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

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 187 posts

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#81

Post by Karunamon »

tptacek wrote: post #45
hnolable wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way. So why does Ecuador see it that way? Are they stupid or easily fooled? Do they want to start political controversy? Some other conspiracy?

This is a little like asking why Burma wasn't consulted in the extradition. The simple answer is: Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy, and so the way they see things isn't material. Yes, I think the issue here is that Ecuador wants to start a political controversy. There is prima facie evidence, compelling and voluminous, that the principals Ecuador is "standing up for" in granting asylum are very much a…

>Ecuador simply isn't a party to this controversy

They became a party to it the moment they granted him political asylum.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#82

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #37
chimi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is: If Sweden wants Assange, why is Britain the one saying they'll invade the embassy? Shouldn't it be Sweden who is invading the Ecuadoran Embassy instead of Britain? I really don't see Britain bending over backwards to break the diplomatic status quo for Sweden, but I do see them doing that for the U.S. or themselves and that's why I think this is about more than a rape case in Sweden.

Did this really seem like a good question when you typed it? "If Sweden wants Assange, why don't they send armed people to UK soil in order to violate the privileges of Ecuador's diplomatic mission to the UK?"

[deleted]

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#83

Post by CWuestefeld »

lolcraft wrote: post #35
marvin wrote: post #16

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts. But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would l…

Now, if you wanted to argue that the rape charges look strange, because those charges were dismissed at first, both victims do not want to prosecute further, the accussed is kind of a target, so on... well, OK. But your argument here amazes me. Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on. And it should. I would be surprised and enraged if the I…

It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on.

I think this is the heart of the matter.

A couple of months ago my wife's car was robbed. The police did nothing but document the theft for insurance purposes, making no effort to identify or apprehend the criminal. I've no doubt that if my wife was assaulted, they would have made some actual efforts; and had she been killed or raped, they'd have made it a priority.

It must be that the authorities have some kind of scale for severity (and locale) of crimes, relating to how much effort they're willing to expend. Minor crimes don't get as much effort. Assange's accused crime is toward the higher end of that scale, but is also somebody else's problem; perhaps foreign police aren't willing to go as far for foreign crimes: would the Swedish police be willing to invest much if my wife's hypothetical assailant were known to be in Sweden?

The OP's point seems to hinge on this logic, which really does seem to be the way these thinks work. What we don't know is how the Swedish authorities (or any others) would rank the accused crimes in their table of "how much resources do we commit?".

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#84

Post by Karunamon »

philwelch wrote: post #17
option_greek wrote: post #12

Would any one really trust the due course of law argument after the Kim Dotcom incident. Basically it can now be argued that the US can get who ever it wants from where ever they are for what ever their crimes are.

Kim Dotcom's situation isn't that unusual. To whatever extent law enforcement overstepped their bounds, due process will eventually prevail. He's still in New Zealand after all.

>To whatever extent law enforcement overstepped their bounds, due process will eventually prevail.

You have a lot more faith in the infallibility of our justice system that I do. For example: http://www.change.org/freedaniel

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#85

Post by wes-exp »

tptacek wrote: post #67
wes-exp wrote: post #54

"Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index of world press freedom" US is ranked 47th. This effectively puts Ecuador in the same category as the US. Look at the color codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index . Just because Ecuador isn't perfect hardly precludes it from trying to do the right thing in this instance.

The RSF full press freedom index isn't color coded. There are 57 countries --- 1/3rd of the entire survey --- in between the US and Ecuador, including several liberal European countries. This is a flimsy argument.

Well, it is color coded on wikipedia. Further, a gap of 1/3 might not be very significant if the scores are closely packed.

Also regardless, stack ranking is known to be bullshit. Ask any current or former Microsoft employee :)

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#86

Post by podperson »

wes-exp wrote: post #41
podperson wrote: post #19

I'm assuming the article is accurate, in which case there's pretty much no reason for Assange not to go to Sweden and clear all this up, unless of course he's guilty. Certainly as things stand he gives a lot of people -- myself included -- the impression that he's guilty, and if the only reason he has for not wanting to face the music in Sweden is that he's afraid of extradition to the US then, assuming the article i…

I'm not saying he is innocent, but if he is, he has every reason to believe this is a politically-motivated frame-up. So, if he is innocent, why go to Sweden? Probably, even as an innocent person, the frame-up would succeed. As such, his unwillingness to go hardly says anything about his guilt or non-guilt.

> I'm not saying he is innocent, but if he is, he has every reason to believe this is a politically-motivated frame-up

If he is in fact guilty then it would be rather odd for him to regard this as a politically-motivated frame-up, so I guess you are saying he's innocent.

I think it is implausible that politics have not played some kind of role in proceedings (e.g. the linked article does not explain the use of an Interpol "red notice"). But if it were a frame-up you'd think the accusations would be more serious and consistent. If he were to go to Sweden and then suddenly be extradited to the US to face serious criminal charges it seems to me that this would make his case.

So, I think it makes him look guilty.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#87

Post by tptacek »

wes-exp wrote: post #85
tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The RSF full press freedom index isn't color coded. There are 57 countries --- 1/3rd of the entire survey --- in between the US and Ecuador, including several liberal European countries. This is a flimsy argument.

Well, it is color coded on wikipedia. Further, a gap of 1/3 might not be very significant if the scores are closely packed. Also regardless, stack ranking is known to be bullshit. Ask any current or former Microsoft employee :)

The scores are not closely packed. Not only that: the US was #20 on the World Press Freedom Index in the survey immediately prior to this one, and lost places due to municipal arrests of journalists covering Occupy.

The idea that the press freedom situation in the US is comparable to the press freedom of a country in which the ruling party seizes television stations, jails the owners of newspapers for allowing the publication of unfavorable columns, and levies $2MM fines against book authors is far past ludicrous.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#88

Post by chimi »

tptacek wrote: post #37
chimi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is: If Sweden wants Assange, why is Britain the one saying they'll invade the embassy? Shouldn't it be Sweden who is invading the Ecuadoran Embassy instead of Britain? I really don't see Britain bending over backwards to break the diplomatic status quo for Sweden, but I do see them doing that for the U.S. or themselves and that's why I think this is about more than a rape case in Sweden.

Did this really seem like a good question when you typed it? "If Sweden wants Assange, why don't they send armed people to UK soil in order to violate the privileges of Ecuador's diplomatic mission to the UK?"

Do the words you put in quotes actually sound like what I said to you? Bit of a straw man.

But even if you want to argue to that extreme, then well, yeah if you consider the USA sent its military into Pakistan without them even knowing. The USA does that kind of stuff all the time and at least in this case, the UK will know about it and is cooperating with Sweden on the issue.

Even further, Sweden has an embassy there already with armed guards that could very well likely beat up Ecuador's armed guards, so no one needs to be sent there -- they are already there.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#89

Post by thomasz »

white_devil wrote: post #80
lolcraft wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, if you wanted to argue that the rape charges look strange, because those charges were dismissed at first, both victims do not want to prosecute further, the accussed is kind of a target, so on... well, OK. But your argument here amazes me. Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on. And it should. I would be surprised and enraged if the I…

> Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? When does the Interpol ever get involved in a rape case? Especially one where someone is suspected of not-actually-rape -"rape", and supposedly only wanted for "questioning"? What the fuck? Does this not sound suspicious to you at all ? > If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pres…

Read the article, it answers those questions.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#90

Post by wes-exp »

tedunangst wrote: post #71
wes-exp wrote: post #54

"Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index of world press freedom" US is ranked 47th. This effectively puts Ecuador in the same category as the US. Look at the color codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index . Just because Ecuador isn't perfect hardly precludes it from trying to do the right thing in this instance.

Where do those color codes come from? The Reporters Without Borders map puts the US and Ecuador in different colors. http://en.rsf.org/IMG/jpg/carte2012.jpg

I honestly don't know where the wikipedia ones come from. On the map you've linked to, they are different, but only by one.
Post reply on HN