Hacker News Reader

Comment by objclxt | Hacker News Reader

A 'normal' extradition case? Most European Arrest Warrants don't end with the suspect fleeing into a foreign embassy. This case wouldn't be 'normal' regardless of Assange's background.

Assange has finished his speech now - he talks about making a stand for the justice system, but doesn't mention at all anything to do with the rape charges* and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process.

He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two.

* And yes, I'm calling it rape: what he is accused of is rape under Sweden's law, and contrary to what many people are saying, it would be rape under English law as well.

View on HN

Don't forget Sweden itself is depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process, having been offered numerous options of interviewing Assange, both in the UK and within Sweden itself.

It's also worth pointing out that:

* Sweden initially dropped the case: senior prosecutor Eva Finné reversed the arrest order and found there were no grounds for the 'rape' allegations. [1]

* Assange was questioned by police in Sweden 10 days later

* Assange spent weeks in Sweden after the accusations

* the case was picked up again two weeks later by prosecutor Marianne Ny

* Sweden is seeking Assange's extradition not to charge him (as some articles and commentators suggest as a matter of Swedish law) but merely to question him.

* the Swedish Supreme Court has ruled that it is appropriate to conduct a videoconference with a suspect who is co-operative and abroad. The same ruling stated that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute. [2]

It's a case that's so transparently political that arguing against it is nothing more than wilful ignorance of readily available facts.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...

[2] http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html#QUE

I find it actually terrifying that so many people can fail to apply common sense to this matter.

Rape accusations make a convenient ad hominem. Oh, he doesn't deserve to be listened to, he's an accused rapist. He doesn't even care about the women. What a jerk!

There is nothing wrong or sinister about an accused person taking every legal step to defend himself, including seeking asylum. This is the whole point of a justice system. Assange is not depriving anyone of due process by defending himself. Due process is to protect the accused, not the accusers.

Please watch this[1]. It's not a rape charge, it's sexual molestation. And it's not being pursued by the victims but by a prosecutor. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...

If you actually bothered to read the papers Assange's own legal team lodged with the English courts you'd know that both the defence and prosecution accepted what he was accused of would be rape under English law.

@tgasson - unfortunately I can't reply to your next message, but with regards to links: you can view most of the case literature at BAILII and the Supreme Court website. Because Assange made numerous appeals his legal filings are numerous. Link here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank...

A more succint summary can be found at David Allen Green's blog - Assange's legal team did at first try to argue it wouldn't count as rape, but this was rejected by two courts, and when they subsequently appealed to the UK Supreme Court his defence accepted the point and dropped the argument: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat...

Assange's legal defence against the extradition was primarily on a matter of procedural law regarding whether Sweden had the judicial authority to extradite him in the first place.

I hope you will forgive my rather blunt tone - I am not a lawyer, but I have the pleasure (perhaps?!) of living with one. As I've said in other posts here, I'm more than happy to believe Assange is the victim of a conspiracy, but I don't think that is an outright certainty. I perhaps naively hold the English legal system in some regard, although I accept others may not!

Sorry I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link? Best I can find is [1] which states

  In respect of Offence 4, Mr Assange contended that whilst rape was a Framework Offence and therefore didn't require dual criminality, the conduct described in the EAW was not fairly and accurately described and that if it had it would not be rape.

[1]: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...

edit: Thanks for clarification.

"and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process"

By definition, only the arbiters of the legal system itself, i.e., the government can deprive someone of due process. The fact that Sweden and the UK are making a sincere effort to extradite Assange is, at this point, all the "due process" the women are entitled to. Assange's actions have nothing to do with it.

"He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two."

Buying the argument that the charges are politically motivated, the fact that they are attacking Assange due to his association with wikileaks mean that wikileaks is under attack. If this sets a precedent that high profile persons leading the push for the release of extremely sensitive information can be rubbed out so easily puts a chilling effect on whoever steps into Assange's place. And that's assuming anyone really can just step up as Assange didn't just start with wikileaks. He's been involved in uncovering suppressed information since he was a kid growing up in Australia and even co-wrote the Rubberhose deniable encryption program.

It's telling that someone like Assange who is undergoing such a massive level of scrutiny that these rape allegations are the best they can do. The guy must practically be a saint.

Look, I generally buy into the theory that the simplest explanation is probably the most likely.

I am more than happy to concede that maybe these charges are politically motivated, and they are complete and utter trash: if that's the case, then clearly you could argue Assange is totally right to seek asylum. Good on him.

However, there is a chance these charges are genuine. I really hope nobody would try to argue otherwise. I don't pretend to know how large or small this chance is. As long as there is a chance I think Assange's actions do nobody any favors whatsoever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com