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

231–240 of 287 posts

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

#231

Post by philwelch »

jlgreco wrote: post #223
philwelch wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am going to have to agree with Steko here. ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4389438 ) That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification. Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state…

Maybe "justify" is too strong a word. The central principle is that having sex with someone who does not consent is rape. It doesn't matter if their clothes are on or if you're in bed with them. It doesn't matter if they consented to protected sex, but you chose to have unprotected sex with them instead even though they didn't consent to it. It's still rape.

To say that it isn't technically rape could mean a few things. It could mean that it's worse than rape or at least equivalent to rape, or it could mean that it's not as bad as rape. But if it's just as bad as rape or even worse, there would be no point to the remark at all, especially in a series of comments meant to defend Assange. Obviously, the intention was to say that this action is something less than rape.

To say that this particular type of rape is something less than rape might not justify it, but it does minimize it in such a way that denies the basic agency, dignity, and human rights of the victim. It's a hideous, misogynistic notion. (That's not a supporting argument, by the way, it's a conclusion.)

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

#232

Post by rdtsc »

philwelch wrote: post #225
rdtsc wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let's not jump to conclusions here. The US hasn't done anything to Assange.

That's not what I was implying. The argument is that he fears they will do something to him. And whether that fear is based in reality.

The response of the grandparent was 'no' because US legal system can't technically touch him. My response to that was that I am not exactly sure if the world should trust US in light of its actions in the last 10 years.

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

#233

Post by lifeguard »

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…

The Obama admin has an active global program of executing US citizens that are labeled 'enemy combatants' or providing aid to E.C., with no judicial review.

Execution without judicial review.

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

#234

Post by philwelch »

vidarh wrote: post #229
philwelch wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't it seem like Assange has introduced most of the weirdness himself? Lots of people run into legal trouble overseas. Most of them don't hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.

The vast majority of this weirdness preceded his decision to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. In fact, the vast majority of it took place even before the arrest warrant was issued, and by the time of the initial extradition decision the prosecutor had continued to make it worse by refusing even more offers of interviewing Assange while making excuses for why she can't that are directly contradicted by Swedish authorit…

Evidently, they have to formally question Assange before filing charges. They'd rather have him in custody in Sweden before they do that. Isn't it pretty well established by Assange's own actions that Assange would be a massive flight risk? The Swedish aren't the ones acting irrationally.

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

#235

Post by rdtsc »

Jabbles wrote: post #131
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…

Are the Swedish police acting in a manner representative of a suspect wanted for questioning, known to be in a foreign country? Does Sweden regularly request extradition of people in similar circumstances?

Had his name been Joe Smith or something, would've they bothered?

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

#236

Post by vidarh »

mootothemax wrote: post #62
[deleted] wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

You honestly think it's easier to extradite someone to the states from Sweden as opposed to the UK? I would kindly suggest that you yourself should consider thinking this through.

How many people have the UK publicly acknowledged to have participated in the illegal rendition of?

Sweden have acknowledge to have violated Swedish law and international treaties in US instigated renditions of at least two people.

Get him to Sweden, and whispering the right words into the right ear might circumvent that whole pesky extradition hearing thing.

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

#237

Post by caf »

rdtsc wrote: post #204
caf wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you've misread me. I'm not saying that it's ridiculous, so there's no reason to fear it happening; I'm saying it's ridiculous, and I would be entirely unsurprised if it happened anyway.

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

#238

Post by vidarh »

philwelch wrote: post #32
billswift wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is just conspiracy theory. Somewhat, which is why I never weighed in on it before. But if the UK is threatening something as unusual as invading an embassy, that is evidence that there is likely to be something more to the issue.

If the embassy is doing something as unusual as harboring an accused rapist, isn't that enough?

If Britain does this, then from now on every Chinese dissident that seeks refuge in a Western embassy will somehow magically find themselves charged with rape, and Chinese police will stand ready to enter to arrest him for said rape.

(Substitute China for any other dictatorship as you please)

It is an incredibly bad precedent to set, and I very much doubt they will go there.

Leaving police posted outside until people get bored of the whole thing, sure. Sending stern letters, sure. Calling the Ecuadorian embassy in to explain himself, sure. Maybe a few more things. Maybe even expelling some low level staff if things get really nasty.

But if they enter the embassy, then either someone is a complete idiot and haven't thought through consequences, or Assanges suspicions about US involvement suddenly becomes a lot more credible.

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

#239

Post by danenania »

philwelch wrote: post #221
guelo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm amused by the notion that Assange has to somehow be extradited to Sweden if the CIA is going to rendition him. The CIA renditions people by kidnapping them off the street. They can do that in London just as well as anywhere else in the world. If the CIA wanted to rendition Assange, Assange would have been renditioned by now. The whole Sweden business would only get in the way of a rendition, not facilitate it.

Perhaps they treat cases at the center of an international media spotlight a bit differently.

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

#240

Post by vidarh »

cjensen wrote: post #104
kmfrk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American government plan to fly Assange to the US at some point. That makes it an issue of foreign relations for the Swedish government.

If the US wanted him, why would Sweden be more amenable to passing him along than the US's closest ally?

Because as close an ally as the UK is, the UK government likes to think of themselves as a partner and don't like to be bossed around or involved in too shady stuff, and UK courts certainly don't like to be meddled with.

Meanwhile, Sweden has a history of cooperating with the US on illegal renditions in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, to the point where Sweden has actually paid damages to at least one person - Muhammad al-Zery - who was tortured after Swedish police had handed him over to masked CIA officers at a Swedish airport and witnessed as he was stripped, drugged, chained and handcuffed and loaded on a plane to be flown to Egypt where he was tortured.

Said person was in Sweden applying for political asylum.

It caused diplomatic incidents when it was first revealed to the public and Swedish authorities "put a stop to it". Then shortly afterwards, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that it was still ongoing with the knowledge of airport personnel. At least officially without the knowledge of the Swedish government.

Maybe they've stopped now. Or maybe the units that participated in it are just better at hiding it, or maybe the US government is just better at making sure said Swedish government units have better reasons to deny knowledge.

But the fact remains that for sveral years, the US extracted prisoners from and/or transported prisoners through Sweden illegally to hand them over to regimes that would carry out torture in violation of both US and Swedish law and international treaties, with the complicit knowledge of the Swedish government.

It's quite possible the UK did too. But which government do you think the US cares the least about jerking around?

Post reply on HN