

There's been a complaint filed against the Swedish prosecutor over this case by third parties (two journalists) alleging judicial misconduct and serious breaches of Swedish law over amongst others her insistent refusal to send anyone to the UK to interview Assange, so it remains to be seem just how valid and legitimate this whole thing is.

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

#155

Post by cjensen »

davorak wrote: post #142
cjensen wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To receive bail, you must pledge to return to court and be bound by its decisions. Assange broke his pledge when the court ruled against him.

You can choose asylum or you can choose to let the court decide. Trying to get the best of both worlds is mere gamesmanship and lacks any pretense at integrity.

This is why, for example, Roman Polanski's lawyers have been refused a hearing on his matter in the US. You have to choose between being a fugitive or being tried in court. You don't get to say "I'd like the Court to find me innocent before I stop being a fugitive."

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

#156

Post by femto »

youngtaff wrote: post #96
TillE wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the way the US government has behaved over the past ten years, the fear is not irrational. Also, we're talking about the possibility of extradition to the US from Sweden, not from the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...

Yes but if the US want him they can get a US judge to decide he has a case to answer and then seek his extradition from the UK, they don't need to go through Sweden.

Maybe the clue is in the BBC story?

"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said."

Perhaps Sweden has fewer safeguards built into its extradition laws?

What happens if the US has already secretly convicted and sentenced Assange in his absence? Maybe even the death sentence? It might be the case that the UK's extradition laws with "extensive human rights safeguards" would prevent extradition to the US, but Sweden's laws wouldn't. Extradition to Sweden is a way for the UK to step around their own human rights laws.

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

#157

Post by delinka »

guelo wrote: post #153
tokenadult wrote: post #87

How rapidly people forget their history. Britain has a specific law on the subject because of an incident that occurred in Britain within my memory, a shooting of a police officer from within the grounds of the Libyan embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from contin…

Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law for non-citizens. Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating Assange under the Espionage Act[1]. Joe Biden has called him a terrorist [2]. Others have called for his assassination [3]. Sweden was involved in the CIA's illegal rendition program and sent people to be tortured in Egypt[4]. Assange has every reason to fear for his…

Let's not pretend that it's a problem only with the current administration and his political party. The previous one found the civil rules of law rather inconvenient also and waved them off just as easily.

I am not arguing with your statement (you have said nothing wrong) but I'd like to head off the potential "Obama/Democrats is/are the problem!" rants.

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

#158

Post by quink »

objclxt wrote: post #130
quink wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this. You may have missed this bit in the article, at the very end: "An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy, was rejected."

So? Sweden is well within their rights to refuse that offer. They have an outstanding, legitimate European Arrest Warrant that was subject to many appeals, all of which were denied. I do not blame them for refusing that offer: are you suggesting if they did interview Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily? I doubt it.

Sweden has the option, under their law, to interview someone over a video link, and it does the job just as well. Edit: They also have permission to come to the UK and interview him there.

They have been offered many times over by now, but have refused. Its refusal is probably going to cause a major diplomatic incident between two different sovereign nations that has the potential to violate some serious stuff.

Does any of this sound, if not normal, even remotely reasonable to you?

If the prosecutor had any real interest in seeing justice for these women any time soon, he would have done said interview months and months and months ago. Instead, if Julian Assange is guilty, then it's been an unnecessarily long drawn out process for the victims. Instead, the prosecutor is saying by this that he has no real interest in the case, but is just trying to get Julian Assange to Sweden, for easier extradition to the US. It's pretty known, through The Pirate Bay not least of all, that the Swedish justice system is at least a bit under the control of the US. Not unlike New Zealand's.

> if they did interview Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily?

How does that matter at this stage? Let's assume that Sweden does find him guilty, and it's pretty likely that they will (guilty or innocent)... Julian Assange will lose at least a bit of support once he is a convicted criminal, so there's a win for the prosecutor over the current situation there too.

Edit: Furthermore, they sent a letter, which says "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."

The only way that this can happen is by invoking the "Under National Security" clause of said act. If Julian Assange is arrested in the embassy, then the UK must consider him a national security risk for this arrest to be valid under UK law. If that happens, it's a very, very serious bending, if not breaking, of the law.

Edit 2: And lastly, Julian Assange presented himself to the Swedish authorities before, in Sweden, for questioning. But they decided that they weren't going to press charges. That was on the 30th of August 2010, almost two years ago. I quote from Wikipedia: "On 1 September 2010, Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest."

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

#159

Post by vidarh »

MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #128
mkramlich wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are no rape charges. rape != sexual assault. 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. also there are no charges. merely an accusation. and they merely want to "question" him, which of course they could do easily without forcing him to go to Sweden. The whole thing is a pretty blatant sham, a masquerade for some other goal…

From an article about the charges [1] "...one of the women alleges that Assange behaved threateningly with her and held her down to prevent her from reaching for a condom. He did end up wearing one, but she thinks he ripped it and deliberately ejaculated inside her. He also later rubbed up against her with his pants off, she says, against her will. The other alleged victim claims that she struggled with Assange over…

You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges. One of the women are now refusing to sign any past statements regarding the case. The other appears to have left Sweden. At tehe time prosecutor reviewed the statements and made it clear the full statements did not imply a crime had taken place.

Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women.

There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.

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

#160

Post by delinka »

eurleif wrote: post #120
delinka wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without charges (i.e. being placed under arrest) he has every right to freedom of movement. Ergo he can answer (or not answer) questions wherever he damn well pleases. If that's so inconvenient for law enforcement, charge the fucker and arrest him. I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.

He was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.

Had he remained under arrest, how could he have sought asylum with some other embassy?

"Mr. Copper, I've decided to seek asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy..." "Well, Mr. Assange, I sure hate to see you go but I guess I'll drive you there myself."

Post reply on HN