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

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#111

Post by rbobby »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
gaius wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How afraid is he though? Not afraid enough to tweet an offer to "agree to US extradition" if Obama showed clemency to Manning.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#112

Post by toyg »

FireBeyond wrote: post #103
toyg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he was "fleeing". When he left Sweden, the issue seemed closed, and he was just going on about his life - had tons of contacts in the UK so he went there to continue his work. He was constantly jumping from country to country before this; it just happened that he was in the UK when Ms. Ny escalated proceedings. But yeah, we've seen over and over in the last decade that the UK is one of the last countrie…

How did he feel the issue had been closed? He'd not even been interviewed in any way, shape or form. Someone makes an accusation against him, they don't interview him, and just close the issue and he wanders on his life, and only then do they trick him into having to seek refuge? That's more than a little whitewashed, to me.

> He'd not even been interviewed in any way, shape or form.

He had been contacted already, as part of the process under which charges were initially dropped. The case was subsequently resurrected by Ms. Ny, and it's the interview under this second process that was outstanding when he made arrangements to move on. The warrant was issued two months later.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#113

Post by pvg »

jacquesm wrote: post #102
FireBeyond wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very biased interpretation of the very article you quote. Stratfor, a _private company_, with no connections to the DOJ, had one of its employees say in an internal email seven years ago that they had an indictment. Based on "conversations" with "people". In among literally thousands of emails doing little more than smearing Assange and Martin. And this was in context to Bradley Manning, though no confirmati…

It is sort of the problem with secret indictments though, they are secret. So absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.

In 2013 (i.e. after these emails came out), US officials denied there was a sealed indictment against him. Lots has happened since but this talk of indictment has been going on for 8 years and nothing has happened. And again, the actual question is 'what would they charge him with and what could you prove against him in court?'. The notion that the US just can't wait to get their hands on Assange seems to come mostly from Assange.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#114

Post by FireBeyond »

jacquesm wrote: post #102
FireBeyond wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very biased interpretation of the very article you quote. Stratfor, a _private company_, with no connections to the DOJ, had one of its employees say in an internal email seven years ago that they had an indictment. Based on "conversations" with "people". In among literally thousands of emails doing little more than smearing Assange and Martin. And this was in context to Bradley Manning, though no confirmati…

It is sort of the problem with secret indictments though, they are secret. So absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.

No, but there's a spectrum between "oh, this is leaked truth", and "even in the leak, there's just one person with no connection to the DOJ saying 'shh, we have a secret indictment against him!'."

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#115

Post by jacquesm »

rbobby wrote: post #111
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How afraid is he though? Not afraid enough to tweet an offer to "agree to US extradition" if Obama showed clemency to Manning.

Obama did, and Assange reneged.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#116

Post by FireBeyond »

monocasa wrote: post #101
FireBeyond wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very biased interpretation of the very article you quote. Stratfor, a _private company_, with no connections to the DOJ, had one of its employees say in an internal email seven years ago that they had an indictment. Based on "conversations" with "people". In among literally thousands of emails doing little more than smearing Assange and Martin. And this was in context to Bradley Manning, though no confirmati…

What else could it mean?

That it was a rumor. The parent to my post painted it a verifiable fact. "There is a secret indictment against him. See this leak.", when in fact said leak verifies nothing of the sort.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#117

Post by jacquesm »

koolba wrote: post #110
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…

There’s the third option of him leaving in a diplomatic bag: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag

Assange isn't a document or an article.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#118

Post by crdoconnor »

untog wrote: post #74
crdoconnor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

>people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time

Where the crime is known while the criminal is not this is true.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#119

Post by JupiterMoon »

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)

s/accused|committed/alleged/g

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#120

Post by monocasa »

FireBeyond wrote: post #114
jacquesm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sort of the problem with secret indictments though, they are secret. So absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.

No, but there's a spectrum between "oh, this is leaked truth", and "even in the leak, there's just one person with no connection to the DOJ saying 'shh, we have a secret indictment against him!'."

Stratfor isn't some random company. We know from the leaks that they were the private cybersecurity firm taking point on Wikileaks.
Post reply on HN