Hacker News Reader

Comment by k-mcgrady | Hacker News Reader

Why do they need to waste so many resources on him? Wouldn't it suffice to monitor the embassy with CCTV cameras on the street and have him flagged at the border if they see him leave?

View on HN

I think you underestimate the anger he's caused in the bureaucracy. Governments see him as a security threat, which means they'll spend military-level amounts to keep him under as much control as they can, and will justify that spending as a show of force against other would-be threats.

I wonder if it would be possible to prevent the staff entering the embassy? We can't enter it legally, but we surly could prevent people entering? I understand it would create a stink, but starving the man out must be something they have thought about.

Interfering with diplomatic staff is also illegal. I understand that everybody apparently wants to see Assange burn at the stake for being a sexual predator (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...), but that's not a justification for an act of war.

> (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...)

What evidence do you want/expect to see? Genuinely intrigued as so what burden of proof is deemed necessary in this situation.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor - they have to prove you guilty, not the other way around.

Sorry, my point wasn't clear. What evidence would be needed for 'social consensus' to see this as a 'valid' trial and not some made up charge?

Part of me thinks that if this was a made up charge to get him to the USA, they would want to ensure they had solid evidence to prosecute.

For a criminal prosecution to be successful the prosecutor needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it.

But to bring a prosecution the English prosecutors use a "balance of probabilities" test. As a random member of the public I want to know that the evidence they have is at least balance of probabilities before they bring a prosecution. The higher burden of proof is for the people at court to test. It's not for me to test the evidence against that higher burden of proof.

They could simply declare the diplomatic staff persona non-grata and revoke their diplomatic status. They'd have to leave the country. They could even cancel the diplomatic status of the embassy. That wouldn't have immediate effect and the Ecuadorians would have treaty guaranteed rights to clear out their effects but it would eventually lead to a moment where Assange is inside a building emptied of diplomats which ceases to be an embassy at some defined hour.

I remember the press saying the UK can always revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy but that would create a diplomatic precedence and put UK embassies everywhere in danger.

Borders aren't that permanent. Remember the UK has a decently sized open land border.

What? You mean between Northern Ireland and Ireland? That's the only land border the UK has, and it's one hell of a trek from London, and on the wrong side of the Irish Sea.

Sorry, I'm wrong, just thought of the other land border - Gibraltar and Spain. Still, he's going to do well to sneak across either of those... and sneaking around Europe, into Gibraltar, only then to sneak across the amazingly heavily guarded border there... is probably the worst escape plan I could think of.

Further edit: OK, Cyprus and Akrotiri, too, which is even further afield.

I was thinking of NI border. If he can get out of the embassy and London, why not sneak to Scotland, boat across, and sneak over?

Why would you go to Scotland before going to Ireland?

It's the closest part of Britain to Northern Ireland. If you want to sneak to NI, you can do it there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com