8 ms·

> Your comment again puts forward the idea that the political forces aligned against Assange are so great that no amount of critical thinking, due process, or c

by doe88 14y ago

> Your comment again puts forward the idea that the political forces aligned against Assange are so great that no amount of critical thinking, due process, or countervailing concern for the rights of victims can apply: it is, to use your word, "obvious" that the case isn't about "rape", but about an undocumented (and undisclosed) but nevertheless clear and immediate effort to haul Assange to the US and try him with espionage. No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way. This is naive, I've seen terrorists harshly condemned in France with few direct proofs, just because the judicial body knows that it's in the common interest to do it. And nobody complained about, not even me. Moreover on the US front I think the case is definitively tainted due to the abusive treatment of Pvt. Manning. When states have great confidence in their system and laws are above all, things like Manning's treatment don't happen in the first place. So imo you cannot overrule the argument of "political forces aligned against Assange" just because you say so, or because EU, US are the "biggest" democracies. They have flaws too.

tptacek 14y ago
The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur. The US punitive pre-trial treatment of Manning indicates that the matter is of sufficient concern that they're willing to endure international criticism for the sake of making an example out of him. If Sweden will do America's bidding over a commercial copyright matter, it seems quite possible they will also do so for what the US characterizes as a national security matter. As we saw with the MegaUpload incident the US doesn't let little things like the law stand in the way of it defending its interests. The fact that the UK is flirting with violating the Vienna Convention over a "rape" case says a lot about this situation. In the 80's Libyans shot a British policewoman dead from their embassy and the UK didn't raid the embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
- jseliger 14y ago
  Actually—as shocked as I am to write this sentence—a comment on Reddit explains some of the bizarre legal wrangling behind the Assange case: http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_government_extradie_julian/c5vn3ue?context=1 http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_... . I'm looking for a way to excerpt the comment, but it's sufficiently cohesive that there's no good way to do so.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I got this far: Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. ... and stopped reading. Assange is wanted for arrest --- it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so. There are lots of great comments on Reddit, for whatever it's worth.
    - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
      > it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so. You keep repeating this, and people keep demonstrating that it is untrue. Edit: And just to be clear, you believe you know more about this than a constitutional law prof from the EU (the author of the reddit comment), correct?
      - Kell 14y ago
        Huh ? Where ? I've seen one intent to show it's untrue (in this thread) and honestly the arguments where bogus. I don't know Swedish law at all. But actually in French law (my domain of study) in a criminal case assigned to a "Juge d'instruction" (who acts more or less like a prosecutor), no indictment ("mise en examen") is possible without a physical presentation to the "Juge d'Instruction". So I know of at least One other set of laws where the idea that someone cannot be charged without a formal presentation to the "prosecutor" is a fact, so it's not unthinkable that the Swedish law can be similar in that matter. And you will need more than : "No it's not true" to convince me that three consecutives Courts including a High Court made a mistake on this point. Edit about your edit : I think that your argument of authority is invalidated by the presence of three decisions by UK courts that took their decisions after hearing counsels and legal experts on both sides of the question.
- lisper 14y ago
  No, that's a straw man. The logic is: because the U.S. has a track record of punishing people deemed by the executive branch as threats to national security without due process of law (up to and including summary execution of its own citizens without so much as a formal charge -- e.g. Anwar Al Awlaki) it is not unreasonable for Assange to suppose that he might also be subject to such treatment if he happens to fall under the physical control of the U.S. or one of its vassal states. IMHO this fear is not entirely unjustified.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    But then the question becomes: why would he be more vulnerable in Sweden than in the UK? The linked article argues that he is more vulnerable to extradition to the US in the UK. I buy that argument. What is your argument that he would be more vulnerable in Sweden?
    - olifante 14y ago
      Sweden is a huge country with very low population density and one of its neighbors is Russia, a formidable military power. This means it is very dependent on the US for its security, and more likely to be vulnerable to explicit or implicit pressure from the US than an island nation of 60 million people that is also a nuclear power. I'm convinced this is also the case with Australia, which is why they're so unwilling to stand up for Assange.
      - desas 14y ago
        They don't actually share a border with Russia, were never part of Russia or the USSR and are part of the EU. There's zero chance of the Russians invading.
      - plugger 14y ago
        You do realise the British nukes are Polaris missiles bought from and serviced by the United States, correct? Put blunt, the UK wouldn't be a nuclear power right now if the US didn't sell them ICBMs. I believe the "special relationship" between the US and the UK would still stand if the US asked for an Australian to be extradited from the UK to the US. The British just extradited O'Dwyer to the US for civil offences. Assange would most likely be charged under the US Espionage Act, which is a criminal offence.
- EdiX 14y ago
  The logic here is that the detention of Bradley Manning without due process for two years in inhuman conditions along with pressure made to Visa, Mastercard and Paypal to halt payment processing to Wikileaks (later found illegal), whatever they pulled to make amazon stop hosting Wikileaks, the potentially government sponsored DDOS attacks, the fact that UK is thinking about violating the Vienna Convention over a minor criminal charge suggest that "the US" (whatever that means) seem to not have qualms about going beyond legality to make an example of Assange. It does sound like a conspiracy theory that the US would do that but so many things that sound like a conspiracy theory have happened around this case that it is no longer a valid proxy for truth.
- tomelders 14y ago
  This may be difficult for you to hear tptacek, but the world doesn't run on logic. If you want to survive, you have to join the dots. People lie. People cheat. And if you fail to infer their motives from their actions, then you will be eaten alive.
doe88 14y ago
> The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur. Sometimes when your live is at risk you cannot only have faith in the truth of logic and mathematics reasoning. You apply others inputs in your decisions, maybe that's what Assange did, I would certainly do if it was me.

by doe88 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur.

mcantelon 14y ago
>The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur. The US punitive pre-trial treatment of Manning indicates that the matter is of sufficient concern that they're willing to endure international criticism for the sake of making an example out of him. If Sweden will do America's bidding over a commercial copyright matter, it seems quite possible they will also do so for what the US characterizes as a national security matter. As we saw with the MegaUpload incident the US doesn't let little things like the law stand in the way of it defending its interests. The fact that the UK is flirting with violating the Vienna Convention over a "rape" case says a lot about this situation. In the 80's Libyans shot a British policewoman dead from their embassy and the UK didn't raid the embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
jseliger 14y ago
Actually—as shocked as I am to write this sentence—a comment on Reddit explains some of the bizarre legal wrangling behind the Assange case: http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_government_extradie_julian/c5vn3ue?context=1 http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_... . I'm looking for a way to excerpt the comment, but it's sufficiently cohesive that there's no good way to do so.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I got this far: Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. ... and stopped reading. Assange is wanted for arrest --- it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so. There are lots of great comments on Reddit, for whatever it's worth.
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    > it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done so. You keep repeating this, and people keep demonstrating that it is untrue. Edit: And just to be clear, you believe you know more about this than a constitutional law prof from the EU (the author of the reddit comment), correct?
    - Kell 14y ago
      Huh ? Where ? I've seen one intent to show it's untrue (in this thread) and honestly the arguments where bogus. I don't know Swedish law at all. But actually in French law (my domain of study) in a criminal case assigned to a "Juge d'instruction" (who acts more or less like a prosecutor), no indictment ("mise en examen") is possible without a physical presentation to the "Juge d'Instruction". So I know of at least One other set of laws where the idea that someone cannot be charged without a formal presentation to the "prosecutor" is a fact, so it's not unthinkable that the Swedish law can be similar in that matter. And you will need more than : "No it's not true" to convince me that three consecutives Courts including a High Court made a mistake on this point. Edit about your edit : I think that your argument of authority is invalidated by the presence of three decisions by UK courts that took their decisions after hearing counsels and legal experts on both sides of the question.
lisper 14y ago
No, that's a straw man. The logic is: because the U.S. has a track record of punishing people deemed by the executive branch as threats to national security without due process of law (up to and including summary execution of its own citizens without so much as a formal charge -- e.g. Anwar Al Awlaki) it is not unreasonable for Assange to suppose that he might also be subject to such treatment if he happens to fall under the physical control of the U.S. or one of its vassal states. IMHO this fear is not entirely unjustified.
- scott_s 14y ago
  But then the question becomes: why would he be more vulnerable in Sweden than in the UK? The linked article argues that he is more vulnerable to extradition to the US in the UK. I buy that argument. What is your argument that he would be more vulnerable in Sweden?
  - olifante 14y ago
    Sweden is a huge country with very low population density and one of its neighbors is Russia, a formidable military power. This means it is very dependent on the US for its security, and more likely to be vulnerable to explicit or implicit pressure from the US than an island nation of 60 million people that is also a nuclear power. I'm convinced this is also the case with Australia, which is why they're so unwilling to stand up for Assange.
    - desas 14y ago
      They don't actually share a border with Russia, were never part of Russia or the USSR and are part of the EU. There's zero chance of the Russians invading.
    - plugger 14y ago
      You do realise the British nukes are Polaris missiles bought from and serviced by the United States, correct? Put blunt, the UK wouldn't be a nuclear power right now if the US didn't sell them ICBMs. I believe the "special relationship" between the US and the UK would still stand if the US asked for an Australian to be extradited from the UK to the US. The British just extradited O'Dwyer to the US for civil offences. Assange would most likely be charged under the US Espionage Act, which is a criminal offence.
EdiX 14y ago
The logic here is that the detention of Bradley Manning without due process for two years in inhuman conditions along with pressure made to Visa, Mastercard and Paypal to halt payment processing to Wikileaks (later found illegal), whatever they pulled to make amazon stop hosting Wikileaks, the potentially government sponsored DDOS attacks, the fact that UK is thinking about violating the Vienna Convention over a minor criminal charge suggest that "the US" (whatever that means) seem to not have qualms about going beyond legality to make an example of Assange. It does sound like a conspiracy theory that the US would do that but so many things that sound like a conspiracy theory have happened around this case that it is no longer a valid proxy for truth.
tomelders 14y ago
This may be difficult for you to hear tptacek, but the world doesn't run on logic. If you want to survive, you have to join the dots. People lie. People cheat. And if you fail to infer their motives from their actions, then you will be eaten alive.

doe88 14y ago

> The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore [SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non sequitur. Sometimes when your live is at risk you cannot only have faith in the truth of logic and mathematics reasoning. You apply others inputs in your decisions, maybe that's what Assange did, I would certainly do if it was me.