5 ms·

Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percenta

by PlzSnow 12y ago

Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did. EDIT: The article says "He has been in a cell, under house arrest, or effectively detained at the Ecuadorian Embassy since December 2010." This is patently a lie. He chooses to stay in the embassay of his own volition. How can anyone take this article seriously?

Jedd 12y ago
> 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.
- PlzSnow 12y ago
  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?
  - Jedd 12y ago
    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-sweden 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.
    - PlzSnow 12y ago
      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.
      - Datsundere 12y ago
        guys, i found the uk government
      - droope 12y ago
        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.
  - honeybooboo123 12y ago
    Because due process doesn't apply when your rulers don't want it to.
  - 12y ago
parennoob 12y ago
> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. If this was the only neccessity, why not do said questioning over video link? This is possible – at least, in England, there is even a company that specializes in it (http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-conferencing-legal/ http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-confere...)
- Tomte 12y ago
  It's technologically possible, but not legally. Shall we rehash all the facts again?
  - parennoob 12y ago
    Don't understand the patronizing tone here. For a start, the BBC Q&A I've read on this says that it's basically the Swedish prosecutors saying, "No, because of circumstances, we want him here", not "It is legally forbidden". The prosecutor saying "We want him here, and we aren't going to tell you why" doesn't exactly radiate fairness and transparency.[1] Maybe I'm wholly mistaken, but it stands to reason that should be a legal possibility that an individual can be questioned over video link. For example, consider a Swedish invalid who is in delicate condition in a London hospital and is medically forbidden to travel. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 "Karin Rosander of the Swedish Prosecution Authority told the BBC on 21 August 2010 that "because of circumstances in the investigation, [the prosecutor's] opinion is that it is necessary that he is present in Sweden". Ms Rosander said the prosecutor had not made clear exactly what those circumstances were. "At this stage of the investigation, [the prosecutor] does not want to specify," she said."
    - Tomte 12y ago
      If he's medically unable to travel for questioning, he cannot travel for his trial, either. The trial which by law has to begin two weeks later, at the latest. Really, we've had that dozens of times on HN now. https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol... http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...

by PlzSnow 12y ago

Jedd 12y ago

> 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.

PlzSnow 12y ago
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?
- Jedd 12y ago
  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-sweden 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.
  - PlzSnow 12y ago
    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.
    - Datsundere 12y ago
      guys, i found the uk government
    - droope 12y ago
      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.
- honeybooboo123 12y ago
  Because due process doesn't apply when your rulers don't want it to.
- 12y ago

parennoob 12y ago

> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. If this was the only neccessity, why not do said questioning over video link? This is possible – at least, in England, there is even a company that specializes in it (http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-conferencing-legal/ http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-confere...)

Tomte 12y ago
It's technologically possible, but not legally. Shall we rehash all the facts again?
- parennoob 12y ago
  Don't understand the patronizing tone here. For a start, the BBC Q&A I've read on this says that it's basically the Swedish prosecutors saying, "No, because of circumstances, we want him here", not "It is legally forbidden". The prosecutor saying "We want him here, and we aren't going to tell you why" doesn't exactly radiate fairness and transparency.[1] Maybe I'm wholly mistaken, but it stands to reason that should be a legal possibility that an individual can be questioned over video link. For example, consider a Swedish invalid who is in delicate condition in a London hospital and is medically forbidden to travel. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 "Karin Rosander of the Swedish Prosecution Authority told the BBC on 21 August 2010 that "because of circumstances in the investigation, [the prosecutor's] opinion is that it is necessary that he is present in Sweden". Ms Rosander said the prosecutor had not made clear exactly what those circumstances were. "At this stage of the investigation, [the prosecutor] does not want to specify," she said."
  - Tomte 12y ago
    If he's medically unable to travel for questioning, he cannot travel for his trial, either. The trial which by law has to begin two weeks later, at the latest. Really, we've had that dozens of times on HN now. https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol... http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...