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

251–260 of 287 posts

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

#251

Post by philwelch »

vidarh wrote: post #243
philwelch wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First of all, you can be charged in absentia in Sweden. If they interviewed him, and he still refused to return, then that would be a textbook case of a justification for having him charged in absentia. Secondly, he claims that he will be extradited to the US if he is brought to Sweden. How exactly would he suddenly become more likely to try to flee if they decide to charge him? He is already claiming that going to S…

So in the absence of information, we assume it's a CIA conspiracy? What?

OK, maybe it's a little irrational that the Swedish prosecutor doesn't want to bend over backwards and do it Assange's way just to humor his paranoid delusions. But it's not suspicious.

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

#252

Post by EGreg »

anonymoushn wrote: post #217
EGreg wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From Wikipedia:

As of the bill's passage into law in 2010, CBO estimated the legislation would reduce the deficit by $143 billion[185] over the first decade, but half of that was due to expected premiums for the C.L.A.S.S. Act, which has since been abandoned.[186] Although the CBO generally does not provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period (because of the great degree of uncertainty involved in the data) it decided to do so in this case at the request of lawmakers, and estimated a second decade deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion.[180][187] ...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordab...

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

#253

Post by EGreg »

rdtsc wrote: post #206
EGreg wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, he did break promises, many of them due to encountering opposition he couldn't muster the political power/courage/recklessness to surmount. You can see a more in depth analysis here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Still, I want to say 3 things:

1) After getting into office, he actually addressed the fiscal and economic crisis that was developing, and we can definitely say that today the charts are a little higher than in 2008. That took some re-prioritizing.

2) All politicians promise something. Just hear Romney's promises: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnaYOv0DZY ... so believing everyone's promises is silly. For me it's more about how competent the guy is to actually achieve/maintain the stuff I think we need as a country. And even so, I don't think the president can do that much these days. You should worry about the Senate, they have the lowest approval rating ever I think.

3) He has made some major reforms, the medical reform is a big one, perhaps one day he may tackle immigration reform. Also the JOBS act is bringing about some much-needed financial reform, but I can't give all the credit to Obama on this one. Actually here is what I think about the direction this country is headed: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=108

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

#254

Post by cjensen »

bwilson wrote: post #230
cjensen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chen was neither charged with a crime nor was he serving a sentence at the time he fled.

And neither is Assange, on both counts.

There was no warrant or ongoing court case either.

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

#255

Post by 1gor »

kika wrote: post #245
1gor wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little doubt it was the Russians There is a lot of doubt. The most obvious suspect is oligarch Boris Berezovsky, a London refugee from Russia, accused of embezzlement at home, who is waging a fierce propaganda war with the current Russian government. http://www.rt.com/news/berezovsky-litvinenko-murder-allegati...

a link to an official Russian propaganda TV channel is kinda silly.

Hmmm, would a link to BBC, a UK propaganda TV channel, be less silly?

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

#256

Post by droithomme »

philwelch wrote: post #16
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??

I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.

"Rape charges"

Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?

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

#257

Post by rickmb »

droithomme wrote: post #256
philwelch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.

"Rape charges" Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?

There are no charges yet either.

We're deep into "if you repeat it often enough people will believe it's true" territory.

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

#258

Post by droithomme »

philwelch wrote: post #231
jlgreco wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thin…

Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.

Phil, have Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén said the sex was rape?

For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads promoting that Assange is a rapist, that women have accused him of rape, and that he is charged with rape. Yet, despite being requested for citations showing your accusations are factual, you have failed to do so for two years now.

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

philwelch wrote: post #224
vidarh wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, I don't even like the guy. Wikileaks is fantastic, but we can credit him for his involvement with that without whitewashing the person. Even if I were to only accept the parts his own lawyers have conceded, the statements do paint the picture of someone who is quite a bit of an asshole. Maybe he is a bit of a misogynist, though I think it's more likely he is "just" a bit narcissistic and didn't really t…

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.

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by philwelch »

droithomme wrote: post #256
philwelch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.

"Rape charges" Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?

> The other alleged victim claims that she...woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom.

Emphasis added. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...

Please note that "having sex with [someone] without [their] consent" is the definition of rape.

Post reply on HN