UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by lrei » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:32 AM UTC

cobrausn wrote: post #106

guelo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like him. I guess we've probably swallowed different propaganda.

I tend not to swallow propaganda - I generally just dislike his behavior from the stories I've heard, from both friend and foe alike. He basically talked Manning into putting himself in the brig so he can go be the hero. I'm sure Manning was rotting in a cell while Assange was off having the sex (consensual or otherwise) that put the whole operation in jeopardy. I don't like him. Maybe that's all propaganda, and corr…

I believe that's incorrect. Manning wasn't talked into putting himself in the brick. Well not literally: he bragged about what he had done to someone on an internet chat. That someone was a convicted hacker that gave him up to law enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Chats_with_Adri...

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

#202

Post by EGreg » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:32 AM UTC

WildUtah wrote: post #184

delinka wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Obama ran on change but when he met the entrenched interests of executive branch Washington, he quickly refashioned himself into George Dubya Bush's third term. His civil rights policy, technology policy, tax policy, financial regulatory policy, and many others confirm it. The only major difference is that Obama always really wanted to catch Bin Laden and Bush -- openly -- didn't care. Now that that's over, he s…

I emphatically disagree. Obama and his administration seems way more competent, and willing to hear many sides, than Bush.

Obama tried to close guantanamo for years (see politifact) before giving up. He tried to end the trickle-down economics that Bush had (such as ending tax cuts for the rich) but conceded to the opposition somewhere around the US debt ceiling crisis.

His administration's technology initiatives are far ahead of Bush's (witness http://data.gov for instance, and requirement for all agencies to have an API).

His social programs are better thought out and actually save us money. Compare for example Bush's Medicare act in 2003 vs the CBO's assessment of Obama's Affordable Care Act which actually will save a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Or compare Bush's "gotta go cya later" bailout to the TARP that happened under Obama. His administration even set up http://recovery.gov to "track the money". Or compare the success that they had in bailing out the automakers. I would say that this administration is much more conscientious than the one with Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney and co.

Where Bush basically attacked Iraq with no emergency or multinational support ("coalition of the willing" was a sham), US involvement in Libya under Obama is closer to a Just War in that there is an emergency (dictator bombing his citizens), and it was also merely part of a multinational response, including a UN resolution, to a situation decried by human rights groups.

Where I agree with you is Obama's cavalier attitude toward executive privilege and rights granted by the NDAA. This represents an erosion of CIVIL liberties and security in America, which I am not happy about.

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

#203

Post by vidarh » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:39 AM UTC

youngtaff wrote: post #149

ucee054 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because he wasn't so afraid until he was brought in for questioning about rapes that neither of the alleged victims had actually filed claims about, only to be let go, just for another prosecutor to swoop in and reopen the case and try to get him to come back.

It might be total paranoia on his end, but he does certainly have reason to wonder what suddenly changed that made things go from a situation where one prosecutor closed the case stating that there was nothing that indicated a crime had taken place, to an entirely unrelated prosecutor from a different district deciding it was suddenly urgent to get him back into the country and then repeatedly escalating matters.

In fact, to the point where said prosecutor has now been faced with a formal complaint about judicial misconduct from a third party (two Swedish journalists) over her handling of this case.

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

#204

Post by rdtsc » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:43 AM UTC

caf wrote: post #171

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?

That is if the world treated US as a reasonable actor bound by laws and respecting human rights etc. (all the propaganda that it like to spew about itself).

Its actions have shown in the last 10+ years that is not the case. It has detained, tortured and killed people extra-judicially. Even its own citizens. Making any appeals to the the quality of it judicial process is a bit silly at the moment.

So in other words it might not make sense to be afraid of that particular threat "charge of espionage" but it is not unreasonable for him to fear in general.

Remember the case how that Russian ex-KGB agent was poisoned with Polonium? There is little doubt it was the Russians doing it and they also wanted to make sure there would be little doubt (except hard evidence) that they did, so that everyone learns to fear opposing or criticizing them in the future.

It seems to me Assange and Manning are prime candidates for being turned into example for all to see.

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

#205

Post by Steko » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:44 AM UTC

x03 wrote: post #132

I'm a little surprised by the HN crowd's desire to turn this into some kind of Michael Bay movie with diplomatic explosions left, right and centre: the phrase "act of war" is being dropped around as if some kind of violent confrontation would ever actually occur between Ecuador and the United Kingdom based on this. This is simply not the case; at most, it would be loosely unfair of the British government to 'bully' E…

"In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. "

Let's analyze this a bit further...

Next time a British citizen holes up in the British embassy over some sham charges at the hands of the local police what are the likely aftershocks of Britain bullying Ecuador over Assange.

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

#206

Post by rdtsc » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:45 AM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #202

WildUtah wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Obama ran on change but when he met the entrenched interests of executive branch Washington, he quickly refashioned himself into George Dubya Bush's third term. His civil rights policy, technology policy, tax policy, financial regulatory policy, and many others confirm it. The only major difference is that Obama always really wanted to catch Bin Laden and Bush -- openly -- didn't care. Now that that's over, he s…

I emphatically disagree. Obama and his administration seems way more competent, and willing to hear many sides, than Bush. Obama tried to close guantanamo for years (see politifact) before giving up. He tried to end the trickle-down economics that Bush had (such as ending tax cuts for the rich) but conceded to the opposition somewhere around the US debt ceiling crisis. His administration's technology initiatives are…

He promised a lot of those issues during his campaign and a lot of people voted for him. Yes, they are utterly stupid to believe that Obama can just sit down and start writing laws into the books, but that doesn't exactly prevent him from appearing as being a liar.

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

#207

Post by Steko » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:46 AM UTC

youngtaff wrote: post #149

ucee054 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is that even a real question? Obviously he wasn't scared in the first place.

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

#208

Post by turar » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:46 AM UTC

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…

> Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law for non-citizens.

Citizens too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Rahman_al-Awlaki (16 y.o. minor US citizen)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan

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

#209

Post by zimmerman » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:48 AM UTC

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.

Interesting parallel perhaps in the two cases: the accused was initially not too concerned about the outcome, and cooperated, then suddenly something changed and it spooked the accused enough to go on the run.

In the Polanski case, his lawyer had arranged a plea bargain, then, later at trial, the judge suddenly reneged without explanation. In the Assange case, he had already been questioned, the allegations were dropped, then suddenly a couple days of media coverage pass and the allegations are reinstated.

Not to imply either is a case of no wrongdoing, but in each case the accused initially faced the allegations, then something changed and scared the accused enough to go on the run.

The victim in the Polanski case has all but forgiven him, but does anyone disagree he would be crazy to ever set foot in the US again? The prosecutors office seems to have a very long memory and an uncanny ability to hold a grudge.

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

#210

Post by rdtsc » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:50 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #2

Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??

> Isn't that basically an act of war?

So.

Forget all the legal nuances. We have to answer that question. So what then? So Britain blows everyone the middle finger and declared a war on Ecuador. Just like US invaded Iraq (physically).

Who is going to protect Ecuador? Is Ecuador going to suicide its soldiers by landing in Britain to protect Assange? Some Latin American countries will issue a very strongly worded statement and maybe some other countries will say something, and then I bet you nothing happens.