7 ms·

Julian Assange decision by UN panel ridiculous, says Hammond

44 points by nns 11y ago

mtgx 11y ago
If I were Assange I would stay there until David Cameron or even the Tories are out. But maybe he is tired of staying there and wants to take his chances on the outside.
- chippy 11y ago
  I wouldn't put much trust on waiting for Labour to change things, considering their track record when they were in government. Unless they have actively made a statement in support of his situation, that is (I'm not aware of one). I would imagine that any political party cannot outright support him. It's pretty much impossible for a government to guarantee no extradition, for example, if there hasn't been an extradition request already made, that's just not how the law works in the UK, but they could possibly make it easier for Assange to feel more trust in the legal process.
- ck2 11y ago
  His rape charges expire in 2020 so he'll leave in 4 years. Did you know he has 4 children? I didn't know that.
  - pakled_engineer 11y ago
    The complaints in Sweden were originally due to him refusing to use a condom which would explain the 4 kids from 4 different women. There is somewhere truth in these allegations that Assange plays games with birth control without obtaining consent to not use it, problem is he is almost certainly to be renditioned to the US on a CIA gulf stream if he ends up in Sweden so can't own up to these charges.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > There is somewhere truth in these allegations that Assange plays games with birth control without obtaining consent to not use it Citation for such a claim?
      - pakled_engineer 11y ago
        This was the complaint of the two girls in Sweden
        strathmeyer 11y ago
        Perhaps you should read up more on what happened before falsely accusing someone of being a serial rapist?
        pakled_engineer 11y ago
        Like the actual police reports I guess http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-... I realize this is a highly politically charged issue and Assange is a hero to most people (and me) but there is merit to these charges, which will never get cleared up in a court room because of US shenanigans with backdoor rendition hanging like a dark cloud over the whole thing. I can appreciate his work and not his character, just like I can appreciate the Unabomber manifesto argument without endorsing his personal actions.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I have personally met one of the Unabomber victims. I saw him before and after. I can't appreciate the Unabomber manifesto at all. When someone's opinions lead them to deliberately maim and kill people, I can't read their opinions without remembering their actions.
  - wmil 11y ago
    He can still get 12 months in prison for skipping bail in the UK. From what I can gather there's no statute of limitations on that.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
I'd appreciate it if someone could make an earnest answer to explain to me how on Earth one could agree with the U.N. panel. As I understand it: Assange has been charged in Sweden with rape, on the basis of an alleged victim's complaint. This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant. I know that some question the veracity of the complaint against him, but that does not change the fact that Sweden has clearly followed its own law in pursuing the complaint, including the arrest warrant. (Remember, there's a different standard for arresting someone than convicting them!) On the basis of this arrest warrant, he is now subject to arrest in the U.K. for extradition. Again, this is totally normal. True, there may be questions about whether the Swedish prosecutor could have/should have come to the U.K. to question Assange. But the fact of the matter, legally speaking, is that he is subject to legal arrest in Sweden and, therefore, legally subject to arrest in the U.K. regardless of how the prosecutor chooses to pursue the case. The Swedish prosecutor clearly does not legally have to come to the U.K. to interview him. That's presumably the whole reason that, under Swedish law (and also, more or less, under U.S. law), one can be arrested for questioning. So that a defendant cannot run out the clock on his or her prosecution by dodging the prosecutor. It is often said that he is doing all this to avoid extradition to the U.S. But: a. This is totally speculative, and not a legal basis for avoiding a duly issued arrest warrant in Sweden. a. That didn't stop him from hanging out in Sweden before his rape charge. b. If he is extradited to the U.S., that too will presumably be in the course of a legal process. There is, after all, a good argument that he committed a U.S. crime. Again, one may question the merits of the prosecution in Sweden, or the hypothetical charge in the U.S., but that doesn't make what has happened so far "arbitrary."
- Umn44 11y ago
  "This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant." Except for anyone who has a clue, they know they are trumped up charges. This is the guy running wikileaks.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Some additional problems with the "extradition to the US" angle: * It's not his original argument. His original argument was that the Swedish prosecutor was biased against all men, and that sexual assault charges are a "political issue" in Sweden, so his case can't fairly be heard there. * It doesn't make any sense legally, because Sweden's extradition treaty with the US specifically forbids extradition for espionage or political offenses, the UK treaty doesn't, and if he's rendered to Sweden for trial proceedings, both the UK and Sweden would have to authorize an extradition to the US --- but if the US decides to have him extradited from the UK, only the UK needs to agree. Assange's case was heard before the Chief Magistrate in the UK, who rendered a detailed decision based on significant amounts of witness testimony (which uncovered an instance of Assange's lawyer overtly attempting to deceive the court by claiming Swedish prosecutors had never sought to question Assange despite documented evidence to the contrary), and again before the UK High Court (which again produced a detailed decision against him), and finally before the UK Supreme Court, which again decided against him. I'll also note that the UN WGAD opinion contains factual errors. For instance, it claims that Assange was under "house arrest" before fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy. He was not: as an extradition target, he was subject to monitoring and a curfew, but was otherwise allowed to leave his house at will. It appears as if the UN WGAD opinion is really about litigating the decisions of the Swedish prosecutors, which doesn't seem like a legitimate application of the Arbitrary Detention process.
lowmagnet 11y ago
I love how article titles obfuscate the "is" of equation in that statement. By saying "decision = ridiculous" the only argument someone could have is "is not" to counter it. The article's first line states it more as a matter of Hammond's opinion: > The UK foreign secretary has branded as "ridiculous" a UN panel's ruling that Julian Assange be allowed to go free
- chillydawg 11y ago
  The foreign secretary is an extremely senior post in the government. If he says something like that publicly, it pretty much is, de facto, the opinion of the government.
- talideon 11y ago
  First up, dropping copulas is pretty common practice in new headlines. There's no loss in information or any obfuscation. Hammond made a statement, thus the 'says' in the headline. 'Branding' is attaching a label or description (such as 'ridiculous') to something. If somebody were to make the statement 'that car is fantastic', then they would be branding it as fantastic. Both the sentences 'X branded the car as fantastic' and '"the car is fantastic", said X', would be equally valid statement. I think you're reading into all this far, far too much.
DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
Also the feeling you get when reading the BBC article is that he is a guilty rapist wanted for much larger crimes (than rape). The video has a ticker showing the cost to the UK by putting up with him. Anyone reading this should really notice the bias of this article. It has smear-campaign written all over. One would expect that of course from a FVEY country.
qrendel 11y ago
Tangentially related: I'm not sure if anyone else gets this, but I honestly have trouble reading some of these comments without viewing any argument I disagree with as a potential JTRIG operation. (And yes I know someone was criticized yesterday[1] for making similar accusations in the other thread.) Which is certainly uncharitable towards others' alternative opinions, but how can you honestly not be suspicious at this point? That's why the tactics are so insidious and destructive to civil society: there's really no way to innoculate yourself. Either you potentially let yourself be swayed by a NatSec astroturfing campaign, or let the same sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to where you can't even participate in a political discussion with people of opposing viewpoints. Would be curious how many others have the same reaction and how they deal with it. Though there's a certain amusing irony that one would have cause for paranoid suspicion of those comments as well. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249
- progressive_dad 11y ago
  I used to be afraid of looking the fool for arguing with a machine, but when I looked around everyone was too busy with their smart phones to laugh.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  I'd love to think that HN was interesting enough to JTRIG attract it's attention. Sadly, I tend to doubt that's the case.
  - qrendel 11y ago
    Why not? Judging from the number of submissions and comments per day, and assuming the 1%/10%/89% approximation for how many people are content creators (submitters) vs contributors (commenters) vs lurkers, I'd estimate the site has tens of thousands of daily visitors. The demographic would also tend to be better educated, politically informed, career tech industry people, rather than your typical "low-information voter" who has no influence or authority in the world whatsoever. That plus the smaller number of users who are actually influential people in infosec or other relevant industries. I assumed the government spying apparatus must be keeping at least some amount of eyes on this and similar places, even if it's just an intern or two.

44 points by nns 11y ago

mtgx 11y ago

If I were Assange I would stay there until David Cameron or even the Tories are out. But maybe he is tired of staying there and wants to take his chances on the outside.

chippy 11y ago
I wouldn't put much trust on waiting for Labour to change things, considering their track record when they were in government. Unless they have actively made a statement in support of his situation, that is (I'm not aware of one). I would imagine that any political party cannot outright support him. It's pretty much impossible for a government to guarantee no extradition, for example, if there hasn't been an extradition request already made, that's just not how the law works in the UK, but they could possibly make it easier for Assange to feel more trust in the legal process.
ck2 11y ago
His rape charges expire in 2020 so he'll leave in 4 years. Did you know he has 4 children? I didn't know that.
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  The complaints in Sweden were originally due to him refusing to use a condom which would explain the 4 kids from 4 different women. There is somewhere truth in these allegations that Assange plays games with birth control without obtaining consent to not use it, problem is he is almost certainly to be renditioned to the US on a CIA gulf stream if he ends up in Sweden so can't own up to these charges.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > There is somewhere truth in these allegations that Assange plays games with birth control without obtaining consent to not use it Citation for such a claim?
    - pakled_engineer 11y ago
      This was the complaint of the two girls in Sweden
      - strathmeyer 11y ago
        Perhaps you should read up more on what happened before falsely accusing someone of being a serial rapist?
        pakled_engineer 11y ago
        Like the actual police reports I guess http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-... I realize this is a highly politically charged issue and Assange is a hero to most people (and me) but there is merit to these charges, which will never get cleared up in a court room because of US shenanigans with backdoor rendition hanging like a dark cloud over the whole thing. I can appreciate his work and not his character, just like I can appreciate the Unabomber manifesto argument without endorsing his personal actions.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I have personally met one of the Unabomber victims. I saw him before and after. I can't appreciate the Unabomber manifesto at all. When someone's opinions lead them to deliberately maim and kill people, I can't read their opinions without remembering their actions.
- wmil 11y ago
  He can still get 12 months in prison for skipping bail in the UK. From what I can gather there's no statute of limitations on that.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

I'd appreciate it if someone could make an earnest answer to explain to me how on Earth one could agree with the U.N. panel. As I understand it: Assange has been charged in Sweden with rape, on the basis of an alleged victim's complaint. This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant. I know that some question the veracity of the complaint against him, but that does not change the fact that Sweden has clearly followed its own law in pursuing the complaint, including the arrest warrant. (Remember, there's a different standard for arresting someone than convicting them!) On the basis of this arrest warrant, he is now subject to arrest in the U.K. for extradition. Again, this is totally normal. True, there may be questions about whether the Swedish prosecutor could have/should have come to the U.K. to question Assange. But the fact of the matter, legally speaking, is that he is subject to legal arrest in Sweden and, therefore, legally subject to arrest in the U.K. regardless of how the prosecutor chooses to pursue the case. The Swedish prosecutor clearly does not legally have to come to the U.K. to interview him. That's presumably the whole reason that, under Swedish law (and also, more or less, under U.S. law), one can be arrested for questioning. So that a defendant cannot run out the clock on his or her prosecution by dodging the prosecutor. It is often said that he is doing all this to avoid extradition to the U.S. But: a. This is totally speculative, and not a legal basis for avoiding a duly issued arrest warrant in Sweden. a. That didn't stop him from hanging out in Sweden before his rape charge. b. If he is extradited to the U.S., that too will presumably be in the course of a legal process. There is, after all, a good argument that he committed a U.S. crime. Again, one may question the merits of the prosecution in Sweden, or the hypothetical charge in the U.S., but that doesn't make what has happened so far "arbitrary."

Umn44 11y ago
"This, I would think, is clearly enough to warrant a criminal investigation and, perhaps, an arrest warrant." Except for anyone who has a clue, they know they are trumped up charges. This is the guy running wikileaks.
tptacek 11y ago
Some additional problems with the "extradition to the US" angle: * It's not his original argument. His original argument was that the Swedish prosecutor was biased against all men, and that sexual assault charges are a "political issue" in Sweden, so his case can't fairly be heard there. * It doesn't make any sense legally, because Sweden's extradition treaty with the US specifically forbids extradition for espionage or political offenses, the UK treaty doesn't, and if he's rendered to Sweden for trial proceedings, both the UK and Sweden would have to authorize an extradition to the US --- but if the US decides to have him extradited from the UK, only the UK needs to agree. Assange's case was heard before the Chief Magistrate in the UK, who rendered a detailed decision based on significant amounts of witness testimony (which uncovered an instance of Assange's lawyer overtly attempting to deceive the court by claiming Swedish prosecutors had never sought to question Assange despite documented evidence to the contrary), and again before the UK High Court (which again produced a detailed decision against him), and finally before the UK Supreme Court, which again decided against him. I'll also note that the UN WGAD opinion contains factual errors. For instance, it claims that Assange was under "house arrest" before fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy. He was not: as an extradition target, he was subject to monitoring and a curfew, but was otherwise allowed to leave his house at will. It appears as if the UN WGAD opinion is really about litigating the decisions of the Swedish prosecutors, which doesn't seem like a legitimate application of the Arbitrary Detention process.

lowmagnet 11y ago

I love how article titles obfuscate the "is" of equation in that statement. By saying "decision = ridiculous" the only argument someone could have is "is not" to counter it. The article's first line states it more as a matter of Hammond's opinion: > The UK foreign secretary has branded as "ridiculous" a UN panel's ruling that Julian Assange be allowed to go free

chillydawg 11y ago
The foreign secretary is an extremely senior post in the government. If he says something like that publicly, it pretty much is, de facto, the opinion of the government.
talideon 11y ago
First up, dropping copulas is pretty common practice in new headlines. There's no loss in information or any obfuscation. Hammond made a statement, thus the 'says' in the headline. 'Branding' is attaching a label or description (such as 'ridiculous') to something. If somebody were to make the statement 'that car is fantastic', then they would be branding it as fantastic. Both the sentences 'X branded the car as fantastic' and '"the car is fantastic", said X', would be equally valid statement. I think you're reading into all this far, far too much.

DyslexicAtheist 11y ago

Also the feeling you get when reading the BBC article is that he is a guilty rapist wanted for much larger crimes (than rape). The video has a ticker showing the cost to the UK by putting up with him. Anyone reading this should really notice the bias of this article. It has smear-campaign written all over. One would expect that of course from a FVEY country.

qrendel 11y ago

Tangentially related: I'm not sure if anyone else gets this, but I honestly have trouble reading some of these comments without viewing any argument I disagree with as a potential JTRIG operation. (And yes I know someone was criticized yesterday[1] for making similar accusations in the other thread.) Which is certainly uncharitable towards others' alternative opinions, but how can you honestly not be suspicious at this point? That's why the tactics are so insidious and destructive to civil society: there's really no way to innoculate yourself. Either you potentially let yourself be swayed by a NatSec astroturfing campaign, or let the same sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to where you can't even participate in a political discussion with people of opposing viewpoints. Would be curious how many others have the same reaction and how they deal with it. Though there's a certain amusing irony that one would have cause for paranoid suspicion of those comments as well. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11036249

progressive_dad 11y ago
I used to be afraid of looking the fool for arguing with a machine, but when I looked around everyone was too busy with their smart phones to laugh.
kafkaesq 11y ago
I'd love to think that HN was interesting enough to JTRIG attract it's attention. Sadly, I tend to doubt that's the case.
- qrendel 11y ago
  Why not? Judging from the number of submissions and comments per day, and assuming the 1%/10%/89% approximation for how many people are content creators (submitters) vs contributors (commenters) vs lurkers, I'd estimate the site has tens of thousands of daily visitors. The demographic would also tend to be better educated, politically informed, career tech industry people, rather than your typical "low-information voter" who has no influence or authority in the world whatsoever. That plus the smaller number of users who are actually influential people in infosec or other relevant industries. I assumed the government spying apparatus must be keeping at least some amount of eyes on this and similar places, even if it's just an intern or two.