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

171–180 of 287 posts

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

#171

Post by caf »

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…

The entire idea of charging Assange with espionage against the United States is ridiculous - he owes no duty to that nation. What's next, Russia demanding the extradition of CIA analysts so that they can be charged with revealing Russia's state secrets while working at a desk in Virginia?

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

#172

Post by vidarh »

elemeno wrote: post #95
TallGuyShort wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions? If he's not guilty, AND this isn't politically motivated, why not just go back? If this is actually politically motivated, then your question is fundamentally no different from "if you're not a terrorist, why don't you just submit to wiretaps / TSA body scans / etc..." If I was him and I was innocent, I would probably not expect to face fa…

Sweden is part of the EU and any extradition from Sweden to the US would have to permissible under EU Human Rights laws, which specifically deny extradition if the extradited person could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of the accusations they're being extradited for. Given that the US has filled no charges against him, made no extradition requests to Sweden or the UK, and that there seems to be a fai…

Sweden has participated in illegal rendition with the US (and admitted as much). It is naive to assume that if they were prepared to violate their own laws in order to bend over for US interests, that they will somehow worry all that much about following extradition procedures for Assange.

It also means the lack of public charges (the repeated claims is that there might be a secret grand jury indictment), nor a lack of a public extradition request is pretty much irrelevant.

It's not like Sweden or the US announced in advance they planned to illegally take a couple of Egyptians from Sweden and hand them over to Egyptian authorities for torture. But they did.

Incidentally, this is a good reason for Assange to prefer to be in the UK vs. Sweden - the UK seems less inclined to violate their own laws in this manner.

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

#173

Post by fleitz »

youngtaff wrote: post #99
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…

The 1987 Act was a response to the Libyan embassy siege. Let's face it if Assange does go to Ecuador then the ambassador is going with him.

Assange doing his thing via wikileaks is better than 10 diplomats in how he promotes governmental transparency, and more equitable relations between the people and their governors.

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

#174

Post by mkramlich »

vidarh wrote: post #161
philwelch wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is the second comment by you where you are accusing someone of misogeny or justifying rape without basis. I think you should be careful about talking about moral high ground.

thank you

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

#175

Post by cjensen »

_delirium wrote: post #168
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."

That part, jumping bail by walking into an embassy, isn't all that unusual. China is worried enough about it that they sometimes shadow politically sensitive detainees who're out on bail to make sure they don't get close to any western embassies in Beijing.

Do the Chinese who might seek asylum also wait until the Court rules against them?

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

#176

Post by philwelch »

mkramlich wrote: post #163
philwelch wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't. > It outright justifies rape. I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't. I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said,…

> I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.

I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally.

That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.

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

#177

Post by caf »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #17
k-mcgrady wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange." If they do that it wouldn't be an act of war, it would be legal. It definitely sets a terrible precedent though and even if i…

Do you honestly believe Ecuador will initiate hostilities against NATO in order to protect a foreign citizen from due legal process in that persons home country? It would surely be less effort and risk to lift him from the roof by helicopter and whisk him to a waiting jet James Bond style. The second option seems far more likely to me.

There's no current legal process against Assange in his home country.

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

#178

Post by fleitz »

elemeno wrote: post #98
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…

And the world tends to have different views on requesting asylum due to political persecution vs requesting it to avoid accusations that you've committed a fairly serious criminal act.

Just to clarify things there is no charge against Assange. Assange isn't accused of any crime.

Perhaps if there were Ecuadorian charges against Assange to which he could plead guilty and thus be a fugitive from international law, which would obviously require he be sent to Ecuador to serve time before going to Sweden for questioning.

I wonder how Britain would feel about it's international obligations under those circumstances.

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

#179

Post by philwelch »

vidarh wrote: post #159
MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Unfortunately, it's all too easy to intimidate victims of rape into not cooperating with attempts at prosecution. If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden.

Also:

> woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent

By definition that's rape.

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

#180

Post by devdas »

philwelch wrote: post #63
[deleted] wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

If the endgame was to extradite Assange to the United States, why go through Sweden? Wouldn't it be easier just to extradite him directly from the UK to the US? It doesn't make any sense.

Extraditing from the UK would involving a court case. Untrue for Sweden, which has a fast track extradition agreement with the US. http://thepeoplesrecord.com/post/25523258635/swedish-extradi...
Post reply on HN