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

211–220 of 287 posts

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

#211

Post by rdtsc »

elemeno wrote: post #81
vidarh wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not it is legal would be pretty much irrelevant, I'd think - it would be something every regime that dislikes Britain would pay close attention to for the purpose of pointing to the moment they decide they want to pick someone up from a British embassy. I can't imagine Britain would be willing to risk the integrity of its own embassies in that way over Assange. It sounds like sabre-rattling, nothing more.…

The Libyan case doesn't really apply - the suspected gunman was a diplomat and a Libyan national and there's a whole extra set of legal issues involved that don't apply to someone seeking asylum in an embassy for a non-political crime.

> a non-political crime.

I think some will disagree with the reason for asylum. I don't think there is any doubt that this is political. This is not about rape accusations. This is very political.

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

#212

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> The extradition request is for questioning;

That sounds pretty silly. He was only a couple of hours away by plane, he is surrounded by media. Runs a talk show. Claiming they can't question him is just ridiculous and make them seem like they certainly have other ideas than just simple questioning for not wearing a condom.

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

#213

Post by waterlesscloud »

arrrg wrote: post #25
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.

Or he is someone who flees from serious charges and the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world because they can’t do something simple like extradite him. Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required. Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone focuses on his stupid an…

One thing going unsaid in all this is that it's quite likely British intelligence sources were put at risk but various wikileaks as well.

Which is probably key to their reaction.

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

#214

Post by philwelch »

jlgreco wrote: post #185
vidarh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Funny how those who suggest that there is a smear campaign in progress are themselves then smeared.

Conspiracy theories are usually self-reinforcing that way.

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

#215

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women.

He has been under house arrest with access to phone, TV, internet. He even runs a freakin' talk show. Telling the world they can't "question" him is a little dis-indigenous and they need to make up a better reason.

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

#216

Post by jlgreco »

philwelch wrote: post #214
jlgreco wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how those who suggest that there is a smear campaign in progress are themselves then smeared.

Conspiracy theories are usually self-reinforcing that way.

How so? I'm not saying that anyone is correct because they are being smeared. I assert no connection between your smears and the alleged smear campaign against Assange, and I certainly am not saying that your smears in any way vindicate the accusations of those who you are smearing. I'm just saying it is amusing.

Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "all but justifying raping women". That is a serious allegation.

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

#217

Post by anonymoushn »

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…

It should be no surprise that PPACA saves money over 10 years, if the 10 years contain 10 years of PPACA revenue and only 6 years of PPACA spending. Perhaps we would do well to determine whether it saves or spends money in its eventual steady state, rather than pretending that the world will end in 2020.

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

#218

Post by rdtsc »

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.

You seem confused. At one point you claim that this is about helping the women who are Swedish citizens and trying to question Assange so they can charge him with rape or figure out what happened. Have we agreed that in the previous comment you seems to be concerned and think the Swedish government is also concerned about these 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.

and

> not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations.

Those statements seem to support that, wouldn't you say?

However, when presented with the question of why didn't they just come in and questioned him after being invited and granted access you reply with

> Sweden is well within their rights to refuse that offer.

So they are just dragging their feet refusing the offer. Is it because they don't like British food or is the travel too grueling. Remember, they are spending all this effort and time supposedly because they deeply care about the fate of these two women.

The next step in the process is the questioning and then after being invited to question him to move the process along they refuse.

You'll have to forgive everyone if they don't quite believe the official reasons. To me it sounds fishy for example.

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

It doesn't matter what happens then. They identified a next step in the process and they claim they cannot accomplish it. While it has been clear that they can.

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

#219

Post by philwelch »

jlgreco wrote: post #216
philwelch wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy theories are usually self-reinforcing that way.

How so? I'm not saying that anyone is correct because they are being smeared. I assert no connection between your smears and the alleged smear campaign against Assange, and I certainly am not saying that your smears in any way vindicate the accusations of those who you are smearing. I'm just saying it is amusing. Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "al…

There's nothing amusing about the remark that "one could argue that 'sex without a condom' with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape". The notion being put forth is a justification of rape, and "one could argue" is a way of rhetorically evading responsibility for putting the notion forward.

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

#220

Post by philwelch »

vidarh wrote: post #198
philwelch wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 I disagree. If the prosecutor has no case, Assange has - rightfully or not - every reason to wonder why they are pursuing him in this manner, and every reason to then worry about what the underlying motivation is. He might be more paranoid…

In Assange's own mind, yes, he probably is the victim of a massive international conspiracy whether or not he committed rape. It's a little disappointing to see so many people on HN take those delusions of grandeur at face value.
Post reply on HN