Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 784 posts

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#441

Post by k1m »

nemo wrote: post #381
k1m wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Appealing to authority is a lot less persuasive when it's a non-binding report from a minor working group. I read their account. It was poorly argued and inconsistent. Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?

It's funny that when it comes to Assange, suddenly the UN group's findings become "non-binding". Did you read what they had to say about it?

> The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.

> The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

Journalist John Pilger also made the point that Britain and Sweden participated in and have previously supported this UN group:

> The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.

> Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-un...

You write "Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?"

What makes you think that Britain and Sweden's refusal to accept the outcome has anything to do with the evidence presented? The UN group found against Britain and Sweden, and they didn't like that outcome. Isn't that a likely explanation?

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#442

Post by mariorossi666 »

dependenttypes wrote: post #430
mariorossi666 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No, he wasn't defending Minsky, please stop saying that! He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days ol…

> please stop saying that This is the first time that I said that... > He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days old in U.S.A., you can't. Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law…

> This is the first time that I said that...

many have done before you, and still doing it.

So, please stop.

It never happened.

> Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law there calls it rape it does not make it rape in reality

Stallman was arguing exactly on the opposite: just because it is of legal age in some country, it doesn't make rape any less rape.

He was talking about Minsky, who he was not defending.

> can you show me your source where she says that he raped her?

Here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklag...

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#443

Post by refurb »

ckastner wrote: post #318
k1m wrote: post #35

Worth mentioning that Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, visited Assange and described his treatment as psychological torture: > “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for…

You quote: > “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.“ That quote lacked information on who was exposing him and what that exposure actually was, so I followed your source. That source elaborates as follows: > “In the co…

I don’t understand.

He stayed in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid arrest. His conditions are self-imposed.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#444

Post by vintermann »

mcv wrote: post #401
ddxxdd wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...except Assange would have been transferred to America to stand trial over Wikileaks before he would even have a chance to stand trial over the rape accusations.

I don't think there was an extradition request from the US, was there? Only one from Sweden. And it's very unlikely that Sweden would extradite him to the US for this. They value the free press, but take rape very seriously.

The plan was to get him to the US all along, unless you want to believe it was a coincidence that Sweden kept up the request for ten years but dropped it the minute it got in the way of extradition to the US.

As to why Sweden, who knows why they thought that would be preferable. Maybe just to smear his reputation a bit, to soften the protest at the treatment they want to give him? Very successful if so.

But either way, you're talking about the people who forced down the Bolivian president's plane because they thought Snowden might be hiding in it. When they say "the law only matters when the outcome doesn't", this would be an example of a case where the outcome (stop Wikileaks) mattered.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#445

Post by shadowgovt »

dingoegret wrote: post #435
shadowgovt wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The saddest thing about Assange's story is that when one lives in the realm of the paranoid for too long, the paranoia eats them. The US and A isn't in the business of assassinating visible targets. There's plenty of people who believe they are, but there's plenty of evidence they aren't. If they were, Manning wouldn't still be breathing.

It is in the business of assassinating visible targets. By probability and behavioral record. Unless you have special evidence to contrary.

As I said, Manning is still alive, and she's spent an inordinate amount of time under US custody. She's under US custody right now. If the government had "assassination of visible targets" as standard black-ops policy, why is she not dead?

Conspiracy theories suffer on lack of consistency.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#446

Post by jonlucc »

dependenttypes wrote: post #360
mariorossi666 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait. If someone consents to sex with a condom, then the condom is tampered with, that violates the consent.

If I, a man, agree to have sex with a woman after we both agree to use a condom, but I find out that she knowingly punctured the condom, I didn't consent to that.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#447

Post by mariorossi666 »

Semaphor wrote: post #425
mariorossi666 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would certainly be stealing if she deleted the documents in the server afterwards, which she did not Again, not a lawyer, not trying to counter you personally, but if someone clones my credit card and take money from it, it is stealing, even if the card is still in my pocket. If someone use my bank's password to transfer funds to his account, it is stealing, even if my account is still in my possess. > "The mili…

> but if someone clones my credit card no > and take money from it Now it’s stealing, but not your card, but your money has been stolen.

> Now it’s stealing, but not your card, but your money has been stolen.

If you copy a secret document you steal the informations in it.

What's the difference?

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#448

Post by coldtea »

duxup wrote: post #134
k1m wrote: post #35

Worth mentioning that Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, visited Assange and described his treatment as psychological torture: > “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for…

I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of "torture" a bit questionable. It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.

The "free country" that has the highest incarceration rate, and one of the worst prison systems in the western world?

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#449

Post by shadowgovt »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #408
shadowgovt wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whistleblowing is a focused revelation of wrongdoing. Scraping the secret-classified documents of the State Department, handing them over to a foreign organization, and saying "You'll make the best use of this, I trust you" isn't whistleblowing. At best, it's irresponsible; at worst, it's irresponsibility that walks right up to the edge of malicious treason. I'm very glad Manning wasn't convicted of treason, because…

>Scraping the secret-classified documents of the State Department, handing them over to a foreign organization, and saying "You'll make the best use of this, I trust you" isn't whistleblowing So, what better method should she have used? Remember she was on active duty, and already under a lot of stress from personally being aware of the atrocities being hidden.

Divulge information on the atrocities she was aware of personally. The vast bulk of the State Department cables were completely unrelated to the atrocities she was aware of.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#450

Post by monocasa »

mariorossi666 wrote: post #417
monocasa wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did she betray her country? During her trial, the prosecution couldn't actually point to any direct harm.

I don't know why you're asking me, I'm just reporting what the trial was about and what the prosecutors said. The court ruled against Manning in favour of the prosecutors. She was "acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks" under the spionage act, which means treason. If you want an explanation from me, they said that the fact that she stole classified documents r…

Because you're the one saying that she

> betrayed her country that she swore to protect

And I mean, she was acquitted of aiding the enemy, ie. that charge didn't stick. All of the charges that did stick are around improperly storing classified data.

And as I've said before, the prosecution couldn't come up with any actual harm at her trial, so "betrayed" is you embellishing the story.

Post reply on HN