Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation • Hacker News Board

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#351

Post by mariorossi666 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

black_puppydog wrote: post #342

mariorossi666 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the news was about Sweden dropping the case of rape.

Well then you've clearly not been following the discussion and are just provoking. Do your reading first please. Edit: yes, this news item is about the rape allegations. BUT Assange had long been stating that the US were preparing a secret indictment under the espionage act, something that has turned out to be 100% correct, even though the US administration kept denying (read: lying about) it. They never intended to…

I've done my reading, nowhere it was mentioned that it wasn't about the allegations of rape.

BTW, the comments guidelines state

    Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article?

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#352

Post by sammex » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #260

plesner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to be both unfairly targeted by a superpower and commit sexual assault, one doesn't cancel out the other. I'm not saying he did, I don't know how any of us could know. You seem quite confident he didn't though, I'm curious what you base that on.

People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That isn't just a legal principle - it's a philosophical principle. If you throw that away and want to talk about probabilities - that's ok too - but then you need to add the probability that the global super power put pressure on people to drum up baloney charges.

yeah but that might not always work. there are evidence against him but he will never be proven guilty in a court because of unrelated practical reasons. that don't make innocent either.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#353

Post by naasking » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

pcroh wrote: post #321

andy_ppp wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think making up charges and constantly threatening to destroy you are not extremely stressful. He has a family too that he's been unable to see properly for a long while. Is his only current crime skipping bail on charges he believed were fake? Clearly, facing deportation to the US is problematic for a number of reasons, mostly that it's impossible for even Snowden to get a fair trial there, let alone…

Skipping bail on charges he believe were fake is a crime, yes. If we was so sure of the charges being fake then he should have let them judge him.

> If we was so sure of the charges being fake then he should have let them judge him.

Sure, because trumped up charges are symptomatic of a working justice system.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#354

Post by solipsism » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

klagermkii wrote: post #220

solipsism wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either there's a rule of law or there's not. You can't hide from the police and then claim that the very act of hiding is an act of torture enacted on you by the police.

The "rule of law" isn't about individual citizens submitting to the system. It's about the people in power following a standardised process based on the crime that was supposedly committed, and being applied uniformly, vs the "rule of man" where things are handled on an adhoc manner based on who's in power and who's being charged. The system can be breaching the "rule of law", not the individuals targeted by that sys…

I didn't claim Assange was breaching the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that individuals are accountable for their actions. A court of law is usually the correct way to determine accountability. The state is obligated to protect individuals (in this case the women who were allegedly raped) via the justice system.

The idea that having to flee charges is tantamount to being tortured implies the state does not have that right. If there is to be the rule of law, the state has not only the right but the obligation.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#355

Post by HBKXNCUO » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #174

maze-le wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"free country"... oxymoron of the century by now...

What would you define a "free country" as?

You used the term first, so probably you should define it, and then you can explain why it's "questionable" for threat of prosecution to ever be considered torture in such a place, and then you can explain why the country threatening to prosecute Assange meets that definition.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#356

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

nemo wrote: post #322

k1m wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melzer: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool." In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation to be "arbitrary detention": > In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement…

He fled justice to hide in an embassy. He was fully free to leave, and should have faced justice from the start. Fugitives from justice do not enjoy pleasant conditions - that's not a strike against liberty, but a necessary condition of the rule of law.

Put scare quotes around "justice" and your comment will be more accurate.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#357

Post by k1m » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

nemo wrote: post #322

k1m wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melzer: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool." In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation to be "arbitrary detention": > In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement…

He fled justice to hide in an embassy. He was fully free to leave, and should have faced justice from the start. Fugitives from justice do not enjoy pleasant conditions - that's not a strike against liberty, but a necessary condition of the rule of law.

I find it remarkable that so many here feel they are in a better position to assess whether Assange's human rights have been violated than experts on the topic at the UN who've spent considerable time looking into his situation.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#358

Post by isostatic » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #165

isostatic wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden doesn't have a death penalty. If it did, UK law would not allow extradition to Sweden.

I'm not talking about Sweden. The charges in Sweden never mattered besides being a way for him to be extradited to the U.S. The U.S. does have the death penalty, and it would be on the table if the U.S. didn't tell the U.K. he won't get it. It's still possible that the U.S. lied of course. Either way, he'll likely be put in prison in the U.S. for the rest of his life.

So he'll be extradited from Sweden, but not from the UK? Why?

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#359

Post by eurasiantiger » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #288

shadowgovt wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that we all had the luxury of the ability to skip bail on charges we believed were fake, yeah?

We'd also likely not have had the charges leveled upon us in the first place.

As long as we play ball enough.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#360

Post by dependenttypes » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

mariorossi666 wrote: post #323

dependenttypes wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will quote Stallman on that: "I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in" What he did does not fall within the definition of rape, please do not accuse him of doing a much worse thing than he did.

Stallman was saying the exact opposite of what you believe he said. He was arguing that rape is rape, even if in different states they have different laws. If you rape a girl the fact that in some country she is of legal age and in others she's not, it doesn't change the fact. It is rape, she said no, he forced her, it is rape. Please accept it, because it's what happened.

> Stallman was saying the exact opposite of what you believe he said.

> He was arguing that rape is rape, even if in different states they have different laws.

It was while he was defending Minsky and he was actually arguing that sex does not magically become rape depending on the country that you do it.

> It is rape, she said no, he forced her, it is rape.

He did not force her though. He had consent to have sex with her. It's just that they agreed to have a condom on but he apparently ripped it or something and she noticed it only afterwards.