Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 160 posts

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#31

Post by jacquesm »

wernercd wrote: post #20
jacquesm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian propaganda You can sufficiently explain all WL actions by simply assuming that they will do whatever it takes to hurt US interests.

As a US Veteran and a US Citizen... if exposing truth hurts US interests - maybe US interests deserve to be hurt? All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn and expose truth...

> All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn and expose truth...

Agreed, but selectively exposing the truth requires that if the net effect is a positive one that enough parties are exposing truths to ensure some kind of balance. If not then it becomes a political force in its own right rather than there is an overall gain in transparency.

I'm pretty conflicted about this, on the one hand I applaud WL for the degree to which they have exposed various wrongs, on the other I am disappointed in how they decided to become a political player rather than to just be a conduit.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#32

Post by jacquesm »

gaius wrote: post #22
jacquesm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it proves that. I think that the US would like to get their hands on JA a lot more than they ever wanted to get their hands on Lauri Love.

Also, Gary McKinnon in 2012.

Both are UK citizens, Assange definitely is not, besides that he was never - as far as we know - on a wanted list of people wanted specifically for any computer related crimes but for an arguably much more serious offense.

Also: Assange's fear was not to be extradited from the UK to the USA but from Sweden. Whether that is realistic or not is another matter entirely but there is some precedent.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#33

Post by notahacker »

acct1771 wrote: post #23
callesgg wrote: post #6

I don't like when things that are clearly not nation state issues is written about as if it was nation state issues.

Who would you put the blame on?

Judicial systems consist of individual people attempting to interpret sets of rules, sometimes with conflicting opinions over interpretations and priorities that change over time.

It's reasonably evident even from the limited number of emails quoted that this was not "Sweden wanting to do X, but the UK prevented them because $politicalagendaofUK" but prosecutor Marianne Ny notifying her UK counterpart that Swedish procedure may require her to drop the case and the counterpart expressing exasperation given the amount of resources the UK had dedicated to fulfilling their own obligations to honour European Arrest Warrants...

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#34

Post by leereeves »

gaius wrote: post #27
toyg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Everyone” is not going to have an embassy aiding and abetting you; and any diplomat or spy worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country. The principle is a fig leaf on top of a political issue. This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK’s relationship with their traditional military allies.

This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK’s relationship with their traditional military allies. I’m not sure the PM actually has the power to do that. Assange is wanted right now for skipping bail. No government is going to pass an Act declaring that not-a-crime.

What's the penalty for that crime? If extradition to the US was absolutely impossible, Assange might be willing to turn himself in and suffer the penalty in order to regain his freedom.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#35

Post by wu-ikkyu »

jvehent wrote: post #8

This is much more complex than a lone hacker being persecuted by an oppressive US government. There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian propaganda, and while I do not know if this is true or not, it does turn the entire Assange story into an intricate mess of international politics and power plays.

>There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian propaganda

They also said Snowden and MLK were working for the Russians/Soviets

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#36

Post by Shivetya »

jacquesm wrote: post #31
wernercd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a US Veteran and a US Citizen... if exposing truth hurts US interests - maybe US interests deserve to be hurt? All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn and expose truth...

> All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn and expose truth... Agreed, but selectively exposing the truth requires that if the net effect is a positive one that enough parties are exposing truths to ensure some kind of balance. If not then it becomes a political force in its own right rather than there is an overall gain in transparency. I'm pretty conflicted about this, on the one…

selectively should be stated as, protecting your own ass. Releasing negative information about the US is far less likely for you to end up dead that releasing about countries who have little interest in human rights other than lip service.

not saying the information should not be out there, just saying that there are far too many nations who would as soon kill the messenger

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#37

Post by randcraw »

untog wrote: post #18
randcraw wrote: post #4

The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no personal stake in Wikileaks / Assange. But because America badly wanted to suppress Wikileaks and its ilk from future revelations, Britain has persisted in its surrogate prosecution of Assange. I wonder, is there no blowback among Brits for the Crown so baldly adopti…

That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions. (EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)

Crime? I'm aware only that a charge was made against Assange by an individual for an infraction that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. This is strikingly convenient since it bypasses the introduction of any Wikileak-related evidence in Assange's prosecution, and thus prohibits it.

In light of Assange's political activity, and now the astonishing level of CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him appears: 1) awfully convenient, 2) increasingly implausible (i.e. politically trumped up), and of course, 3) not a crime until his guilt is proven.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#38

Post by revelation »

jacquesm wrote: post #12
randcraw wrote: post #4

The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no personal stake in Wikileaks / Assange. But because America badly wanted to suppress Wikileaks and its ilk from future revelations, Britain has persisted in its surrogate prosecution of Assange. I wonder, is there no blowback among Brits for the Crown so baldly adopti…

I don't think it is that simple. You thumb your nose at a judge at your own peril, regardless of how much merit there was to the original case and regardless of where your sympathies lie with respect to WL and Assange the fact is that there is absolutely no way the UK govt/judicial branch would let a known fugitive skip like this even after the original case was dropped. It is bordering on the farcical how much money…

This isn't even a UK case. What do they care if Sweden wants to drop it?

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#39

Post by gaius »

leereeves wrote: post #34
gaius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK’s relationship with their traditional military allies. I’m not sure the PM actually has the power to do that. Assange is wanted right now for skipping bail. No government is going to pass an Act declaring that not-a-crime.

What's the penalty for that crime? If extradition to the US was absolutely impossible, Assange might be willing to turn himself in and suffer the penalty in order to regain his freedom.

What's the penalty for that crime

Max 12 months in prison.

The ONLY way Assange’s actions make sense is if he expects to be found guilty in Sweden.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#40

Post by jacquesm »

Shivetya wrote: post #36
jacquesm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn and expose truth... Agreed, but selectively exposing the truth requires that if the net effect is a positive one that enough parties are exposing truths to ensure some kind of balance. If not then it becomes a political force in its own right rather than there is an overall gain in transparency. I'm pretty conflicted about this, on the one…

selectively should be stated as, protecting your own ass. Releasing negative information about the US is far less likely for you to end up dead that releasing about countries who have little interest in human rights other than lip service. not saying the information should not be out there, just saying that there are far too many nations who would as soon kill the messenger

No, 'selectively' can just be to help one side rather than to expose all you have on a country.

So it is about selective releasing information about parties in the US rather than about differences in approach from one country to another.

Post reply on HN