UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour'

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by efdee on Thursday February 04, 2016 @10:15AM (#11034403)

But isn't the fact that they obsess over catching him when he leaves the embassy, over of a claim of sexual molestation that even the "victim" doesn't really support, to the tune of 12 million pounds, a hint that maybe it's not really about this case alone?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by LordKano on Thursday February 04, 2016 @11:26AM (#11035017)

Another hint is that Roman Polanski lives openly in France despite being convicted of drugging and raping a child but somehow Assange is much of Europe's priority...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by tptacek on Thursday February 04, 2016 @11:51AM (#11035214)

It doesn't surprise me that European countries that are all bound by the ECHR (among other things) would take extradition requests from each other more seriously than they would a request from the US. The fact that they won't render Polanski to the US cuts against Assange's argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by kafkaesq on Thursday February 04, 2016 @04:07PM (#11037225)

Would you care to substantiate this idea that the district court which rejected the US extradition request simply "didn't take the request seriously"? Being that this is an incredibly insulting accusation to make about the Polish legal system?

Had you bothered researched the matter a second or two (before making up a condescending opinion about it) you would have readily found the basis on which that court made the decision that it did. A very specific, and universally understood (and generally accepted) basis, in fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by tptacek on Thursday February 04, 2016 @04:18PM (#11037300)

I don't think there's any productive discussion to have about the Polanski case, but if you're referring to the most recent hearing (I've linked to it below), I think it's contemptible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/europe/roman-polansk...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by kafkaesq on Thursday February 04, 2016 @04:44PM (#11037502)

They would call it "due process." As an American, you're welcome to find that contemptible, if you like. But either way, I don't think the Europeans would particularly care.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by tptacek on Thursday February 04, 2016 @04:48PM (#11037535)

He was convicted of a heinous, drug-assisted rape of a child, one he surely committed (he does not contest the victim's story). He's had his due process. What he doesn't like is the outcome.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by kafkaesq on Thursday February 04, 2016 @05:03PM (#11037665)

He was convicted of the drug-assisted rape of a child ...

No, he was charged with "drug-assisted rape", but not convicted.

In fact, he wasn't "convicted" of anything; as part of a deal with the judge, he plead guilty to a related, but different charge ("unlawful intercourse with a minor").

But that's OK. Go on living in this emotionally-driven, fact- and reality-divorced haze if you want to...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by tptacek on Thursday February 04, 2016 @05:12PM (#11037718)

Drug-assisted rape, unlawful intercourse with a minor, potato, po-tah-to, let's call this whole part of the thread off.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by kafkaesq on Thursday February 04, 2016 @09:16PM (#11038949)

Drug-assisted rape, unlawful intercourse with a minor

So now you're basically implying that I was using that phrase to somehow obfuscate or water down what Polanski actually did.

That goes beyond any disagreement -- that's just slimy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by LordKano on Friday February 05, 2016 @04:08PM (#11044637)

A guilty plea counts as a conviction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by kafkaesq on Friday February 05, 2016 @04:25PM (#11044754)

It "counts" the same for sentencing purposes, but they're still different things (and the distinction does matter).

For example, a conviction can be appealed but a guilty plea cannot.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UN panel 'rules in Assange's favour' by Tomte on Thursday February 04, 2016 @02:20PM (#11036435)

I've never understood why Polanski is still in Europe. I get why Poland and France won't extradite him, but all the other European countries he set foot into. Including my own.

[ Parent | on HN ]