Hacker News Reader

Poking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we cant really guess who is wrong or right.

View on HN

Whatever happened with that condom, that definitely falls under "reasonable doubt."

Considering what happened to Assange after that, the first thing that comes to mind is the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Whether that amounts to reasonable doubt is something that could be determined by a jury in a court of law following rules of evidence and procedure, if Assange went to trial.

The charges were dropped.

Because he successfully evaded capture for long enough that the case was no longer viable.

They could have interviewed him in the embassy but declined to do so.

It really isn’t their responsibility to accommodate a fugitive, is it.

It is absolutely the responsibility of the state to act fairly to all.

Which means not making special exceptions for some people, like Assange here.

Are you denying that his claims of being persecuted by the US government were unfounded, given that they have been proven right?

I deny that this is a valid reason to flee prosecution in Sweden.

Does that apply to all proven victims of state persecution or just Assange?

I agree. More information is needed before any judgement could be made one way or the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com