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

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#81

Post by alex_hitchins »

tomp wrote: post #73
alex_hitchins wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would they need a secret warrant? In this case, it would have no advantage at all. Also, the US have said on record I believe that they have not placed any extradition warrants on him. I see it more that they can't actually arrest him for anything, as he hasn't broken any laws _in_ the USA. He has done things the don't like for sure, but as a non US citizen how can he be bound to these laws? If this were the case, Russia could extradite Gay rights activists all across the globe for breaking hideous Russian obscenity laws.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#82

Post by alex_hitchins »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #79
alex_hitchins wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The President of the United States also asked the same organisation to hack an opponent. So I take most of what they say, especially these days with a pinch of salt.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#83

Post by tmalsburg2 »

Tomte wrote: post #78

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.…

The article says (paragraph 4) that Sweden dropped the arrest warrant last year. So I'm afraid that your preferred ending of the story is unlikely.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#84

Post by gsnedders »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #75
untog wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> He was ordered to be questioned related to his vile cheating trick that isn't even recognized as rape outside of Sweden.

Um, the Supreme Court's view was that under English law what he was accused of would be rape.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#85

Post by monocasa »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #81
tomp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would they need a secret warrant? In this case, it would have no advantage at all. Also, the US have said on record I believe that they have not placed any extradition warrants on him. I see it more that they can't actually arrest him for anything, as he hasn't broken any laws _in_ the USA. He has done things the don't like for sure, but as a non US citizen how can he be bound to these laws? If this were the case…

It was leaked in the Stratfor emails.

> https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wikileaks-stratfo...

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#86

Post by thrillgore »

sschueller wrote: post #9
slivym wrote: post #2

Everyone is owed due process to some extent. But in this case, are we really bothered about a guy who isn't in the UK, has broken UK bail conditions, and is quite likely to have actively participated in attacks against some of the UK's closest allies. I think he should go round to his local lawyer and ask about taking the UK police to court. He deserves to see stand in that court room and hear them answer for why thi…

Stop spreading FUD. Wikileaks has not actively participated in any attacks. Wikileaks has exposed some of the most horrific crimes committed by the Unites States and others yet we are still trying to kill the messenger.

Collateral Murder was an eye opener, but now he's a lapdog of Russia, and a martyr to Trump. Julian is useless now.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#87

Post by openasocket »

sschueller wrote: post #9
slivym wrote: post #2

Everyone is owed due process to some extent. But in this case, are we really bothered about a guy who isn't in the UK, has broken UK bail conditions, and is quite likely to have actively participated in attacks against some of the UK's closest allies. I think he should go round to his local lawyer and ask about taking the UK police to court. He deserves to see stand in that court room and hear them answer for why thi…

Stop spreading FUD. Wikileaks has not actively participated in any attacks. Wikileaks has exposed some of the most horrific crimes committed by the Unites States and others yet we are still trying to kill the messenger.

Serious question, what crimes has Wikileaks exposed? I'm sure there are some, but off the top of my head the most serious crimes the US has committed in recent history have been exposed by Snowden or Congressional investigations.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#88

Post by efraim »

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…

The accusations against Assange could very well be a conspiracy involving the US, Sweden and the UK to silence wikileaks because they leaked videos of civilians being killed by American military.

Or it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden and the police and prosecution wanting to follow their rules and interview him about it.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#89

Post by pjc50 »

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…

UK does not generally have a "statute of limitations"; civil litigation and minor offences do, but serious crimes can be prosecuted after any time period.

The longer the investigation into Russian involvement in the US elections goes on the less Assange looks like a brave leaker and more like a (voluntary or otherwise) Russia apologist.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#90

Post by jacquesm »

lolc wrote: post #80
jacquesm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-mora...

Stating that Assange hoped that the leaks of the DNC emails would hurt the Clinton campaign clearly shifts WL from being 'just a conduit' for leaked material to being a political operator in its own right.

An organization devoted to transparency should not have an agenda of its own, this in contrast to Assange's previous claims that he did not have a favorite side.

Post reply on HN