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

Assange loses extradition appeal

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#21

Post by lolcraft »

jgrahamc wrote: post #12

This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of. He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system…

Agree, this is ridiculous:

> But Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said she could challenge the Supreme Court's decision because it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties - such as those concerning extradition - should be implemented, and this had not been discussed during the hearing.

Watch and see. Now his lawyer will put into question the very meaning of implementing an international treaty. All in order to prevent a possible rapist, who just happens to be just a little less famous than Polanski, from being charged. Only the Chewbacca defense could make this sillier.

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#22

Post by peterstjohn »

sneak wrote: post #20
jgrahamc wrote: post #12

This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of. He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system…

Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans. The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/...…

I still don't understand this, though. Under the US-UK extradition treaty (signed into law in the UK in 2003, in the US in 2006, I think), all the US has to do is provide the UK with reasonable suspicion that Assange committed a crime within the US, and the British would hand him over. Is the Swedish extradition treaty vastly different?

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#23

Post by [deleted] »

zbuc wrote: post #19
josephcooney wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't he be questioned in Britain?

"Swedish law requires a person to be physically present before charges can be laid, so this can only happen once Mr Assange is on Swedish territory." http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf That's just how their justice system works. He is accused of committing the crimes in Sweden, so in Sweden shall he be questioned.

[deleted]

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#24

Post by okamiueru »

lolcraft wrote: post #21
jgrahamc wrote: post #12

This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of. He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system…

Agree, this is ridiculous: > But Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said she could challenge the Supreme Court's decision because it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties - such as those concerning extradition - should be implemented, and this had not been discussed during the hearing. Watch and see. Now his lawyer will put into question the very meaning of implementing an international treaty. All in orde…

You do know the circumstances around the "accusation" right? I mean, it seems to me some people here are willfully ignorant. I despise willful ignorance. Assange hasn't been charged with any crime. If you looked at the actual circumstances, you would find the comparison to Polanski who indeed raped a 13 year old girl, is highly unfair, if not for a lack of word, stupid. Oh, and the sex was consensual according to the women... though because of Swedish legal definitions, it can still technically be called rape.

The tweets of the two women in question expressed ulterior motives for going to the police. They also made tweets that contradict the "rape". Not only that, but the Swedish prosecutor named Assange publicly before having stood trial (and if you're not aware of it, the accused of rape cases is to be anonymous until he has been found guilty... if not, defamation becomes all too easy).

It all smells so fishy, and I have no idea why people on HN don't think highly of him. That they would fall for such an obvious smear campaign, well.. I'm disappointed. WikiLeaks is probably one of the very few journalistic entities that fulfill the important role journalism was intended to have in a democracy. The majority of other news are regurgitated and preprocessed opinions on unimportant events. The bread an circus for the masses, if you will.

---

Now that said, the thing I don't understand is why he doesn't willingly go to Sweden to get rid of the bullshit trials (note that it was already called such by the Swedish prosecutor who threw away the case). Perhaps it is based on principle? That the whole extradition is based on no real reason? That the reason provided for the extradition (questioning regarding the case), does not engender confidence, since alternative ways of doing an interview (webcam, etc) were suggested and rejected by the Swedish authorities.

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#25

Post by gouranga »

aaronsw wrote: post #6
[deleted] wrote: post #5

[deleted]

"Swedish law requires a person to be physically present before charges can be laid, so this can only happen once Mr Assange is on Swedish territory." http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf

They don't need to charge him. They can just extradite to USA for questioning at which point on USA soil they can do what they want with him even if it's not questioning.

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#26

Post by impldefined »

peterstjohn wrote: post #22
sneak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans. The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/...…

I still don't understand this, though. Under the US-UK extradition treaty (signed into law in the UK in 2003, in the US in 2006, I think), all the US has to do is provide the UK with reasonable suspicion that Assange committed a crime within the US, and the British would hand him over. Is the Swedish extradition treaty vastly different?

That's just it, he committed no crime against the US. He might be tried for treason if American but he isn't. This is why they wouldn't want to extradite him via any official channels but rather use Sweden's "temporary surrender" clause to get him extradited with no trial or oversight at all.

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#27

Post by metatronscube »

morsch wrote: post #2

The Guardian has some live coverage, but I figured the Beeb is a more authoritative source. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assa...

If you mean social position/power as well as being state sanctioned and run then yes, the mighty BBC is more authoritative but if you are looking for the accurate up to date unbiased details then I would choose the Guardian any day.

Thanks for the link.

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#28

Post by junto »

zbuc wrote: post #18
junto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polanski is also a different kettle of fish compared to Assange. Polanski has various friends in high places. Assange has few. Also, Assange managed to piss off almost every single branch of the US government. Rather than merely shooting himself in the foot, he blew his entire leg off with a shotgun. Not to say what he was trying to achieve wasn't noble. In my personal opinion state corruption still needs to be expos…

I am, however, confused at how the US can charge him for espionage, given that he's not a US citizen. It makes sense that he would be extradited to Sweden -- he's accused of committing a crime(well, 2) while he was present in the country. I don't see the same applying to what he's accused of in the US.

Lots of non-US citizens have been charged and found guilty of espionage by the US. The cold war is full of examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Soviet_and_Russian_e...

I'm not sure whether you have to be physically present in the US to be guilty of espionage. The game has changed somewhat. It used to be that you had send someone to sneak inside buildings in the middle of the night, taking photos of secret documents on James bond mini-cameras hidden in fake fountain pens.

These days, you just hack the computer network remotely, or write a computer worm that monitors the 'good stuff' and sends it home to 'mama' in Fort Meade.

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#29

Post by [deleted] »

peterstjohn wrote: post #22
sneak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans. The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/...…

I still don't understand this, though. Under the US-UK extradition treaty (signed into law in the UK in 2003, in the US in 2006, I think), all the US has to do is provide the UK with reasonable suspicion that Assange committed a crime within the US, and the British would hand him over. Is the Swedish extradition treaty vastly different?

[deleted]

Re: Assange loses extradition appeal

#30

Post by [deleted] »

okamiueru wrote: post #24
lolcraft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, this is ridiculous: > But Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said she could challenge the Supreme Court's decision because it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties - such as those concerning extradition - should be implemented, and this had not been discussed during the hearing. Watch and see. Now his lawyer will put into question the very meaning of implementing an international treaty. All in orde…

You do know the circumstances around the "accusation" right? I mean, it seems to me some people here are willfully ignorant. I despise willful ignorance. Assange hasn't been charged with any crime. If you looked at the actual circumstances, you would find the comparison to Polanski who indeed raped a 13 year old girl, is highly unfair, if not for a lack of word, stupid. Oh, and the sex was consensual according to the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN