10 ms·

In terms of the asylum principal, this move actually undermines it somewhat. It's intended for politically motivated charges, not simple criminal ones such as t

In terms of the asylum principal, this move actually undermines it somewhat. It's intended for politically motivated charges, not simple criminal ones such as the one faced by Assange. There may be a risk of an extradition request from the US but that can't override the fact that there is a serious crime that needs to be properly investigated and that Assange appears to have questions to answer. And it's not as if he's being sent to somewhere with a shitty human rights record or a dodgy judicial system. It's Sweden. Even if he doesn't trust them as a member of the Council of Europe they're signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights so he has the right of appeal all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights. I honestly can't think of too many places I'd rather be if I wanted my rights respected. It's certainly way above Ecuador on my list.

Retric 14y ago
Assange is facing politically motivated charges in the US that may include the death penalty.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Then he'll be fine in Sweden, the Swede's won't extradite anyone who will face the death penalty. See here: http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/35/77809ec6.pdf http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/35/77809ec6.pdf. Page 3, Section 12, Point 3. Worth noting that this is the text of the "THE EXTRADITION FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT (1957:668)", rather than some statement of government position and therefore is binding in Swedish law. The government simply couldn't send him to the US without suitable assurances.
  - KimbaLion 14y ago
    Let's post this again for the cheap seats shall we! So renditioning for torture: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b.. http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b.... And life imprisonment in somewhere like GITMO (a la Bradley Manning) is just fine I suppose! Oh yes, I'm sure if you were Assange you'd feel SO much better now! Wake the fuck up! Law as written bears NO resemblance to what happens in practice (when it doesn't suit the Powers That Be), and that is just a very small part of what Assange is fighting against. Goddamn it gets tiring having to persuade/enlighten people who don't even realise Assange and Wikileaks are highting THEIR BATTLE for them! Show some bloody gratitude and at least educate yourself about the realities of this sordid world we live in. I think its the LEAST you can do to say thanks to people who ARE actually putting their life on the line for these principles.
toyg 14y ago
Considering the actions of UK government in the last 24 hours, denials that this is a political persecution sound much weaker than before. Do you think Chinese authorities don't brand their actions "simple criminal matters" in most cases? Of course they do. There is no such thing as a "political crime" in undemocratic countries; they're all "internal criminal matters". Regardless, there are many ways of going about obtaining justice for alleged "simple" crimes. Violating the Vienna Convention and jeopardising the basic cornerstones of human-rights policies is simply not worth it for such a small-time criminal matter. A long-sighted view would see that, and find a compromise that Sweden could live with.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Rape is a "small time criminal matter" now? Personally I'd class it as the second most significant crime against the person that the law recognises after murder. There's no suggestion that these charges have been manufactured or that he's only being prosecuted for who he is. There are real victims who have made real accusations and for all the other bullshit going on, Julian Assange isn't above the law (And before we get into the whole "it was about using a condom" thing, one accusation is that he had sex with a sleeping woman which, as well as being really classy, is something that would be recognised as rape in pretty much every civilised country in the world including the UK and the US.) The UK's threat to change the status of the embassy is a massively stupid move (and would violate the Vienna Convention as far as I can see) but everything else is a distraction. Julian Assange may be a freedom fighter, a brave campaigner for truth and whatever else people want to believe, but he's also an accused rapist and none of the other stuff over rides that.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - foobarqux 14y ago
    According to the alleged victim she was "half-asleep". Also it was not their first or last (consensual) sexual interaction.
  - vidarh 14y ago
jlgreco 14y ago
The idea that all political arrests are going to be labelled as such is absurd. Of course they are calling it something else.
jellicle 14y ago
You should probably read up on the situation before commenting.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I have. Any specifics?
  - jellicle 14y ago
    No, I don't believe that. Or more specifically, I don't believe anyone who has spent any time looking into this case can honestly deny that it's a politically motivated prosecution, as you just did. One can reasonably believe that persecuting journalists who expose government wrongdoing is good or bad, of course, but to deny that political motivations exist here is simply lying. It's not a position that can be honestly held. But for whatever reason, lying about this case appears to be important to you - as if the Hacker News discussion is somehow going to affect the course of world events - so go right ahead.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      I'm going to charitably believe that I've been unclear and that you've misunderstood me. What I believe is that two women have made serious allegations which I think deserve to be properly heard and subject to due process. Whatever else Julian Assange has or has not done (on which I have mixed opinions) and whatever political manoeuvering has gone on around it, there is a serious criminal allegation with two alleged victims and I think that matters. If the case is that weak, the evidence that circumstantial and the police process that unprofessional, I'm sure his lawyers will do just fine. Is there a risk to Assange? Maybe, but if the Americans really want him we in the UK have a long history of being America's bitch and I suspect would have handed him over in a trice. I simply can't see how being in Sweden is a greater risk to him than being here. I believe in due process. Not because it's perfect, but because it's better than all the other stuff that's been tried in these situations. You can call me naive or ill-informed but please don't call me a liar, it adds nothing to the debate and you really haven't enough evidence to back it up.
vidarh 14y ago
The UK government has threatened the sanctity of a diplomatic mission, putting diplomats and asylum seekers everywhere at risk, over someone who is wanted for questioning, with no actual charges yet to have been filed. That threat in itself is shocking. If they were to go through with it, dictatorships everywhere would instantly ensure every dissident who as much as looks towards a foreign embassy will get slapped with criminal charges so they can use it to justify entering the embassy to pull them out. > And it's not as if he's being sent to somewhere with a shitty human rights record or a dodgy judicial system. It's Sweden It's Sweden, the country who has admitted to having handed Egyptian dissidents over to masked CIA agents who proceeded to strip them, drug them, chain them, and ship them off to Mubarak to be tortured, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties. The European Court of Human Rights didn't help them much. The kicker? Said Egyptians were in Sweden seeking political asylum because they presumably believed the same you do.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I completely agree that the UK statements about revoking the embassy's status are dumb on a massive level and they need to back off of that position in a hurry. I think Ecuador are abusing the asylum process but your point about what the UK's actions if they did it mean is completely right. In terms of the being charged thing, that's a technical distinction based on how the Swedish process works where you have to be formally questioned before you can be charged. As the UK judges at his appeal stated, it's misleading to say that, criminal charges have in effect been bought. But that still doesn't justify storming the embassy. I'm not saying that mistakes haven't been made in the past but Assange will, I suspect have far better legal representation and a far better PR apparatus than the Egyptian's had. This is a trial that would be in the glare of the world's media which makes any kind of cover up far, far harder.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    Assange has been formally questioned. He was formally questioned back in 2010. Then the prosecutor decided there was no indication of a crime. It took another prosecutor to take the extremely unusual step of swooping in and reopening the case before it was suddenly imperative he was questioned in Sweden, after he had been given the go-ahead to leave. Meanwhile the Swedish police are happily interviewing suspected murderers elsewhere without the same insistence. As for the Egyptians - it caused a massive uproar, then as stated, the US was shown to be right back at it again shortly afterwards, ignoring the political fallout of the initial cases. Even if Sweden doesn't want to be involved in the dirty work - and they have a lengthy history of bending over for the US -, that is by no means any guarantee of anything.

Retric 14y ago

Assange is facing politically motivated charges in the US that may include the death penalty.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Then he'll be fine in Sweden, the Swede's won't extradite anyone who will face the death penalty. See here: http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/35/77809ec6.pdf http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/35/77809ec6.pdf. Page 3, Section 12, Point 3. Worth noting that this is the text of the "THE EXTRADITION FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT (1957:668)", rather than some statement of government position and therefore is binding in Swedish law. The government simply couldn't send him to the US without suitable assurances.
- KimbaLion 14y ago
  Let's post this again for the cheap seats shall we! So renditioning for torture: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b.. http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b.... And life imprisonment in somewhere like GITMO (a la Bradley Manning) is just fine I suppose! Oh yes, I'm sure if you were Assange you'd feel SO much better now! Wake the fuck up! Law as written bears NO resemblance to what happens in practice (when it doesn't suit the Powers That Be), and that is just a very small part of what Assange is fighting against. Goddamn it gets tiring having to persuade/enlighten people who don't even realise Assange and Wikileaks are highting THEIR BATTLE for them! Show some bloody gratitude and at least educate yourself about the realities of this sordid world we live in. I think its the LEAST you can do to say thanks to people who ARE actually putting their life on the line for these principles.

toyg 14y ago

Considering the actions of UK government in the last 24 hours, denials that this is a political persecution sound much weaker than before. Do you think Chinese authorities don't brand their actions "simple criminal matters" in most cases? Of course they do. There is no such thing as a "political crime" in undemocratic countries; they're all "internal criminal matters". Regardless, there are many ways of going about obtaining justice for alleged "simple" crimes. Violating the Vienna Convention and jeopardising the basic cornerstones of human-rights policies is simply not worth it for such a small-time criminal matter. A long-sighted view would see that, and find a compromise that Sweden could live with.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Rape is a "small time criminal matter" now? Personally I'd class it as the second most significant crime against the person that the law recognises after murder. There's no suggestion that these charges have been manufactured or that he's only being prosecuted for who he is. There are real victims who have made real accusations and for all the other bullshit going on, Julian Assange isn't above the law (And before we get into the whole "it was about using a condom" thing, one accusation is that he had sex with a sleeping woman which, as well as being really classy, is something that would be recognised as rape in pretty much every civilised country in the world including the UK and the US.) The UK's threat to change the status of the embassy is a massively stupid move (and would violate the Vienna Convention as far as I can see) but everything else is a distraction. Julian Assange may be a freedom fighter, a brave campaigner for truth and whatever else people want to believe, but he's also an accused rapist and none of the other stuff over rides that.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarqux 14y ago
  According to the alleged victim she was "half-asleep". Also it was not their first or last (consensual) sexual interaction.
- vidarh 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago

The idea that all political arrests are going to be labelled as such is absurd. Of course they are calling it something else.

jellicle 14y ago

You should probably read up on the situation before commenting.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I have. Any specifics?
- jellicle 14y ago
  No, I don't believe that. Or more specifically, I don't believe anyone who has spent any time looking into this case can honestly deny that it's a politically motivated prosecution, as you just did. One can reasonably believe that persecuting journalists who expose government wrongdoing is good or bad, of course, but to deny that political motivations exist here is simply lying. It's not a position that can be honestly held. But for whatever reason, lying about this case appears to be important to you - as if the Hacker News discussion is somehow going to affect the course of world events - so go right ahead.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    I'm going to charitably believe that I've been unclear and that you've misunderstood me. What I believe is that two women have made serious allegations which I think deserve to be properly heard and subject to due process. Whatever else Julian Assange has or has not done (on which I have mixed opinions) and whatever political manoeuvering has gone on around it, there is a serious criminal allegation with two alleged victims and I think that matters. If the case is that weak, the evidence that circumstantial and the police process that unprofessional, I'm sure his lawyers will do just fine. Is there a risk to Assange? Maybe, but if the Americans really want him we in the UK have a long history of being America's bitch and I suspect would have handed him over in a trice. I simply can't see how being in Sweden is a greater risk to him than being here. I believe in due process. Not because it's perfect, but because it's better than all the other stuff that's been tried in these situations. You can call me naive or ill-informed but please don't call me a liar, it adds nothing to the debate and you really haven't enough evidence to back it up.

vidarh 14y ago

The UK government has threatened the sanctity of a diplomatic mission, putting diplomats and asylum seekers everywhere at risk, over someone who is wanted for questioning, with no actual charges yet to have been filed. That threat in itself is shocking. If they were to go through with it, dictatorships everywhere would instantly ensure every dissident who as much as looks towards a foreign embassy will get slapped with criminal charges so they can use it to justify entering the embassy to pull them out. > And it's not as if he's being sent to somewhere with a shitty human rights record or a dodgy judicial system. It's Sweden It's Sweden, the country who has admitted to having handed Egyptian dissidents over to masked CIA agents who proceeded to strip them, drug them, chain them, and ship them off to Mubarak to be tortured, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties. The European Court of Human Rights didn't help them much. The kicker? Said Egyptians were in Sweden seeking political asylum because they presumably believed the same you do.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I completely agree that the UK statements about revoking the embassy's status are dumb on a massive level and they need to back off of that position in a hurry. I think Ecuador are abusing the asylum process but your point about what the UK's actions if they did it mean is completely right. In terms of the being charged thing, that's a technical distinction based on how the Swedish process works where you have to be formally questioned before you can be charged. As the UK judges at his appeal stated, it's misleading to say that, criminal charges have in effect been bought. But that still doesn't justify storming the embassy. I'm not saying that mistakes haven't been made in the past but Assange will, I suspect have far better legal representation and a far better PR apparatus than the Egyptian's had. This is a trial that would be in the glare of the world's media which makes any kind of cover up far, far harder.
- vidarh 14y ago
  Assange has been formally questioned. He was formally questioned back in 2010. Then the prosecutor decided there was no indication of a crime. It took another prosecutor to take the extremely unusual step of swooping in and reopening the case before it was suddenly imperative he was questioned in Sweden, after he had been given the go-ahead to leave. Meanwhile the Swedish police are happily interviewing suspected murderers elsewhere without the same insistence. As for the Egyptians - it caused a massive uproar, then as stated, the US was shown to be right back at it again shortly afterwards, ignoring the political fallout of the initial cases. Even if Sweden doesn't want to be involved in the dirty work - and they have a lengthy history of bending over for the US -, that is by no means any guarantee of anything.