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

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#71

Post by OskarS »

randcraw wrote: post #45
jacquesm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think 'farcical' appeared in the rear-view mirror years ago. The word that springs to my mind more closely resembles 'Dreyfus'. Another alternative (to a coffin) is the expiration of the statute of limitations on the charges against Assange. Britain may choose to refile/renew them indefinitely, but it now appears that they'll do so alone, without collaboration from Sweden. I think eventually the political odor of t…

Dreyfus was an army officer who was tried and convicted for treason, sentenced to life and sent to Devil's Island to be imprisoned and tortured, for the sole reason that he was a Jew (and a convenient scapegoat for a crime obviously committed by someone else). It was a disgusting display of virulent anti-Semitism that prefigured the Vichy Regime and one of the most shameful events in French history.

Comparing Assange to Dreyfus is obscene.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#72

Post by crdoconnor »

untog wrote: post #65
crdoconnor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime No, I think he was implying that until he's been successfully using the phrase "a crime that was committed" is premature. It is still alleged. If you want to know who did say "in light of Assange's political activity this crime is likely not credible" well... that would inconveniently be GCHQ: https:/…

> It is still alleged. Of course it is, Assange never came in for questioning! That's the reason people are arrested: so that they can be charged. Since he evaded arrest, he hasn't been charged. It's absurdly circular logic to suggest that this implies innocence.

I am not implying here that he is innocent - though I think he probably is. I'm just stating that the crime was and still is alleged. The fact that the Swedish prosecutors never took up his invitation to question him in the embassy doesn't change that.

You did a little more than imply he was guilty. You directly called him guilty when you used the phrase "a crime was committed".

You are now contradicting yourself by agreeing that the crime was alleged.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#73

Post by tomp »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #54
gaius wrote: post #15

The Lauri Love case proves there’s zero probability of Assange being extradited to the US. He’s wanted here for skipping bail. The government can’t let the precedent be set that you can get away with it, or everyone would do it.

I completely agree. It would set a terrible example. Thing I find annoying the most, is that as there is no US extradition warrant placed, if he did come out he'd probably do 18 months for missing bail and be released. If the US wanted him, really wanted him then they would have a warrant out now for him. EDIT : Down voters - why are you down voting? Are you down voting because I've made an error or breached the post…

How do you know there aren't any secret warrants (like the ones issued by the FISA court, but international/between UK and US)?

In other words, the "rule of law" has become a farce recently - the powerful (= government, RIAA, etc) get whatever they want, one way or another.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#74

Post by untog »

crdoconnor wrote: post #72
untog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is still alleged. Of course it is, Assange never came in for questioning! That's the reason people are arrested: so that they can be charged. Since he evaded arrest, he hasn't been charged. It's absurdly circular logic to suggest that this implies innocence.

I am not implying here that he is innocent - though I think he probably is. I'm just stating that the crime was and still is alleged. The fact that the Swedish prosecutors never took up his invitation to question him in the embassy doesn't change that. You did a little more than imply he was guilty. You directly called him guilty when you used the phrase "a crime was committed". You are now contradicting yourself by…

Good grief, if that was your original point you really could have phrased it better, it wasn't clear at all. That said, mea cupla: you're right that my own phrasing could have been better, I've amended it.

(it certainly wasn't directly calling him guilty in any case - people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time without being accused of being the perpetrator of that crime)

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#75

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

untog wrote: post #53
randcraw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He was charged with rape and molestation. Those are crimes. But if you want to call them "infractions" I suppose that is up to you. To look at your logic in the reverse direction, you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime, because it will be a false accusation trumped up by state actors. That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. Just becau…

Maybe you're not clear about the actual background. There are no charges against him in Sweden. He was ordered to be questioned related to his vile cheating trick that isn't even recognized as rape outside of Sweden.

I think the guy could be called one of the biggest assholes. But let's not add to be pile of rubbish and defamation that deliberatley has been amassed regarding this case.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#76

Post by greggarious »

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…

>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

They're members of Five Eyes and NATO. So yes, they do have a "personal stake".

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#77

Post by greggarious »

randcraw wrote: post #37
untog wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

It was not "trumped up". It was followed up on disproportionately, but let's not pretend there's no substance there.

And it's hard to hold a trial to prove his guilt when he's hiding in an embassy closet.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#78

Post by Tomte »

My prediction is the same that it has been for the last years: At some point, Assange will leave the embassy, possibly for medical reasons, be arrested and extradited to Sweden

In Sweden he will be interrogated and set free without any conditions. Not "illegally rendered" to America, but "you're free, go wherever you want".

At that point Assange will be able to ponder his need for drama and attention on the one hand. And all those lost years on the other hand. But hey, he got Pamela Anderson!

I would find that ending almost poetic.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#79

Post by boomboomsubban »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #54
gaius wrote: post #15

The Lauri Love case proves there’s zero probability of Assange being extradited to the US. He’s wanted here for skipping bail. The government can’t let the precedent be set that you can get away with it, or everyone would do it.

I completely agree. It would set a terrible example. Thing I find annoying the most, is that as there is no US extradition warrant placed, if he did come out he'd probably do 18 months for missing bail and be released. If the US wanted him, really wanted him then they would have a warrant out now for him. EDIT : Down voters - why are you down voting? Are you down voting because I've made an error or breached the post…

The US passed a law saying "WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States." No one is really sure how that means they should be treated, but makes it clear the US wants him.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#80

Post by lolc »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
Shivetya wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're implying that Wikileaks did not release everything they have. Is this an assumption or is there evidence of this?
Post reply on HN