Comment by Jedd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jedd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault.

These questions can evidently not be asked within the embassy. (Ignoring the various, and I concede very loaded, discussions around the validity of the allegations.)

> Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population.

Substitute 'American intelligence agencies' for 'Assange' in that sentence, and perhaps stick a 'tacit' in front of the word support, while you're at it.

To be clear, my point here is that Assange is nowhere near as powerful as any or all of the Swedish, UK, or US governments (or any of their agencies). However, world+dog understands that it's a bit more complicated than 'come and talk to us in our country about these dubious claims, oh and we can't guarantee that we haven't already arranged for you to be flown into Central America to not face charges for the rest of your life'.

> I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did.

I am genuinely concerned about your understanding of the society/ies that you believe you're living in now.

I am genuinely baffled by your reply. Assange is wanted for questioning for allegations of sexual assault, and you say he shouldn't have to follow due process and answer them because... because what? Because his political ideals are aligned with your own? Because of an absurd conspiracy that he will be secretly abducted to Central America?

Don't be baffled.

There are, at the very least, some very dubious aspects surrounding the original claims: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-...

I guess I am suggesting that due process, in this case, should be avoided - but only because this is clearly an exceptional situation, with some profound risks for Assange and other whistle-blowers.

The idea that any change to due process should be avoided because it 'sets precedent' I think is a misdirection. There appears to be not substantial reason for Swedish prosecutors to attend London and talk to Assange directly before making their (next) decision.

To be candid I don't really understand what his political ideals are - but I am informed enough to understand that it's more complicated than the way one might explain it to a 5yo.

I'm still baffled by your arguments. We live in a modern democratic society. Professionals in the law system examined the Assange case and decided that there was a case to answer. Just because someone on the Internet is "dubious about it" doesn't change that, and I would never want to live in a society where it did.

guys, i found the uk government

Obviously the Equatorian government and Assange don't feel that if he were to submit, he would get a fair trial.

I think the argument that they are making -- not that I agree -- is that the UK and Sweden are bad governments, just like when governments protect Chinese journalists and such.

Assange is only wanted for questioning and has repeatedly offered to answer their questions. They stated that he must be questioned in Sweden and only in Sweden without adequately explaining why.

They don't need to explain why because they already have a legally obtained arrest warrant. But in any case, it's obvious why: the investigation has reached a stage where they will almost certainly want to file charges, but they cannot do that while Assange is in the UK. The Swedish prosecutor explained this very clearly:

"Subject to any matters said by him [in the second interview] which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

The kind of objection you're making also assumes Schizophrenia on the part of the Swedish authorities. On the one hand, Assange is "only wanted for questioning", but on the other hand, there's a secret plot to charge him with a crime he didn't commit and have him extradited to the US. Well, which is it?

It seems to be this entire argument can be solved by looking into the number of people who have allegedly committed sexual assault in Sweden, are currently residing in the UK, and have been arrested and deported back to Sweden for questioning. If the answer is zero (or near zero), then there's obviously more to this than what the Swedes are admitting.

The charge is rape, and it is not particularly unusual for EAWs to be issued for rape charges. See here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/c...

"Since 2009 alone, the arrest warrant has been used to extradite from the UK 57 suspects for child sex offences, 86 for rape and 105 for murder."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com