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

681–690 of 784 posts

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#681

Post by nickik »

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #620
geofft wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, Assange himself was the press, here. Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower who tried to keep her identity safe until Adrian Lamo (may God have mercy on his soul, because I sure won't) reported her to US authorities.

>Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower Manning was a spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.

What huge damage was done to the US government by showing its citizens how its military murders civilians with their tax payer money in war that was against international law and only benefit the political class and security contractors.

It gets so much harder to pretend that they are bringing freedom to the Iraqis. I'm sure the poor government had to double its spending on pro-military propaganda because of this evil spiteful security leak.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#682

Post by IIAOPSW »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #590
IIAOPSW wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US Ex Post Facto laws are constitutionally forbidden. Other jurisdictions is not so clear but it is generally frowned upon.

The bar against ex post facto application of law in the US is limited to criminal laws. Civil laws, such as, immigration laws, are not so limited. That's why I encourage permanent resident immigrants (green card holders) to complete the naturalization process ASAP. (Assuming they want to retain the right to stay in the US.)

Where does this come from?

Article I section 9 doesn't say anything about the scope being limited to criminal law.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#683

Post by dredmorbius »

btilly wrote: post #594
jeffdavis wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a leader in many respects, due largely to our Constitutionally-protected rights. I'm not a fan of the US prison system. But are you seriously claiming that the whole justice system is worse than Venezuela or Honduras?

Our Constitutionally protected rights??? Amendment 1: Why is "In God We Trust" on our money? Amendment 3: The only time it ever was litigated (in Engblom v. Carey ) the government won because a bureaucrat cannot be faulted for not knowing such an obscure law. Amendment 4: Have you seen what the NSA is doing? Also "unreasonable search and seizure" is, under the doctrine of civil forfeiture, perfectly permissible as lo…

You're straining pretty hard for several of these examples, and/or hitting far wide of the mark.

Relative to religious oppression in numerous countries (Uighurs in China, current news, any apostasy (alternate religions, atheism) in several countries, religiously-linked laws again in numerous jurisdictions), a phrase on currency, whilst strictly clearly in conflict with the amendment, is fairly low stakes. The de facto religious tests for officeholders in much of the US would be a better example.

Amendment 3 is tested so infrequently largely on account that the practices it defends against simply are not practiced except by very remote, very rare parallels. (There was a more recent case in Nevada several years ago, though ultimately the principle wasn't tested.)

I'd disagree on the 10th / commerce clause in that the effects of commerce are highly externalised. There's little way to reconcile the conflict here.

I'd be more willing to go with your 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th examples, though even in the case of the 8th, what's now considered "cruel and unusual" differs widely from what was seen as such in the 1780s.

More generally, circumstances have changed (and judicial interpretation is so conservative) that many of the concerns of the late 18th century translate poorly to the early 21st.

I'd also argue that it's a distributed set of concerns, and capacity to act on account of those, which almost certainly matters more than words on paper (or velum), no matter how revered.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#684

Post by dredmorbius »

csallen wrote: post #527
jki275 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, if you all believe everywhere else in the world is so much better, why stay? For context, I'm married to a person from a real developing country, as it's actually defined. I'm sending multiple family members to school there so they can get out. Every single person in her family has done everything they can to get out. Every single person I know there has done everything they can to get out. Every single pe…

I have never understood this viewpoint of, "If you find fault with country X, then leave!" Sometimes it's applied to companies, tools, etc., too: "If you find fault with Y, then stop using it!" Can you explain this to me? It seems like an extreme way to live that would preclude anyone from living anywhere that's not perfect or using anything that's not perfect. (And nothing is perfect.) Why not just address the criti…

It's a frequent refuge of those who don't wish to face, confront, address, or accept criticism.

See: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#685

Post by samdfonseca »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #669
samdfonseca wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His actions are entirely undemocratic. Sweden and the US have both democratically built a system of justice that we all agree to subject ourselves to. He decided to evade that system to serve his own self-interest. What about defending the liberty of the alleged rape victim? Do they only have the right to their day in court if the accused is ok with it?

A system of justice that can be abused to go after political enemies. The Espionage Act is a piece of anti-democratic legislation passed during WWI in order to shut down opposition to the war. It's ironic that you're portraying its use to go after a journalist as a democratic act.

Just to be clear, 1600 of my coworkers are journalists, so I'm pretty confident in my support for journalists creds. Assange is not a journalist. Journalists don't encourage sources to break into classified systems and absolutely don't help them with it. When journalists get a stack of classified military docs, they don't indiscriminately release them to the public, they negotiate with the WH/DOD to avoid jeopardizing national security, weigh the public interest, and remove names to avoid putting people's lives at risk. See https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html.... If you visited a newsroom, you might be surprised to find out that the overwhelming majority of journalists don't support Assange and his "I'm a journalist" defense.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#687

Post by zepto »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #674
L_Rahman wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange's living conditions were entirely self inflicted. He could have surrendered himself to the Swedish authorities, undergone a trial and had he served time would have spent time in a prison system known for its humane treatment and low recidivism rates: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/26/prison-swede... I am of course assuming that he wouldn't be extradited to the US, in which case not surrendering…

>I am of course assuming that he wouldn't be extradited to the US, How can you make this assumption given that he was extradited for the exact reasons he mentioned?

When was he extradited?

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#688

Post by belorn »

mcv wrote: post #391
k1m wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to respond to this. UN experts on human rights have looked into his situation and been quite alarmed by it. I can't think of a group of people more respected in the field of human rights than the experts at the UN. And yet there are commenters here on HN who, I don't know on what basis, write that it's all mostly "hyperbole".

It is mostly self-inflicted, though. He chose that exile over facing justice for these charges. And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way. So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question r…

The job of the judicial system is to treat all citizen the same. Everyone should be judged equally under the hand of the law.

The Assange case got uniquely handled in every single step. Even a court found that the prosecutor mishandled the case. Proportionally the case used more money than any other case, used stronger legal method than any other case, and did not follow the judicial rules that all cases should follow.

Journalists has asked the prosecutor if the case had a high likelihood to find Assange guilty even without any witnesses. The answer that was consistently given before the US extradition request was yes, the case looked good in the eye of the prosecutor, years in and years out. Now, all suddenly, the answer is no. Now all the sudden the prosecutor say it is hard to convict someone without witnesses.

The behavior demonstrated by the prosecutor is one of a politician system. It gave special attention. It swings with the political winds. Being the targeted of that is torture.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#689

Post by belorn »

lonelappde wrote: post #661
raxxorrax wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole This is 1A 100% political persecution if you don't close both your eyes.

Is that torture?

Ask anyone who has been target of political persecution for several years.

Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

#690

Post by boomboomsubban »

zepto wrote: post #687
boomboomsubban wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am of course assuming that he wouldn't be extradited to the US, How can you make this assumption given that he was extradited for the exact reasons he mentioned?

When was he extradited?

His extradition has been requested, I should have made that clearer.
Post reply on HN