Hacker News Reader

Comment by Myrmornis | Hacker News Reader

I support Assange 100%. The harassment of him for his involvement in wikileaks was completely inappropriate, especially considering that the Guardian and New York Times worked with him on this and would be similarly culpable if there were any culpability; digging around in his sexual history was a pathetic thing to do -- if you try hard enough you would, for a substantial percentage of people (especially successful men), be able to find someone who will make a negative sexual accusation against them, especially if there are inducements to do so; and the general critiques of his character as "arrogant" etc are similarly irrelevant, and also superficial and childish.

View on HN

It wasn't his "sexual history", he sexually assaulted two women (and his lawyer admitted it - what he did was a clear breach of consent).

I'm not surprised one of the women backed down, they were both being harassed by idiots online for months.

Point of clarification: What Assange's lawyer did was describe the alleged acts. He was trying to argue that, if the complaint was true, it wasn't technically rape under UK law. Unfortunately for Assange, it was very clearly rape under UK law, and the court so ruled.

"Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims [...] Emmerson is not vouching for the accuracy of these accounts but merely offering them as summaries of the charges against his client."

His lawyer was being quite careful not to say "yeah, my client had sex with a sleeping woman without her consent, but it's okay!", he was saying "if the complaint is true, and he did these things, it would still be okay". Which is lucky for Assange, because the court has ruled that it really would not be okay. :)

Source: http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concede...

That's a pretty crappy source.

More informed parties with more understanding of the case, such as Eva Joly, one of the most famous lawyers in Europe, is on Assange's side, and described the Swedish 'minor rape' charges IIRC as being extremely particular to Sweden and nothing like rape as other countries see it, in fact they should not be called rape.

She felt so strongly about the improper handling of the case that she went to Sweden visit the prosecutor to point out the tools available for moving the case forward, but Marianne Ny refused to meet with her.

Similarly, "feminist icon Naomi Wolf" in a "debate with Jaclyn Friedman of Women, Action & the Media on Democracy Now!" Wolf defended Assange as a victim of political persecution:

“If you are going to take the issue of rape seriously,” Wolf said, “the person who is engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, ‘I don’t want this’ and again and again and again these women did not say, ‘this is not consensual.’ Assange was shocked when these were brought up as complaints because he had no idea that this was not a consensual situation.”

I trust these people, with respect and hard won reputations to uphold, far more than some student website.

England has a variety of sexual offences laws. Even what he is alledged to have done is not rape under English law it is a serious offence under similar laws.

Here's the definition of rape: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

According to the UK courts, it actually precisely rape: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

Basically, rape is defined as penetration, without consent, and without a reasonable belief in consent. Someone who is sleeping cannot consent, and you cannot therefore have a reasonable belief in that person's consent (if you're aware they're asleep, at any rate). Thus under UK law, an allegation of penetration of a sleeping person is an allegation of rape.

(The law is the same in most US states, Canada, Australia, Scotland, NZ, and many, but not all, European countries. Even places where it doesn't count as rape, it's generally a serious crime. In Germany that would amount to an allegation of "abuse of persons unable to resist", which can carry a stiff penalty.)

Untrue. This assertion is based on conflating the European Arrest Warrant (issued post-haste with probable US involvement) with inflated accusations with no grounding in evidence with the actual reality of the case. See http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#ALLEGATI... for an explanation.

The court ruled that what Assange is alleged to have done is rape under UK law. I realise that you may have a lot of respect for "feminist icon Naomi Wolf"[1], but her opinions does not represent the law.

Allow me to quote from the actual legal opinion of an actual court (whose opinions, in fact, do represent the law):

'However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.'

And that's that. UK courts ruled—twice—that Assange is alleged to have committed acts that in the UK would be rape, full stop.

(Source: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html)

Untrue. See http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html for an explanation of this allegation and its background, legal and otherwise.

First time I hear about the lawyer, will Google.

Anyway, he hasn't even been on trial. How can you be so sure he is guilty? I think that's an uncivilized attitude.

He's trying to avoid trial. That's the issue at stake. I think we're all indebted to Assange for what he did at wikileaks, but that doesn't make him a saint. I would think higher of him if he would have stood at the trial and been acquitted or even if he were found guilty and accepted the punishment.

Why are we all indebted to Assange? Nobody has any idea whether what he did had a net positive or negative affect on ours or other people's lives. There's doesn't appear to be a reason behind a lot of the leaks, and worst of all there has been little effort made to ensure people don't get killed as a result of what is being leaked. Overall I don't feel indebted to him at all.

Didn't he offer to have the trial held in another place? I haven't followed so closely. But the assumption that it might all be a farce to get him delivered to the US doesn't sound completely far-fetched. Assuming he just avoids the trial because he is guilty is silly. If you don't trust the system, it's a good reason to try to avoid it.

Edit: since I have googled now, apparently he is not wanted in Sweden for a trial, just for a questioning.

It's not even a trial, merely a questioning. And while he has offered to have the questioning take place in London, Swedish law simply doesn't permit it. While that might be ridiculous, it won't just change for this particular case (and Swedish authorities don't make the laws, they enforce them).

Next he wanted guarantees from Swedish authorities that if he were to travel to Sweden, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Swedes tried to explain that no such guarantees can be made: authorities can only process requests for extradition once made. Giving a guarantee up front would be illegal as it completely circumvents the laws regarding extraditions.

These two things combined meant Assange complained "I can't be questioned here nor be guaranteed I won't be extradited to the US!", both of which are ridiculous complaints when you read the laws involved.

They don't want him for "merely a questioning", they want to file charges against him so that the trail can commence. In Sweden you cannot formally file charges against someone who isn't in custody, and Swedish police obviously can't take someone into custody in a country where they don't have jurisdiction.

It's just an accident of terminology that the relevant Swedish legal phrase translates to "questioning" in English.

It's also a bit of a peculiar demand to make. Both Assange and his lawyer can not possibly believe they could get any extralegal guarantees.

Untrue. Swedish law does permit it. See http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

Government should not give preemptive assurances and forego the courts, regardless of whether it has happened in the past.

The main question is: what is there to gain for Sweden by offering any guarantees to Assange (other than having him show up sooner)? It's a matter of relations with the US (which are closer than they should be as Snowden revealed) versus the matter of human rights. A delicate decision without a given answer.

In Sweden one probably wants to keep the possibilities open and delay all investigations regarding refugee status, extradition requests etc to when they actually have Assange. If he wants to wait several years until he needs to visit a hospital, neither the US nor the Swedes really care: his whereabouts are known.

I note that when faced with the fact that they can interview him remotely (and this is entirely normal and occurs frequently in the EU) you've changed the scope of discussion and avoided conceding the point.

Your newly suggested scope is to whether Sweden should give guarantees and accept Assange's generous offer to return to Sweden physically with a guarantee he will not be handed to the US.

The fact is that Assange has not been charged with any crime, left Sweden with its blessing after responding to queries on the case (which was already thrown out of court), and as an innocent member of the global public is certainly not obliged to make such generous offers.

The Swedish prosecutor Marriane Ny's continued lack of movement on the case and media-directed table-thumping, even ignoring her own bar association, prominent international lawyers, and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, has been extremely telling.

How gracious!

You might have missed that the venue of a trial is usually pre-determined, certainly not chosen at the whim of the defendant.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about Amanda Knox? Italy overturned her acquittal and wants another trial.

Do you think she should go to Italy? If she doesn't go, would that make you believe she is guilty?

I think she'd be stupid to go there.

But the difference is: no one in their right mind expected Italy to let Ms. Knox leave for the United States when she was in custody.

Only when she was acquitted, the arrest warrant was lifted, and according to Italian law she was free to go, was she able to leave.

I don't remember - how did Assange get out of Sweden? I assume he wasn't in Sweden anymore when the accusations were made?

So I am really not sure what you are saying? WOuld you have said Amanda Knox should have gone to Italy, had she already been in the US before the first trial?

He is in the UK and is wanted for arrest in the UK. What's difficult to understand?

I think technically he is in Ecuador.

I don't understand the distinction you make between the two cases. Both people are wanted for trial in another country.

No, he isn't. Can the old urban legend about exteritoriality please already die?

The difference is that noone forces Ms. Knox to Italy, because the USA don't extraditre their citizens, I guess.

Assange isn't in Australia. He's in the UK, and the UK forces him to Sweden.

If you don't see the difference, then there's nothing more I can do or say.

Well if they force him, I expect he will go. That's the definition of forcing somebody to do something. So what was your problem again?

Not sure you understand that he might also be guilty of trahison against US. Should he be intercepted by US authorities, he would be given a hard time. That's what he's fleeing against. Had it been the two alleged assaults alone, I'm confident anyone would have faced the trial.

Well, as others have pointed out: Being in the UK actually makes is _more_ likely to be extradited to the US, since when he's in Sweden, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to an extradition request. The UK is also not particularly well known for fighting US extradition requests. That's certainly not accounting for extralegal extradition, but that's a different pair of shoes. I don't think that being in Ecuador helps against that any better than being in Sweden.

Given that, I have the feeling that he was actually trying to avoid the trial and using the fear of extradition to the US as a convenient excuse. I may quite well be wrong on that, but that's how I currently feel.

Why would they need UK agreement to extradition if he's in Sweden???

Because European law says so.

Read the New Statesman article linked somewhere in this thread. You'll find that most of what people on the Internet say about the legal issues is factually wrong.

The New Statesman article and its author David Allen Green have been extensively debunked. If you do choose to read it, read it in conjunction with http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html to get the full picture.

It's not possible to be guilty of treason against a country that is not your own.

Only, the Swedes would have had a quick/sham trial and extradited him promptly to the US regardless of the outcome of the rape case.

Not everything is as black and white as you appear to make it.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would the US try to get him to Sweden first and not get him extradited directly from the UK? The UK is a way closer partner to the US than Sweden.

But it's as black and white as you appear to make it. Just a different kind of black, eh? Why don't we let the court figure that out? Under public scrutiny?

What would the public do, how would they help (in stopping his extraction to the US)? How much "truth" do you think you receive everyday about the state of the world, through our "public" channels?

Apparently you trust the system, so maybe you can not understand how it feels if you don't trust the system. I hope you'll never have issue to worry about it.

Edit: answering here because HN won't let me reply - The issue is not that you trust the system and want him on trial, that's a fair attitude. The issue is that you assume he is guilty because he avoids the trial (or rather, questioning).

Perhaps it makes logical sense if you assume everybody would trust the system. But perhaps you can accept that not everybody trusts the system, and that therefore their avoiding it doesn't prove guilt.

In fact I think your attitude demonstrates a typical failure of the system. Most people (who represent the system) are prone to jumping to conclusions and illogical assumptions (he runs so he must be guilty).

Yes, I do trust the system in general. There's a need for public scrutiny, but in general - while imperfect and certainly in need of some fixing - it's the best system we have had for the last couple of hundred years.

It's understandable that Assange might not trust the system, but that does not mean that I have to support that. It's obviously not a better system if everybody on his own gets to decide which parts of the legal system apply to him or not. It's not an opt-out system.

Given that, even if that were not the case: I trust the UK less than Sweden. The alleged scheme makes no sense: It would be the same for the UK and Sweden could only loose. Unless somebody gives me a credible reason what Sweden has to gain from allowing extralegal action of the US under its legal system, I'm sticking with my opinion.

You read too much into a "he said, she said" case.

That "assault" was not using a condom for which both women didn't want to press charges. They did only so because the prosecutor pressured them into it. Pretty weak.

As I understand it, it wasn't "digging around", but two women who reported sexual assaults that he committed.

Two women who were interviewed by the police at the same time, who were also friends with the police officer.

Can you back that up with some sort of credible source?

http://nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

Accompanied by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilén visits a Stockholm police station — by their own account, for the limited purpose of obtaining assistance in compelling Assange to take an HIV test. Anna Ardin is present during the interview with Ms. Wilén, which is conducted by a friend and political ally of Ms. Ardin.

That is a site dedicated to clear Assange, you don't think they could be partial in their reporting?

Are you suggesting the interviews are fake? Here is the original scanned transcript. It has been translated by other sites if you want to fact check but you seem to have made up your mind. http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf

No I am not.

What I do know is that a person is wanted for questioning regarding acts of sexual violence, that person has fled to another country and has refused to return for said questioning, claiming some conspiracy to send him to the USA.

And the fact that neither of the alleged victims d not want to press charges? You asked for sources the least you could do is read them.

It was basically "suddenly, sexual assaults, out of fucking nowhere" case. Coincidence? Also, AFAIR one of those women retracted the accusation, though I might be misremembering something.

I think the 'retraction' isn't something that can be painted one way or another - there are so many valid reasons on both sides that a retraction could be read, from "didn't happen" to "reconsidered" to "didn't want to be part of international media circus".

Sure, but OTOH. doesn't it strike you weird that allegations of past sexual "crimes" pop up exactly at the moment he pissed of the US Government the most? Why not before?

Did he commit it as assault?

Ah yes, and the timing and context was entirely coincidental. Neither of us know the truth but "digging around" by journalists, law enforcement or intelligence agencies is far more likely to be the reason that this surfaced than pure coincidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com