13 ms·

UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour'

189 points by p01926 11y ago

hahainternet 11y ago
It's extremely hard to understand how this could be the case. He has evaded prosecution for rape for years and still has people defending him. It was entirely his own choice to seek refuge inside the embassy and he did so to avoid prosecution. This makes him a gigantic hypocrite in addition to the sexual offences. Reading the complaint against him, it's very hard to see how anyone could justify his actions. I'm sure there'll be much posted in this thread shortly though calling him a hero.
- pizzapill 11y ago
  I'm one of those who would defend his actions. Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. A country where the harshest penalty is the death sentence, a country that imprisons people for life without a due process and a country that tortures its prisoners. Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", but that could be wrong. EDIT: Read up on the issue and the accusation is that he had unprotected sex with a woman while she was asleep.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. He spent weeks in UK before going to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why didn't the UK extradit him to the US? Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", ...while said woman was sleeping, and when the evening before she had categorically refused to have sex without a condom, AFAIK.
    - Cyph0n 11y ago
      Great, but it's still just an accusation. If the UK is willing to spend millions to get Assange back to Sweden so he can be questioned about an accusation... I mean, come on, isn't that a bit too much? There's surely something else going on here the way I see it.
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        That's how the criminal justice system works. How would you prefer it were done? He was tried in absentia, and only arrested in convicted?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - vidarh 11y ago
      The UK has a well established history of actually having a judiciary that is willing to stand up against US extradition requests and make it possible to drag them out for years. Sweden, meanwhile, has a history of black bagging political asylum seekers and illegally handing them over to the CIA. If I was Assange, I know where I would take my chances.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Well it's more that with the two women he agreed to use a condom and then did it without it against their wishes which is certainly bad form and which apparently breaks the law in Sweden.
  - ars 11y ago
    Try not to get your information about the USA from reddit threads. It will give you a very skewed view.
    - pizzapill 11y ago
      What is so wrong with my view? What has reddit to do with it? Just asking you to point it out so I can adjust my opinion.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    "Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA" Now you're the one using absolutes that no-one can be certain of. One of the key points about the whole process is that Sweden can't pre-emptively say what they would do if the US requested extradition because they haven't. The one extradition case we have seen play out, to a country famed for its liberal criminal justice policy (Sweden) from a country famed for the rule of law (UK) gave him many opportunities to test the process through the courts. That was even through the European Arrest Warrant process which is supposed to streamline extradition processes. If, and it is an if, Assange were to be subject to an extradition request from the US he would be able to challenge it through the courts. He wouldn't face the death penalty as European countries don't extradite under those circumstances. Similarly prison conditions can be argued and again European courts can require commitments from the US regarding conditions and treatment before they would approve an extradition. The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. Finally it is also worth saying that Assange has probably also shot himself in the foot if he ever did face extradition to the US. He was bailed in the UK (where there is a presumption of bail) and this able to flee to the embassy. If he were arrested again facing extradition to the US he would be much less likely to be granted bail and so unable to claim political asylum on a much more sympathetic case.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      > The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. It is illuminating about why Assange might feel safe in the UK compared to a country that his own leaks have demonstrated continued to host CIA rendition flights for years after the government said they would stop after being caught illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA. UK courts actually do stand up against US extradition requests. In Sweden, on the other hand, it is not clear that the government will abide by Swedish law.
      - cmdkeen 11y ago
        Here's the kicker - the UK's permission would be needed if Sweden went on to consider extraditing to the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 It's because we're still vicariously liable because we're handing him into the power of another country. So not only would Swedish courts be an appeal process the UK's would as well. Plus it is worth making the point that it is inconceivable that the USA would "black bag" Assange. Kidnapping a high profile Australian citizen from a European country while he was still being protected by the UK legal system is beyond international incident territory, the repercussions would be immense. If the US wanted to illegally abduct him making him the focus of the international media and several legal systems is a really bad precursor. If anything they want to put him on trial and make an example out of him, not apply car batteries to him in some Egyptian hell hole. A trial means a legal means of getting him before a US court, which means following established extradition processes.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) Frankly, the probability of the USA torturing or executing a celebrity journalist from a Western country isn't particularly high anyway, especially not when it involves extradition from a European country, but of course asking countries to rewrite their statute book to offer him a special personal guarantee it won't happen is a good way of deflecting a rape charge.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      > There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) > His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) If you are going by this, then it also doesn't make sense that he's prepared to spend years holed up in an embassy to avoid a case based on allegations that 1) has extremely low conviction rates even before considering that at least one of the women is refusing to cooperate with police, 2) where the punishment generally would be much less time than what he's so far spent holed up in an embassy in a relatively low security Swedish prison. If all is above board, then had he returned to Sweden he'd have been free a long time ago. As I've said many times before before, I don't think that Sweden has been pushed by the US here, but I do think Assange genuinely think they do, and I can see why he'd be worried, especially given the strange behaviour of the prosecutor.
      - notahacker 11y ago
        > Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) Except that he stayed in Sweden for months knowing there was an investigation against him and being free to leave, then left on the day he was advised they intended to interview him under caution with intent to charge him. The former makes no sense whatsoever if you fear conspiracies to render you to the US. The latter makes a lot of sense if what you're really trying to avoid is a reputation-damaging trial. And yes, his reputation isn't exactly unblemished, but making the story about conspiracies against him certainly has a lot more appeal to his natural supporters than making the story about that tearful woman opposite him in the courtroom, even if that tearful woman's testimony amounts to nothing.
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    Why do you think your ten minutes of Googling makes you better placed to judge what constitutes a crime than the UK Supreme Court?
    - PlzSnow 11y ago
      It's not worth arguing with Assangers on HackerNews, it's like trying to argue with a Scientologist. Their beliefs are faith-based: facts and logic are of no interest.
    - pizzapill 11y ago
      Where did I write anything like that?
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    Welcome to HackerNews, where people actually believe that Sweden would extradite Assange to the USA where he would be executed. It's so braindead I can't even begin to respond.
    - pizzapill 11y ago
      You did respond. What is braindead about it? Sweden and other EU countries are extremely hesitant when it comes to extradition based on "political crimes", therefore the US prosecutors already changed the inducement to computer fraud etc. I live in a EU country where our government looks the other way when our citizens are being illegally detained by the CIA. There is at least one case where one of our citizens was tortured for years w/o court date. When the US found out that he was not a terrorist, they asked our foreign minister what should happen to him. He told them to keep him, so he was tortured for a couple more years. The whole world looked the other way when the US forced down a diplomatic plane to search for Snowden. Chelsea Manning was sentenced to a life in prison under circumstances that can't be called due process. What is so outlandish about thinking that Assange would be extradited?
      - yxhuvud 11y ago
        For starters Sweden have laws against extraditing people for crimes where there is a risk of the offender to be executed on a guilty verdict.
        vidarh 11y ago
        Sweden also has a history of, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, black bagging political asylum seekers and handing them over to CIA to have them shipped off to be tortured. Years later Swedish military intelligence uncovered that CIA rendition flights via Sweden were still ungoing. Conveniently we know of the latter thanks to Wikileaks, seeing as the Swedish government kept quiet about it. I don't think Assange's case is a US conspiracy, but I also am not that surprised if Assange does genuinely believe it, and the bizarre behaviour of the Swedish prosecutor (which my personal theory is down to domestic politics - both the prosecutor and the appointed attorney for the women have a history of pushing for radical tightening of the application of Swedish laws on rape and sexual abuse) certainly would give him more reason to hold on to such a belief.
- junto 11y ago
  He has evaded prosecution for rape for years Whilst I am no fan of Assange, I think it is fair to point out that Assange is avoiding deportation to Sweden to face questioning concerning accusations of alleged rape. He isn't being prosecuted (yet). Innocent until proved guilty please, whether you or I like him or not.
  - ars 11y ago
    > Innocent until proved guilty please, whether you or I like him or not. Being prosecuted doesn't mean guilty. Calling being questioned being prosecuted isn't that far off the mark. And neither term implies guilt.
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    > He isn't being prosecuted (yet). Yes, because he has evaded it.
    - 1stop 11y ago
      ... Evading prosecution. The only thing here done is make his extradition order impossible to execute, he hasn't really evaded (ie he didn't break the conditions of his bail)
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        Of course he broke the conditions of his bail. He was ordered to surrender himself to the court after he lost his Supreme Court hearing. He skipped bail (leaving his supporters £100k out of pocket).
- macns 11y ago
  Julian Assange is an awarded journalist and one of the most famous hactivists of the 21st century[0]. Wikileaks (founded by him) published documents supplied by Chelsea Manning including the Collateral Murder video[1], the Afghanistan war logs[2], the Iraq war logs[3] and many others. Who would you call a hero? Have you watched the Manning videos? [0] Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrik... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak EDIT: s/awarder/awarded
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    Doing good things doesn't give you magic credits to let you off bad behaviour.
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    You forgot to mention the rape stuff.
    - notgood 11y ago
      Yeah, the time he got horny so didn't use a condom and that constitutes "rape" for some people; accusation already posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033327
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        Luckily "getting too horny" is not a defence against rape charges.
        notgood 11y ago
- gillianseed 11y ago
  Here is the actual complaint, translated from swedish to english: Sexual Assault They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass. They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'. She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night. She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards. She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian. Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby. They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills. His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour. After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would. She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills). After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'. edit: pdf of the original complaint (in swedish): http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf
ptha 11y ago
I'm just flabbergasted at how much the UK has spent on the operation: Last October, Scotland Yard said it would no longer station officers outside the Ecuador embassy following an operation which it said had cost £12.6m. But it said "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him" would still be deployed.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Just shows you how must the State values its secrets. And Assange was right, knowledge is power and with that power you can disrupt the existing power structures. And in the end make the world into a better place.
- jgrahamc 11y ago
  Why? He's a high-profile fugitive who is evading arrest for alleged sexual offences against women in a member state in Europe.
  - realusername 11y ago
    That's the official version indeed.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    One charge was dropped, and it was for molestation and they ran out of time on that one. The rape charge is from a women who continued to sleep with after the alleged rape, according to Assange for a week. Not particularly serious charges, in my opinion.
    - jgrahamc 11y ago
      So, if they are not serious charges he should have his day in court and get it over with. And, don't tell me the ridiculous story about how if he went to Sweden he'd be extradited to the US. He was in the UK, you think we aren't buddy-buddy with the US and would have handed him over?
      - 11y ago
Kristine1975 11y ago
But it doesn't mean that he'll walk free. It's not legally binding. And British officials have made clear that the European arrest warrant against him remains in place. The panel's ruling will not have any formal influence over the British and Swedish authorities and the UK Foreign Office said it still had an obligation to extradite Mr Assange. I don't quite understand: Why appeal to the UN in the first place, if their ruling is not legally binding?
- dagw 11y ago
  Very few things that the UN does is legally binding. The idea is that you can use the ruling to shame national governments into doing the right thing, and it gives politician that support the ruling leverage for trying to oust the sitting government.
- jgrahamc 11y ago
  It's a political move. He wants to use the UN to put pressure on the UK and Sweden. Why hasn't Assange appealed to the European Court of Human Rights? Both Sweden and the UK are members and he's subject to a European arrest warrant.
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    Probably because at every stage where a court has looked into the issue they have crushed him. The UK Supreme Court's ruling was very clear on the matter and did him no favours in terms of public opinion. Taking to the ECHR and losing would be another serious blow.
    - jgrahamc 11y ago
      I think that's the correct answer. So, rather than going up the legal hierarchy in Europe, Assange is attempting a political end-run by going to the UN.
      - ars 11y ago
        The bigger question is why is the UN going along with it. They already have basically no credibility - why make it worse? The UN should stop trying to tell countries what to do, no one listens to them anyway. Focus on helping when asked, and brokering voluntary treaties, when asked.
jamesk_au 11y ago
There is something curious about the conclusion that surrounding a person for the purpose of lawfully detaining them amounts to unlawful detention. Hasn't that been a traditional method of catching a suspect? "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded!" Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy. We'll have to wait for the reasons to be published.
- junto 11y ago
  Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy There is no secret in that. It's an embassy and sovereign territory of the Ecuadorians. No government in their right mind would trespass.
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    > No government in their right mind would trespass. What about forcing down a presidential plane (of a nearby country)? Would a government in their right mind do that? Once a hegemonic country's closest-held secrets are involved, all bets seem to be off. I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't stage some kind of covert snatch from the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US).
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't raid the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US). While we're speculating: Could this mean that the US doesn't want Assange anymore?
      - lmm 11y ago
        It's not a binary thing. The US will put a certain value on getting Assange and that will determine the extent to which they'd be willing to expend resources (including diplomatic capital) on doing so. I think the value of catching Assange probably dropped a lot post-Snowden though. He's probably more famous, and more importantly he proves that Assange isn't a one-off.
chippy 11y ago
The UK police have said they will still arrest him if he leaves, and the UN ruling is not legally binding.
- igl 11y ago
  Ha. Organisations like the UN or EU are pointless if countries can just choose not to ratify decisions. Sad.
  - mootothemax 11y ago
    >Ha. Organisations like the UN or EU are pointless if countries can just choose not to ratify decisions. Sad. I thought the point was to get people round the negotiating table in a safe environment, rather than breeding resentment by forcing people to sign things at gunpoint?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      There's no point in getting people to negotiate if there's no way to ensure they'll follow what has been agreed upon after leaving the table.
      - orting 11y ago
        Forcing a nation is what war is about, and it rarely works out very well. Negotiation is about finding a solution to a problem that leaves all parties better off if they follow the solution than if they don't. It is not always easy and sometimes coercion, in the form of sactions within EU and UN, is used to make one party realize what is best for them - but this also tends to work out not very well. Not forcing people to do what you want is often a more succesful way of getting what you need.
masteryupa_ 11y ago
As mentioned by some people in the comments, Assange may still be arrested due to the lack of jurisdiction of UN panel's such as this. If that is the case, what is there that we (as supporters of Assange's plight) can do to add pressure to the UK government and forward the effort towards securing his freedom?
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  Why would "we" want Assange to go free? He's wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault.
  - 1stop 11y ago
    Why did we want Aaron Swartz to go free? He was actually charged with a felony crime. Or maybe some times things aren't what they seem and their are political motivations, and they require politics to fight them, not just blindly following false justice
    - diyorgasms 11y ago
      These allegations of sexual assault really should be investigated in good faith. The time is coincidental, I'll grant that, with the allegations being levied against Assange shortly after WikiLeaks published something so prominent, but non-consensual sexual activity is a horrible thing to do to a person, and the impact of such should not be mitigated.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Because the Swedish authorities have actively prevented him from having a chance to defend himself in court.
runarb 11y ago
I do feel for Assange. Hi is in a bad situation, but personally so do I not see how his voluntary attempt to evade a legal arrest order is detention. Hi is accused of a serious crime and the Swedish authorities must investigate it.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The whole situation has nothing to do with the alleged crimes - he would be out of jail by now if he was even convicted. It is all about if he is to be extradited to the USA or not. If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    > If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA So the catch-22 is that he says he is happy to go to Sweden in case he is given guarantees of not being extradited, but no such guarantee is possible under Swedish law. What swedish authorities could (and should) do in this situation is just make some really broad statements about how even though they have agreements with the USA, no one would ever be extradited from Sweden to any country in case they risked facing the death penalty and/or are whistle blowers.
    - Tomte 11y ago
      As a European country Sweden does not extradite in case the extradited person faces the death penalty.
      - runarb 11y ago
        Sweden has done some questionable extraditions in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
        alkonaut 11y ago
Ma8ee 11y ago
Who exactly is he detained by?
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  Nobody yet, but the UK police / government already indicated they'd arrest him if he stepped out of the embassy (which is why they had a 24/7 watch on the embassy for two years), so that effectively is detainment.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    Couldn't he have used a diplomatic bag to leave the embassy?
    - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
      They considered that. The UK police had orders to detain him anyway. http://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-julian-assange-freedom-bag http://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-ju...
    - wmil 11y ago
      No. That's not how diplomatic bags work. Diplomatic privileges don't give the diplomats any right to transport individuals across another country's territory. Convoluted 'diplomatic bag' schemes don't reflect how the law actually works.
  - mbreedlove 11y ago
    Apparently the 24/7 surveillance on the embassy cost £11.1 million ($17.6 million). Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/19/julian-assanges-sojourn-in-ecuadorian-embassy-has-cost-british-taxpayers-more-than-17-million/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/19...
    - tlrobinson 11y ago
      How many officers do they have stationed there? Even factoring in 24/7 surveillance with overtime that's at least a couple dozen officers' salaries.
contingencies 11y ago
Shame on the UK. Shame on Sweden. Shame on the US. We're with you Julian.
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  I'm not. He's a clown who is hiding from being questioned on charges of sexual assault.
  - kozukumi 11y ago
    I'm not all that fond of Assange for other reasons however I disagree that he is hiding. Everyone knows where he is and he is only there to protect himself. He has never disagreed to being questioned at the embassy. I believe he is correct in saying the sexual assault allegation is a dirty tactic to get him for his WikiLeaks activities.
  - contingencies 11y ago
    If you really believe that, read "Legal Myths about Assange Extradition" at http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-... or Justice for Assange's myth debunker @ https://justice4assange.com https://justice4assange.com .. or go straight to the leaked Swedish police transcripts and make up your own mind.
  - efdee 11y ago
    If only it were that simple. There have been numerous occasions on which the questioning could have taken place, if that was really the point.
    - lucozade 11y ago
      If you haven't already, it's worth reading the New Statesman piece that @contingencies linked to. It has a verbatim account that the prosecutor passed to the UK courts during the extradition hearings. To paraphrase, they don't want to question Assange. They want to arrest him. They already believe there is enough info to indict. For reasons explained in the piece, they can't reasonably lay down the indictment until he is in Sweden.
dhoe 11y ago
It may be worth pointing out that this is not a court. It's some working group.
contingencies 11y ago
Shame on the UK. Shame on Sweden. Shame on the US. We're with you Julian.
chippy 11y ago
For some frequently asked questions, from Assange's side of things, as it seems as if a few people here haven't heard about Assange before on Hacker News, take a look at the FAQ section halfway down this page (you can skip the top bit if you are somewhat familiar) https://justice4assange.com/ https://justice4assange.com/ It's also worth a look at some of the arguments here: https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html (edits: made the above clearer that the FAQs were from Assange's side)
- ascorbic 11y ago
  I'm not sure Assange's own site is the best source for unbiased facts on the case. Here's the other side: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol... [Edit: tone]
  - chippy 11y ago
    Right, thanks!
  - robhu 11y ago
    Thank you for that link - I haven't come across a well researched analysis of all of the entire legal history up to this point. I'd say this was required reading before commenting here.
- macns 11y ago
  Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. He is currently a fugitive from UK and Swedish justice, in Ecuador's London embassy after having been granted political asylum by Ecuador in August 2012.
ck2 11y ago
Is it still costing UK taxpayers a million per month? Vaguely remember something like that. Think of what good all that money could have done instead. Why don't UK folks do a petition for THAT so your parliment has to argue it, instead of something useless (but impressive) like banning Trump from the UK
- SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
  There was a petition - it got something pitiful like 650 votes. Apparently people care a lot more about Trump.
- wmil 11y ago
  Because at this point he's wanted by the police for skipping bail. The courts can't just ignore that because he's been hiding out for too long. The justice system has an obligation to bring him in.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    >The justice system has an obligation to bring him in. Generally there's an expectation of reasonable effort, 24/7 police guard isn't going to magically stop him from leaving.
agd 11y ago
I think the key issue is that the Swedish prosecutor (until recently) made no effort to question him in the embassy. Given how badly the US wants Assange, and how we know they treat people like him, it is completely understandable that he wouldn't want to leave the embassy. Therefore it is hard to understand why the Swedish prosecutor was content to sit on her backside when it's in everyone's (not least the alleged victims) interest to move the case forward.
- rtpg 11y ago
  Pretty much every "why don't they do this" argument in this case usually forgets the Swedish law aspect. For example , I think here the questioning was more of a "placing under arrest" (there was something about how the questioning is mandatory before officially declaring someone a suspect). And the questioning needed to happen in Sweden for some constitutional thing? So I don't remember the Swedish law stuff too sell either but there were legal barriers to questioning in the embassy Not to mention that the whole "This is to bring him to the US" thing ignores that: - extradition from the UK to the US requires going through UK courts -Extradition from the UK to the US through Sweden requires goig through Swedish AND UK courts. Its strictly harder "But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from? The whole Swedish side of the story is bizarre but any argument about US influence in the prosecution seems to not make any sense except if to commit character attacks. Because it made US extradition harder, not easier
  - cia_stooge 11y ago
    > "But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from? Yes. Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.
    - rmc 11y ago
      Because the UK stands up to the USA all the time?
      - tunap 11y ago
dsp1234 11y ago
Note that the article says the panel will rule on Friday, not that he has already won. If there is an updated article showing more recent developments, then a link to that would be awesome
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
I thought this comment in the other thread was insightful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033115 Why did he go to the UN? Probably because they're not a court and have no actual power here.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
timwaagh 11y ago
i cannot figure out for the life of me why so many support him given what the women went through.
- valarauca1 11y ago
  For the same reason people still watch Woody Allen movies, listen to the music of Michael Jackson, and why Cosby Show reruns are still on TV. Talent is more important then morals.
  - adekok 11y ago
    The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" seems appropriate here.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - adekok 11y ago
        No. I'm saying that the legal system (flawed as it is) is the best way we have to determine culpability. I am capable of making moral judgements on my friends, but it is much harder to make moral judgements about public figures. I don't know them, and I don't know their accusers. Either one, or both, might be lying. Until such time as I have evidence, I have to conclude that the accusations sound bad, but I have little reason to believe that they are true or false. From the public statements I've seen about the three cases mentioned, there seems to be significant flaws in the accusations. Simply believing one side over another "just cause" leads to lynchings and public panics.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  What did the women go through? I understand he's been charged with sexual assault, but from what I understand the Swedish laws about sexual assault are quite different from those elsewhere, seems to be somewhat more demanding about what is classed as consent, but I could be wrong on that.
realityking 11y ago
Could the title be changed to the original? ("WikiLeaks' Assange 'unlawfully detained' in Ecuador embassy, U.N. panel to rule, BBC says") As the article correctly points out, this is currently a rumor, the panel has not yet ruled.
rogeryu 11y ago
I'm still appalled by the fact that Sweden, which seems to be one of the best countries to live in, cannot handle this situation better.
- elchief 11y ago
  They're America's bitch. Like the UK. That's the problem.
ascorbic 11y ago
Can this be merged into the other post? This article is just quoting the BBC one.
acqq 11y ago
The article that Reuters refers to: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910 The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.asp... Apparently their report is to be published tomorrow. I personally don't see how is he "detained" when he himself decided to sit in the Embassy. Maybe because the UK by waiting on him to exit the embassy doesn't recognize his status of having political asylum granted by Ecuador? I'd like to read the (as the article says, legally directly non-binding for the UK) report of the UN Working Group myself to adjust my opinion. Up to then it's just media making noise, still no new information, except that the report is expected to be published. I believe he's with reasonable probability in danger of being extradited to the US and there having the fate similar to Manning's. As far as I understand there is also some kind of "working group" formed in the US that specially works on his case, and the US really successfully does such things as demanding the extradition of people they want to prosecute and then getting them. Edit: If somebody wants to try to guess what the arguments of the Working Group can be, the starting point should be: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pd... "according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories: A) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him)(Category I); B) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II); C) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (Category III)." It's not about the "detention" but about the "deprivation of liberty." That has more sense.
- fungos 11y ago
  > I don't see how UK is doing something illegal Threats of storming into an embassy is not illegal? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-idUSBRE87E16N20120816 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-... Or threats to arrest him inside an diplomatic transport? Or even threats to ignore any diplomatic immunity at all? Nothing illegal here it seems.
mrmondo 11y ago
Imagine how many people could be educated with the money that governments spend on activities like this, I doubt it will ever happen but until we stop the mostly needless wastage of throwing money at bureaucratic political games we'll never get off this rock. You know who's being punished when that money is being spent? The public, not Assange, not Wikileaks, not any governments - it's the public. Politics aside, there is no human reason why informed, intelligent people could not speak and asses him within the embassy, then give the same treatment to those making claims and present their findings accordingly, it's only the totalitarian inhuman systems of political practise that have prevented sound, logical reasoning to take place. If the evidence clearly states that he directly hurt other human beings then he should face punishment for that in the country that he is a citizen of, if it is unclear he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty but still investigated transparently and humanely. With regards to assisting parts of Wikileaks - he was part of a large community of people (remember, we're humans and we want to get along for the most part) that exposed corruption and wrongdoing by people and governments in positions of power. If you have to break a law to prove that laws have been broken both parties must be treated with the same scrutiny - end of story. Edit: I'd like to add that if the sexual assault claims were true he should be treated as a mental patient that committed a crime rather than a criminal with malicious intent of direct wrong doing. You can't heal, or change people with punishment - humans are adaptive, complex organisms that need quality education, therapy, social training and reflection and then they need to play a part in the community to help prevent such things from happening again. If you think about the money that's been spent with regards to the alleged sexual crimes alone - with those millions of dollars just think about how many people that could help, not just with education but also improving mental health, support networks and so forth that can make a difference not just to 1-3 people but thousands of people. The value of where our money has been spent on this is clearly very poor.
rogerthis 11y ago
If "UN ruling" were binding then it would turn the notion of political asylum irrelevant. Political asylum only makes sense if laws have some sort of limit. And I am not looking into Assange's case specifics, but in a more abstract way, in which a bad "UN ruling" should be considered.
rubberstamp 11y ago
If USA didn't do anything illegal/scandalous/unethical/violate_their_own_constitution, then there wouldn't be incentive for anyone to leak anything if at least there was proper channels to go through to point errors and correct the system. Instead of correcting the system, those in power are trying to going after whistle blowers. The system is no longer a democracy.
tptacek 11y ago
For those wondering: the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a panel currently consisting of one individual each from South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Benin, and Ukraine. Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  > Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN. This detail is strangely absent from all the existing coverage of this story. Legal power aside, is there some larger process at play that requires them to side with Assange? Or is this just a play for a Pyrrhic victory?
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  It is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN. As comparisons go, this is quite specious. To wit: it is quite misleading to suggest that an entity specifically chartered by the UN (to present its findings to the UN) is somehow comparable to an independent NGO that happens to share office space in the same building.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Well then, we disagree.
ryanlol 11y ago
There seems to be some ridiculously large misconceptions here regarding these two things: 1. Assange is not violating any Swedish laws or policies by staying in the embassy and avoiding extradition, he has no obligation to return to Sweden and every right not to. 2. Assanges presence in Sweden is not required by Swedish policies or laws, Swedish courts already called out the prosecutor for not accepting his statements from the embassy. The duty of the prosecutor also seems to need clarifying, some people here seem to think that the prosecutor has no obligation to agree to interview Assange in the embassy. This is absolutely not true. Do you not think that the victims(although not entirely applicable here) are OK with the prosecutor indefinitely delaying the case until the crimes expire just because she is too arrogant to pick up the phone and ring up Assange or buy a 30 euro plane ticket to London? Another thing worth noting is that many people seem to think UK is a particularly easy country to extradite people from, this isn't exactly true. See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love. Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  Also worth noting is that Assange has said repeatedly that he would leave the embassy if he is given written assurance that he won't be extradited to the US.
  - dopamean 11y ago
    I don't think anyone could guarantee that. What if he was extradited to Australia and then Australia gave him up?
    - _delirium 11y ago
      It's possible to extradite people only following an agreement about their treatment post-extradition. For example the receiving party could agree to not further extradite them. This kind of agreement happens fairly often. A common example is extraditions to the US from EU countries. Following a 1989 decision of the European Court of Human Rights [1], EU countries cannot extradite suspects to the US if they would face the death penalty in the US. Therefore in every extradition from the EU to the US involving a potentially capital crime, the US first signs a waiver agreeing not to seek the death penalty in the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom
notahacker 11y ago
For better or worse I suspect the UN panel ruling would be the same if, instead of being a noted whistleblowing journalist hiding from equivalent allegations in the Ecuadorean embassy it was, say, a former senior diplomat for Gadaffi's Libya, or a prominent US cult leader, or another non-"hero" type that could claim the same fears of extradition and arbitrary detention with the same degree of plausibility. On the other hand, I suspect that if he had that sort of background there wouldn't be many people here willing to advance the argument that the original prosecution must be politically motivated, or it wasn't a real crime... Justice is supposed to be blind.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  I don't think there is any argument against the prosecutions behaviour being politically motivated, the Swedish courts have confirmed that the prosecutor acted in breach of her duty by not agreeing to interview Assange in the embassy.
acqq 11y ago
If somebody wants to try to guess what the arguments of the UN Working Group can be, the starting point should be: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pd... "according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories: A) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him)(Category I); B) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II); C) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (Category III)." It's about the "arbitrary deprivation of liberty" against his human rights.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Most likely cause is the fact that (despite Swedish law) the Swedish prosecutor has forced him to stay in the embassy by refusing to interview him there, if she had done so the EAW could be cancelled and the whole extradition mess would be over. Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden and there's no need for him to do so, so forcing him to stay in the embassy just because the prosecutor wants it is undoubtedly "arbitrary".
jccc 11y ago
AP confirms: https://twitter.com/AP/status/695258621454741505 https://twitter.com/AP/status/695258621454741505
laveur 11y ago
This title is misleading... he has not won anything yet... he is still waiting for their ruling... The ruling I believe from the article suppose to come out tomorrow. So please make sure you read the article. He has also said that if he looses which might still he will freely give himself up for arrest tomorrow at noon.
- jccc 11y ago
  It's a done deal: https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 UN says Sweden's foreign ministry was informed last month.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Everyone is reacting to the leaked prediction of the panel's decision; what makes you think Assange's statement isn't also a reaction to that? If he knows how the panel is going to decide, it's not particularly courageous of him to suggest he'd turn himself over if they voted against him.
  - jccc 11y ago
    The statement was made Wednesday night, U.S. time: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856 Do we have reason to believe Assange knew about the decision beforehand? Moreover, do we have reason to be less interested in the larger context of the UN panel's decision than in the ways in which we can paint the motives of Assange's statement?
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I'm not invested in this situation either way. I think the charges against Assange are weak, but that he should face them. I don't believe he ever will, though. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the US wants to spirit him out of Sweden; in fact, my personal belief is that if he himself flew to JFK Airport tomorrow, his only problem would be that we would take 8 hours of waiting in a room at customs before informing him that we wouldn't let him in the country at all. A lot of the hypothesizing about the US kidnapping or assassinating Assange makes sense only on a message board. In reality, just about the worst thing that could happen for the US is for Assange to suddenly disappear. Meanwhile, I think things are playing out in the embassy exactly how everyone watching it figured it would, and exactly as Assange hoped: he's waiting out the charges, which grow staler and less immediate to the victim and harder to prosecute by the day. Eventually, Sweden will stop caring enough to force extradition. He'll never be able to go back to Sweden again without risking prosecution, so he just won't, and that will be the end of the story. The comparison to Polanski is apt. Let me just say this in advance: I am a person on the Internet who probably does not agree with you about this stuff. You need to be ok with that. I'm certainly ok with you, a total stranger, not agreeing with me!
vilhelm_s 11y ago
Truly courageous of Assange to to write that "Should the U.N. announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden, I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal," at the same time as the BBC is reporting that they ruled for him.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Assange made his statement at 3 AM GMT, when did BBC leak this?
  - vilhelm_s 11y ago
    Did they leak it to the BBC or to Assange first?
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      AFAIK only the state parties and members of the panel had access to the info, so most likely source of the leak is UK govt. Leaking it to the BBC (UK state media) sort of discredits the whole process and Assanges statement, so that might be motivation enough for someone.
jccc 11y ago
AP: "Sweden's foreign ministry says U.N. panel concluded that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's detention is 'arbitrary'" https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 A U.N. official says Sweden was informed last month of a U.N. panel's decision on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. While the panel hasn't officially released its decision, Sweden's foreign ministry said Thursday that the advisory group had concluded that Assange has been a victim of "arbitrary" detention at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012. http://bigstory.ap.org/7bb5647f6042478ab3d56d4bbe73b90b http://bigstory.ap.org/7bb5647f6042478ab3d56d4bbe73b90b
qrendel 11y ago
Considering what a brief and skewed description of the Julian Assange story is reported by the article, this is probably a good time to repost John Pilger's more thorough reporting on the events, for anyone who wasn't following it or doesn't remember clearly: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-is-a-farce-a-special-investigation http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-i...
- youngtaff 11y ago
  Which is also a biased article!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Flaming Reddit style comments tend to get deleted pretty quickly 'round here.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- ktRolster 11y ago
  You are very low on the pyramid, try to move up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_programmer%29#/media/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_progra... Your post would have been better if you'd posted links explaining why you disagree. Insulting just makes you look ignorant.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Well, he is right in that the comment he's responding to didn't really add anything to the subject but rather serves to distract from it. Assanges bail violation has nothing to do with the UN decision.
- dang 11y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11035423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11035423 and marked it off-topic.
zekevermillion 11y ago
Not an expert on EU or UK law, but it seems odd to me that a ruling by a UN panel would have any effect on Assange's legal status. Perhaps it is just cover for him to live in a non-EU country and fight extradition?
sarciszewski 11y ago
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/ http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide... https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands... Remember: JTRIG (NSA+GCHQ) is very interested in online propaganda and controlling public opinion through shills. Note: Both serve their governments, which have decided to treat Assange as an enemy rather than a journalist. I don't think this is okay. I encourage everyone to be on guard for this sort of behavior on news stories related to Assange.

189 points by p01926 11y ago

It's extremely hard to understand how this could be the case. He has evaded prosecution for rape for years and still has people defending him. It was entirely his own choice to seek refuge inside the embassy and he did so to avoid prosecution. This makes him a gigantic hypocrite in addition to the sexual offences. Reading the complaint against him, it's very hard to see how anyone could justify his actions. I'm sure there'll be much posted in this thread shortly though calling him a hero.

pizzapill 11y ago
I'm one of those who would defend his actions. Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. A country where the harshest penalty is the death sentence, a country that imprisons people for life without a due process and a country that tortures its prisoners. Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", but that could be wrong. EDIT: Read up on the issue and the accusation is that he had unprotected sex with a woman while she was asleep.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. He spent weeks in UK before going to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why didn't the UK extradit him to the US? Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", ...while said woman was sleeping, and when the evening before she had categorically refused to have sex without a condom, AFAIK.
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    Great, but it's still just an accusation. If the UK is willing to spend millions to get Assange back to Sweden so he can be questioned about an accusation... I mean, come on, isn't that a bit too much? There's surely something else going on here the way I see it.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      That's how the criminal justice system works. How would you prefer it were done? He was tried in absentia, and only arrested in convicted?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - vidarh 11y ago
    The UK has a well established history of actually having a judiciary that is willing to stand up against US extradition requests and make it possible to drag them out for years. Sweden, meanwhile, has a history of black bagging political asylum seekers and illegally handing them over to the CIA. If I was Assange, I know where I would take my chances.
- tim333 11y ago
  Well it's more that with the two women he agreed to use a condom and then did it without it against their wishes which is certainly bad form and which apparently breaks the law in Sweden.
- ars 11y ago
  Try not to get your information about the USA from reddit threads. It will give you a very skewed view.
  - pizzapill 11y ago
    What is so wrong with my view? What has reddit to do with it? Just asking you to point it out so I can adjust my opinion.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  "Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA" Now you're the one using absolutes that no-one can be certain of. One of the key points about the whole process is that Sweden can't pre-emptively say what they would do if the US requested extradition because they haven't. The one extradition case we have seen play out, to a country famed for its liberal criminal justice policy (Sweden) from a country famed for the rule of law (UK) gave him many opportunities to test the process through the courts. That was even through the European Arrest Warrant process which is supposed to streamline extradition processes. If, and it is an if, Assange were to be subject to an extradition request from the US he would be able to challenge it through the courts. He wouldn't face the death penalty as European countries don't extradite under those circumstances. Similarly prison conditions can be argued and again European courts can require commitments from the US regarding conditions and treatment before they would approve an extradition. The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. Finally it is also worth saying that Assange has probably also shot himself in the foot if he ever did face extradition to the US. He was bailed in the UK (where there is a presumption of bail) and this able to flee to the embassy. If he were arrested again facing extradition to the US he would be much less likely to be granted bail and so unable to claim political asylum on a much more sympathetic case.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. It is illuminating about why Assange might feel safe in the UK compared to a country that his own leaks have demonstrated continued to host CIA rendition flights for years after the government said they would stop after being caught illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA. UK courts actually do stand up against US extradition requests. In Sweden, on the other hand, it is not clear that the government will abide by Swedish law.
    - cmdkeen 11y ago
      Here's the kicker - the UK's permission would be needed if Sweden went on to consider extraditing to the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 It's because we're still vicariously liable because we're handing him into the power of another country. So not only would Swedish courts be an appeal process the UK's would as well. Plus it is worth making the point that it is inconceivable that the USA would "black bag" Assange. Kidnapping a high profile Australian citizen from a European country while he was still being protected by the UK legal system is beyond international incident territory, the repercussions would be immense. If the US wanted to illegally abduct him making him the focus of the international media and several legal systems is a really bad precursor. If anything they want to put him on trial and make an example out of him, not apply car batteries to him in some Egyptian hell hole. A trial means a legal means of getting him before a US court, which means following established extradition processes.
- notahacker 11y ago
  There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) Frankly, the probability of the USA torturing or executing a celebrity journalist from a Western country isn't particularly high anyway, especially not when it involves extradition from a European country, but of course asking countries to rewrite their statute book to offer him a special personal guarantee it won't happen is a good way of deflecting a rape charge.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) > His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) If you are going by this, then it also doesn't make sense that he's prepared to spend years holed up in an embassy to avoid a case based on allegations that 1) has extremely low conviction rates even before considering that at least one of the women is refusing to cooperate with police, 2) where the punishment generally would be much less time than what he's so far spent holed up in an embassy in a relatively low security Swedish prison. If all is above board, then had he returned to Sweden he'd have been free a long time ago. As I've said many times before before, I don't think that Sweden has been pushed by the US here, but I do think Assange genuinely think they do, and I can see why he'd be worried, especially given the strange behaviour of the prosecutor.
    - notahacker 11y ago
      > Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) Except that he stayed in Sweden for months knowing there was an investigation against him and being free to leave, then left on the day he was advised they intended to interview him under caution with intent to charge him. The former makes no sense whatsoever if you fear conspiracies to render you to the US. The latter makes a lot of sense if what you're really trying to avoid is a reputation-damaging trial. And yes, his reputation isn't exactly unblemished, but making the story about conspiracies against him certainly has a lot more appeal to his natural supporters than making the story about that tearful woman opposite him in the courtroom, even if that tearful woman's testimony amounts to nothing.
- ascorbic 11y ago
  Why do you think your ten minutes of Googling makes you better placed to judge what constitutes a crime than the UK Supreme Court?
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    It's not worth arguing with Assangers on HackerNews, it's like trying to argue with a Scientologist. Their beliefs are faith-based: facts and logic are of no interest.
  - pizzapill 11y ago
    Where did I write anything like that?
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  Welcome to HackerNews, where people actually believe that Sweden would extradite Assange to the USA where he would be executed. It's so braindead I can't even begin to respond.
  - pizzapill 11y ago
    You did respond. What is braindead about it? Sweden and other EU countries are extremely hesitant when it comes to extradition based on "political crimes", therefore the US prosecutors already changed the inducement to computer fraud etc. I live in a EU country where our government looks the other way when our citizens are being illegally detained by the CIA. There is at least one case where one of our citizens was tortured for years w/o court date. When the US found out that he was not a terrorist, they asked our foreign minister what should happen to him. He told them to keep him, so he was tortured for a couple more years. The whole world looked the other way when the US forced down a diplomatic plane to search for Snowden. Chelsea Manning was sentenced to a life in prison under circumstances that can't be called due process. What is so outlandish about thinking that Assange would be extradited?
    - yxhuvud 11y ago
      For starters Sweden have laws against extraditing people for crimes where there is a risk of the offender to be executed on a guilty verdict.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        Sweden also has a history of, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, black bagging political asylum seekers and handing them over to CIA to have them shipped off to be tortured. Years later Swedish military intelligence uncovered that CIA rendition flights via Sweden were still ungoing. Conveniently we know of the latter thanks to Wikileaks, seeing as the Swedish government kept quiet about it. I don't think Assange's case is a US conspiracy, but I also am not that surprised if Assange does genuinely believe it, and the bizarre behaviour of the Swedish prosecutor (which my personal theory is down to domestic politics - both the prosecutor and the appointed attorney for the women have a history of pushing for radical tightening of the application of Swedish laws on rape and sexual abuse) certainly would give him more reason to hold on to such a belief.
junto 11y ago
He has evaded prosecution for rape for years Whilst I am no fan of Assange, I think it is fair to point out that Assange is avoiding deportation to Sweden to face questioning concerning accusations of alleged rape. He isn't being prosecuted (yet). Innocent until proved guilty please, whether you or I like him or not.
- ars 11y ago
  > Innocent until proved guilty please, whether you or I like him or not. Being prosecuted doesn't mean guilty. Calling being questioned being prosecuted isn't that far off the mark. And neither term implies guilt.
- ascorbic 11y ago
  > He isn't being prosecuted (yet). Yes, because he has evaded it.
  - 1stop 11y ago
    ... Evading prosecution. The only thing here done is make his extradition order impossible to execute, he hasn't really evaded (ie he didn't break the conditions of his bail)
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      Of course he broke the conditions of his bail. He was ordered to surrender himself to the court after he lost his Supreme Court hearing. He skipped bail (leaving his supporters £100k out of pocket).
macns 11y ago
Julian Assange is an awarded journalist and one of the most famous hactivists of the 21st century[0]. Wikileaks (founded by him) published documents supplied by Chelsea Manning including the Collateral Murder video[1], the Afghanistan war logs[2], the Iraq war logs[3] and many others. Who would you call a hero? Have you watched the Manning videos? [0] Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrik... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak EDIT: s/awarder/awarded
- ascorbic 11y ago
  Doing good things doesn't give you magic credits to let you off bad behaviour.
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  You forgot to mention the rape stuff.
  - notgood 11y ago
    Yeah, the time he got horny so didn't use a condom and that constitutes "rape" for some people; accusation already posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033327
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      Luckily "getting too horny" is not a defence against rape charges.
      - notgood 11y ago
gillianseed 11y ago
Here is the actual complaint, translated from swedish to english: Sexual Assault They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass. They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'. She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night. She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards. She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian. Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby. They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills. His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour. After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would. She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills). After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'. edit: pdf of the original complaint (in swedish): http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf

ptha 11y ago

I'm just flabbergasted at how much the UK has spent on the operation: Last October, Scotland Yard said it would no longer station officers outside the Ecuador embassy following an operation which it said had cost £12.6m. But it said "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him" would still be deployed.

x5n1 11y ago
Just shows you how must the State values its secrets. And Assange was right, knowledge is power and with that power you can disrupt the existing power structures. And in the end make the world into a better place.
jgrahamc 11y ago
Why? He's a high-profile fugitive who is evading arrest for alleged sexual offences against women in a member state in Europe.
- realusername 11y ago
  That's the official version indeed.
- x5n1 11y ago
  One charge was dropped, and it was for molestation and they ran out of time on that one. The rape charge is from a women who continued to sleep with after the alleged rape, according to Assange for a week. Not particularly serious charges, in my opinion.
  - jgrahamc 11y ago
    So, if they are not serious charges he should have his day in court and get it over with. And, don't tell me the ridiculous story about how if he went to Sweden he'd be extradited to the US. He was in the UK, you think we aren't buddy-buddy with the US and would have handed him over?
    - 11y ago

Kristine1975 11y ago

But it doesn't mean that he'll walk free. It's not legally binding. And British officials have made clear that the European arrest warrant against him remains in place. The panel's ruling will not have any formal influence over the British and Swedish authorities and the UK Foreign Office said it still had an obligation to extradite Mr Assange. I don't quite understand: Why appeal to the UN in the first place, if their ruling is not legally binding?

dagw 11y ago
Very few things that the UN does is legally binding. The idea is that you can use the ruling to shame national governments into doing the right thing, and it gives politician that support the ruling leverage for trying to oust the sitting government.
jgrahamc 11y ago
It's a political move. He wants to use the UN to put pressure on the UK and Sweden. Why hasn't Assange appealed to the European Court of Human Rights? Both Sweden and the UK are members and he's subject to a European arrest warrant.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Probably because at every stage where a court has looked into the issue they have crushed him. The UK Supreme Court's ruling was very clear on the matter and did him no favours in terms of public opinion. Taking to the ECHR and losing would be another serious blow.
  - jgrahamc 11y ago
    I think that's the correct answer. So, rather than going up the legal hierarchy in Europe, Assange is attempting a political end-run by going to the UN.
    - ars 11y ago
      The bigger question is why is the UN going along with it. They already have basically no credibility - why make it worse? The UN should stop trying to tell countries what to do, no one listens to them anyway. Focus on helping when asked, and brokering voluntary treaties, when asked.

jamesk_au 11y ago

There is something curious about the conclusion that surrounding a person for the purpose of lawfully detaining them amounts to unlawful detention. Hasn't that been a traditional method of catching a suspect? "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded!" Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy. We'll have to wait for the reasons to be published.

junto 11y ago
Perhaps there is something significant in the fact that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy There is no secret in that. It's an embassy and sovereign territory of the Ecuadorians. No government in their right mind would trespass.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  > No government in their right mind would trespass. What about forcing down a presidential plane (of a nearby country)? Would a government in their right mind do that? Once a hegemonic country's closest-held secrets are involved, all bets seem to be off. I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't stage some kind of covert snatch from the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US).
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    I'm actually a bit surprised that Britain didn't raid the Ecuadorian embassy after all these years (at the behest of the US). While we're speculating: Could this mean that the US doesn't want Assange anymore?
    - lmm 11y ago
      It's not a binary thing. The US will put a certain value on getting Assange and that will determine the extent to which they'd be willing to expend resources (including diplomatic capital) on doing so. I think the value of catching Assange probably dropped a lot post-Snowden though. He's probably more famous, and more importantly he proves that Assange isn't a one-off.

chippy 11y ago

The UK police have said they will still arrest him if he leaves, and the UN ruling is not legally binding.

igl 11y ago
Ha. Organisations like the UN or EU are pointless if countries can just choose not to ratify decisions. Sad.
- mootothemax 11y ago
  >Ha. Organisations like the UN or EU are pointless if countries can just choose not to ratify decisions. Sad. I thought the point was to get people round the negotiating table in a safe environment, rather than breeding resentment by forcing people to sign things at gunpoint?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    There's no point in getting people to negotiate if there's no way to ensure they'll follow what has been agreed upon after leaving the table.
    - orting 11y ago
      Forcing a nation is what war is about, and it rarely works out very well. Negotiation is about finding a solution to a problem that leaves all parties better off if they follow the solution than if they don't. It is not always easy and sometimes coercion, in the form of sactions within EU and UN, is used to make one party realize what is best for them - but this also tends to work out not very well. Not forcing people to do what you want is often a more succesful way of getting what you need.

masteryupa_ 11y ago

As mentioned by some people in the comments, Assange may still be arrested due to the lack of jurisdiction of UN panel's such as this. If that is the case, what is there that we (as supporters of Assange's plight) can do to add pressure to the UK government and forward the effort towards securing his freedom?

PlzSnow 11y ago
Why would "we" want Assange to go free? He's wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault.
- 1stop 11y ago
  Why did we want Aaron Swartz to go free? He was actually charged with a felony crime. Or maybe some times things aren't what they seem and their are political motivations, and they require politics to fight them, not just blindly following false justice
  - diyorgasms 11y ago
    These allegations of sexual assault really should be investigated in good faith. The time is coincidental, I'll grant that, with the allegations being levied against Assange shortly after WikiLeaks published something so prominent, but non-consensual sexual activity is a horrible thing to do to a person, and the impact of such should not be mitigated.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Because the Swedish authorities have actively prevented him from having a chance to defend himself in court.

runarb 11y ago

I do feel for Assange. Hi is in a bad situation, but personally so do I not see how his voluntary attempt to evade a legal arrest order is detention. Hi is accused of a serious crime and the Swedish authorities must investigate it.

danieltillett 11y ago
The whole situation has nothing to do with the alleged crimes - he would be out of jail by now if he was even convicted. It is all about if he is to be extradited to the USA or not. If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  > If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA So the catch-22 is that he says he is happy to go to Sweden in case he is given guarantees of not being extradited, but no such guarantee is possible under Swedish law. What swedish authorities could (and should) do in this situation is just make some really broad statements about how even though they have agreements with the USA, no one would ever be extradited from Sweden to any country in case they risked facing the death penalty and/or are whistle blowers.
  - Tomte 11y ago
    As a European country Sweden does not extradite in case the extradited person faces the death penalty.
    - runarb 11y ago
      Sweden has done some questionable extraditions in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
      - alkonaut 11y ago

Ma8ee 11y ago

Who exactly is he detained by?

Cthulhu_ 11y ago
Nobody yet, but the UK police / government already indicated they'd arrest him if he stepped out of the embassy (which is why they had a 24/7 watch on the embassy for two years), so that effectively is detainment.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  Couldn't he have used a diplomatic bag to leave the embassy?
  - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
    They considered that. The UK police had orders to detain him anyway. http://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-julian-assange-freedom-bag http://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-ju...
  - wmil 11y ago
    No. That's not how diplomatic bags work. Diplomatic privileges don't give the diplomats any right to transport individuals across another country's territory. Convoluted 'diplomatic bag' schemes don't reflect how the law actually works.
- mbreedlove 11y ago
  Apparently the 24/7 surveillance on the embassy cost £11.1 million ($17.6 million). Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/19/julian-assanges-sojourn-in-ecuadorian-embassy-has-cost-british-taxpayers-more-than-17-million/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/19...
  - tlrobinson 11y ago
    How many officers do they have stationed there? Even factoring in 24/7 surveillance with overtime that's at least a couple dozen officers' salaries.

contingencies 11y ago

Shame on the UK. Shame on Sweden. Shame on the US. We're with you Julian.

PlzSnow 11y ago
I'm not. He's a clown who is hiding from being questioned on charges of sexual assault.
- kozukumi 11y ago
  I'm not all that fond of Assange for other reasons however I disagree that he is hiding. Everyone knows where he is and he is only there to protect himself. He has never disagreed to being questioned at the embassy. I believe he is correct in saying the sexual assault allegation is a dirty tactic to get him for his WikiLeaks activities.
- contingencies 11y ago
  If you really believe that, read "Legal Myths about Assange Extradition" at http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-... or Justice for Assange's myth debunker @ https://justice4assange.com https://justice4assange.com .. or go straight to the leaked Swedish police transcripts and make up your own mind.
- efdee 11y ago
  If only it were that simple. There have been numerous occasions on which the questioning could have taken place, if that was really the point.
  - lucozade 11y ago
    If you haven't already, it's worth reading the New Statesman piece that @contingencies linked to. It has a verbatim account that the prosecutor passed to the UK courts during the extradition hearings. To paraphrase, they don't want to question Assange. They want to arrest him. They already believe there is enough info to indict. For reasons explained in the piece, they can't reasonably lay down the indictment until he is in Sweden.

dhoe 11y ago

It may be worth pointing out that this is not a court. It's some working group.

contingencies 11y ago

Shame on the UK. Shame on Sweden. Shame on the US. We're with you Julian.

chippy 11y ago

For some frequently asked questions, from Assange's side of things, as it seems as if a few people here haven't heard about Assange before on Hacker News, take a look at the FAQ section halfway down this page (you can skip the top bit if you are somewhat familiar) https://justice4assange.com/ https://justice4assange.com/ It's also worth a look at some of the arguments here: https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html https://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html (edits: made the above clearer that the FAQs were from Assange's side)

ascorbic 11y ago
I'm not sure Assange's own site is the best source for unbiased facts on the case. Here's the other side: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol... [Edit: tone]
- chippy 11y ago
  Right, thanks!
- robhu 11y ago
  Thank you for that link - I haven't come across a well researched analysis of all of the entire legal history up to this point. I'd say this was required reading before commenting here.
macns 11y ago
Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, an organisation which he founded in 2006. He is currently a fugitive from UK and Swedish justice, in Ecuador's London embassy after having been granted political asylum by Ecuador in August 2012.

ck2 11y ago

Is it still costing UK taxpayers a million per month? Vaguely remember something like that. Think of what good all that money could have done instead. Why don't UK folks do a petition for THAT so your parliment has to argue it, instead of something useless (but impressive) like banning Trump from the UK

SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
There was a petition - it got something pitiful like 650 votes. Apparently people care a lot more about Trump.
wmil 11y ago
Because at this point he's wanted by the police for skipping bail. The courts can't just ignore that because he's been hiding out for too long. The justice system has an obligation to bring him in.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  >The justice system has an obligation to bring him in. Generally there's an expectation of reasonable effort, 24/7 police guard isn't going to magically stop him from leaving.

agd 11y ago

I think the key issue is that the Swedish prosecutor (until recently) made no effort to question him in the embassy. Given how badly the US wants Assange, and how we know they treat people like him, it is completely understandable that he wouldn't want to leave the embassy. Therefore it is hard to understand why the Swedish prosecutor was content to sit on her backside when it's in everyone's (not least the alleged victims) interest to move the case forward.

rtpg 11y ago
Pretty much every "why don't they do this" argument in this case usually forgets the Swedish law aspect. For example , I think here the questioning was more of a "placing under arrest" (there was something about how the questioning is mandatory before officially declaring someone a suspect). And the questioning needed to happen in Sweden for some constitutional thing? So I don't remember the Swedish law stuff too sell either but there were legal barriers to questioning in the embassy Not to mention that the whole "This is to bring him to the US" thing ignores that: - extradition from the UK to the US requires going through UK courts -Extradition from the UK to the US through Sweden requires goig through Swedish AND UK courts. Its strictly harder "But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from? The whole Swedish side of the story is bizarre but any argument about US influence in the prosecution seems to not make any sense except if to commit character attacks. Because it made US extradition harder, not easier
- cia_stooge 11y ago
  > "But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from? Yes. Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.
  - rmc 11y ago
    Because the UK stands up to the USA all the time?
    - tunap 11y ago

dsp1234 11y ago

Note that the article says the panel will rule on Friday, not that he has already won. If there is an updated article showing more recent developments, then a link to that would be awesome

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

I thought this comment in the other thread was insightful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033115 Why did he go to the UN? Probably because they're not a court and have no actual power here.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

timwaagh 11y ago

i cannot figure out for the life of me why so many support him given what the women went through.

valarauca1 11y ago
For the same reason people still watch Woody Allen movies, listen to the music of Michael Jackson, and why Cosby Show reruns are still on TV. Talent is more important then morals.
- adekok 11y ago
  The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" seems appropriate here.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - adekok 11y ago
      No. I'm saying that the legal system (flawed as it is) is the best way we have to determine culpability. I am capable of making moral judgements on my friends, but it is much harder to make moral judgements about public figures. I don't know them, and I don't know their accusers. Either one, or both, might be lying. Until such time as I have evidence, I have to conclude that the accusations sound bad, but I have little reason to believe that they are true or false. From the public statements I've seen about the three cases mentioned, there seems to be significant flaws in the accusations. Simply believing one side over another "just cause" leads to lynchings and public panics.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
What did the women go through? I understand he's been charged with sexual assault, but from what I understand the Swedish laws about sexual assault are quite different from those elsewhere, seems to be somewhat more demanding about what is classed as consent, but I could be wrong on that.

realityking 11y ago

Could the title be changed to the original? ("WikiLeaks' Assange 'unlawfully detained' in Ecuador embassy, U.N. panel to rule, BBC says") As the article correctly points out, this is currently a rumor, the panel has not yet ruled.

rogeryu 11y ago

I'm still appalled by the fact that Sweden, which seems to be one of the best countries to live in, cannot handle this situation better.

elchief 11y ago
They're America's bitch. Like the UK. That's the problem.

ascorbic 11y ago

Can this be merged into the other post? This article is just quoting the BBC one.

acqq 11y ago

The article that Reuters refers to: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910 The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.asp... Apparently their report is to be published tomorrow. I personally don't see how is he "detained" when he himself decided to sit in the Embassy. Maybe because the UK by waiting on him to exit the embassy doesn't recognize his status of having political asylum granted by Ecuador? I'd like to read the (as the article says, legally directly non-binding for the UK) report of the UN Working Group myself to adjust my opinion. Up to then it's just media making noise, still no new information, except that the report is expected to be published. I believe he's with reasonable probability in danger of being extradited to the US and there having the fate similar to Manning's. As far as I understand there is also some kind of "working group" formed in the US that specially works on his case, and the US really successfully does such things as demanding the extradition of people they want to prosecute and then getting them. Edit: If somebody wants to try to guess what the arguments of the Working Group can be, the starting point should be: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pd... "according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories: A) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him)(Category I); B) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II); C) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (Category III)." It's not about the "detention" but about the "deprivation of liberty." That has more sense.

fungos 11y ago
> I don't see how UK is doing something illegal Threats of storming into an embassy is not illegal? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-idUSBRE87E16N20120816 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-... Or threats to arrest him inside an diplomatic transport? Or even threats to ignore any diplomatic immunity at all? Nothing illegal here it seems.

mrmondo 11y ago

Imagine how many people could be educated with the money that governments spend on activities like this, I doubt it will ever happen but until we stop the mostly needless wastage of throwing money at bureaucratic political games we'll never get off this rock. You know who's being punished when that money is being spent? The public, not Assange, not Wikileaks, not any governments - it's the public. Politics aside, there is no human reason why informed, intelligent people could not speak and asses him within the embassy, then give the same treatment to those making claims and present their findings accordingly, it's only the totalitarian inhuman systems of political practise that have prevented sound, logical reasoning to take place. If the evidence clearly states that he directly hurt other human beings then he should face punishment for that in the country that he is a citizen of, if it is unclear he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty but still investigated transparently and humanely. With regards to assisting parts of Wikileaks - he was part of a large community of people (remember, we're humans and we want to get along for the most part) that exposed corruption and wrongdoing by people and governments in positions of power. If you have to break a law to prove that laws have been broken both parties must be treated with the same scrutiny - end of story. Edit: I'd like to add that if the sexual assault claims were true he should be treated as a mental patient that committed a crime rather than a criminal with malicious intent of direct wrong doing. You can't heal, or change people with punishment - humans are adaptive, complex organisms that need quality education, therapy, social training and reflection and then they need to play a part in the community to help prevent such things from happening again. If you think about the money that's been spent with regards to the alleged sexual crimes alone - with those millions of dollars just think about how many people that could help, not just with education but also improving mental health, support networks and so forth that can make a difference not just to 1-3 people but thousands of people. The value of where our money has been spent on this is clearly very poor.

rogerthis 11y ago

If "UN ruling" were binding then it would turn the notion of political asylum irrelevant. Political asylum only makes sense if laws have some sort of limit. And I am not looking into Assange's case specifics, but in a more abstract way, in which a bad "UN ruling" should be considered.

rubberstamp 11y ago

If USA didn't do anything illegal/scandalous/unethical/violate_their_own_constitution, then there wouldn't be incentive for anyone to leak anything if at least there was proper channels to go through to point errors and correct the system. Instead of correcting the system, those in power are trying to going after whistle blowers. The system is no longer a democracy.

tptacek 11y ago

For those wondering: the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a panel currently consisting of one individual each from South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Benin, and Ukraine. Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN.

sarciszewski 11y ago
> Its charter gives it no legal power; it is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN. This detail is strangely absent from all the existing coverage of this story. Legal power aside, is there some larger process at play that requires them to side with Assange? Or is this just a play for a Pyrrhic victory?
kafkaesq 11y ago
It is like a version of Amnesty International housed in the UN. As comparisons go, this is quite specious. To wit: it is quite misleading to suggest that an entity specifically chartered by the UN (to present its findings to the UN) is somehow comparable to an independent NGO that happens to share office space in the same building.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Well then, we disagree.

ryanlol 11y ago

There seems to be some ridiculously large misconceptions here regarding these two things: 1. Assange is not violating any Swedish laws or policies by staying in the embassy and avoiding extradition, he has no obligation to return to Sweden and every right not to. 2. Assanges presence in Sweden is not required by Swedish policies or laws, Swedish courts already called out the prosecutor for not accepting his statements from the embassy. The duty of the prosecutor also seems to need clarifying, some people here seem to think that the prosecutor has no obligation to agree to interview Assange in the embassy. This is absolutely not true. Do you not think that the victims(although not entirely applicable here) are OK with the prosecutor indefinitely delaying the case until the crimes expire just because she is too arrogant to pick up the phone and ring up Assange or buy a 30 euro plane ticket to London? Another thing worth noting is that many people seem to think UK is a particularly easy country to extradite people from, this isn't exactly true. See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love. Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.

rpgmaker 11y ago
Also worth noting is that Assange has said repeatedly that he would leave the embassy if he is given written assurance that he won't be extradited to the US.
- dopamean 11y ago
  I don't think anyone could guarantee that. What if he was extradited to Australia and then Australia gave him up?
  - _delirium 11y ago
    It's possible to extradite people only following an agreement about their treatment post-extradition. For example the receiving party could agree to not further extradite them. This kind of agreement happens fairly often. A common example is extraditions to the US from EU countries. Following a 1989 decision of the European Court of Human Rights [1], EU countries cannot extradite suspects to the US if they would face the death penalty in the US. Therefore in every extradition from the EU to the US involving a potentially capital crime, the US first signs a waiver agreeing not to seek the death penalty in the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom

notahacker 11y ago

For better or worse I suspect the UN panel ruling would be the same if, instead of being a noted whistleblowing journalist hiding from equivalent allegations in the Ecuadorean embassy it was, say, a former senior diplomat for Gadaffi's Libya, or a prominent US cult leader, or another non-"hero" type that could claim the same fears of extradition and arbitrary detention with the same degree of plausibility. On the other hand, I suspect that if he had that sort of background there wouldn't be many people here willing to advance the argument that the original prosecution must be politically motivated, or it wasn't a real crime... Justice is supposed to be blind.

ryanlol 11y ago
I don't think there is any argument against the prosecutions behaviour being politically motivated, the Swedish courts have confirmed that the prosecutor acted in breach of her duty by not agreeing to interview Assange in the embassy.

acqq 11y ago

If somebody wants to try to guess what the arguments of the UN Working Group can be, the starting point should be: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pd... "according to the Group, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three categories: A) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him)(Category I); B) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Category II); C) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (Category III)." It's about the "arbitrary deprivation of liberty" against his human rights.

ryanlol 11y ago
Most likely cause is the fact that (despite Swedish law) the Swedish prosecutor has forced him to stay in the embassy by refusing to interview him there, if she had done so the EAW could be cancelled and the whole extradition mess would be over. Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden and there's no need for him to do so, so forcing him to stay in the embassy just because the prosecutor wants it is undoubtedly "arbitrary".

jccc 11y ago

AP confirms: https://twitter.com/AP/status/695258621454741505 https://twitter.com/AP/status/695258621454741505

laveur 11y ago

This title is misleading... he has not won anything yet... he is still waiting for their ruling... The ruling I believe from the article suppose to come out tomorrow. So please make sure you read the article. He has also said that if he looses which might still he will freely give himself up for arrest tomorrow at noon.

jccc 11y ago
It's a done deal: https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 UN says Sweden's foreign ministry was informed last month.
tptacek 11y ago
Everyone is reacting to the leaked prediction of the panel's decision; what makes you think Assange's statement isn't also a reaction to that? If he knows how the panel is going to decide, it's not particularly courageous of him to suggest he'd turn himself over if they voted against him.
- jccc 11y ago
  The statement was made Wednesday night, U.S. time: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856 Do we have reason to believe Assange knew about the decision beforehand? Moreover, do we have reason to be less interested in the larger context of the UN panel's decision than in the ways in which we can paint the motives of Assange's statement?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I'm not invested in this situation either way. I think the charges against Assange are weak, but that he should face them. I don't believe he ever will, though. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the US wants to spirit him out of Sweden; in fact, my personal belief is that if he himself flew to JFK Airport tomorrow, his only problem would be that we would take 8 hours of waiting in a room at customs before informing him that we wouldn't let him in the country at all. A lot of the hypothesizing about the US kidnapping or assassinating Assange makes sense only on a message board. In reality, just about the worst thing that could happen for the US is for Assange to suddenly disappear. Meanwhile, I think things are playing out in the embassy exactly how everyone watching it figured it would, and exactly as Assange hoped: he's waiting out the charges, which grow staler and less immediate to the victim and harder to prosecute by the day. Eventually, Sweden will stop caring enough to force extradition. He'll never be able to go back to Sweden again without risking prosecution, so he just won't, and that will be the end of the story. The comparison to Polanski is apt. Let me just say this in advance: I am a person on the Internet who probably does not agree with you about this stuff. You need to be ok with that. I'm certainly ok with you, a total stranger, not agreeing with me!

vilhelm_s 11y ago

Truly courageous of Assange to to write that "Should the U.N. announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden, I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal," at the same time as the BBC is reporting that they ruled for him.

ryanlol 11y ago
Assange made his statement at 3 AM GMT, when did BBC leak this?
- vilhelm_s 11y ago
  Did they leak it to the BBC or to Assange first?
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    AFAIK only the state parties and members of the panel had access to the info, so most likely source of the leak is UK govt. Leaking it to the BBC (UK state media) sort of discredits the whole process and Assanges statement, so that might be motivation enough for someone.

jccc 11y ago

AP: "Sweden's foreign ministry says U.N. panel concluded that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's detention is 'arbitrary'" https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 https://twitter.com/AP/status/695260597533962241 A U.N. official says Sweden was informed last month of a U.N. panel's decision on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. While the panel hasn't officially released its decision, Sweden's foreign ministry said Thursday that the advisory group had concluded that Assange has been a victim of "arbitrary" detention at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012. http://bigstory.ap.org/7bb5647f6042478ab3d56d4bbe73b90b http://bigstory.ap.org/7bb5647f6042478ab3d56d4bbe73b90b

qrendel 11y ago

Considering what a brief and skewed description of the Julian Assange story is reported by the article, this is probably a good time to repost John Pilger's more thorough reporting on the events, for anyone who wasn't following it or doesn't remember clearly: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-is-a-farce-a-special-investigation http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-i...

youngtaff 11y ago
Which is also a biased article!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

res0nat0r 11y ago
Flaming Reddit style comments tend to get deleted pretty quickly 'round here.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
ktRolster 11y ago
You are very low on the pyramid, try to move up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_programmer%29#/media/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_progra... Your post would have been better if you'd posted links explaining why you disagree. Insulting just makes you look ignorant.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Well, he is right in that the comment he's responding to didn't really add anything to the subject but rather serves to distract from it. Assanges bail violation has nothing to do with the UN decision.
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11035423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11035423 and marked it off-topic.

zekevermillion 11y ago

Not an expert on EU or UK law, but it seems odd to me that a ruling by a UN panel would have any effect on Assange's legal status. Perhaps it is just cover for him to live in a non-EU country and fight extradition?

sarciszewski 11y ago

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/ http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide... https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands... Remember: JTRIG (NSA+GCHQ) is very interested in online propaganda and controlling public opinion through shills. Note: Both serve their governments, which have decided to treat Assange as an enemy rather than a journalist. I don't think this is okay. I encourage everyone to be on guard for this sort of behavior on news stories related to Assange.