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

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#131

Post by pvg »

jacquesm wrote: post #122
pvg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd say the time when we will know for sure is when Assange visits Disneyland, Florida and nothing happens. And if I were him - just being prudent - on the off chance that the US government is only about 1% as vindictive as various statements by various officials have suggested I'd visit Paris instead.

There's no Disneyland in Florida so we'll never know that one for sure.

More seriously, you're moving the goalposts. There are lots of people who are better off sticking to Disneyland, Paris rather than Disneyland, Anaheim. That doesn't mean the US government is actively trying to get a hold of them or considers their apprehension and prosecution in US courts important or even feasible.

The idea that the USG is actively hunting Assange is his main excuse for hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy. The main source of that idea, as far as I can tell, is Assange and the evidence for it is very thin indeed.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#132

Post by lolc »

jacquesm wrote: post #126
lolc wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wired article makes Wikileaks look bad in other regards but does not contain evidence that material was not published. You implied that Wikileaks has a selective publication policy. I still don't see any evidence of that. Of course it's hard to prove existence of what they didn't publish. And it is plausible their personal opinions would influence their publication decisions. But that's simply an allegation, not…

Short of leak from within Wikileaks (or what's left of it) that will be a hard (or even impossible) one to prove. In the meantime, Assange taking sides in an election battle does not help to promote the independence of WL. There is other evidence of WL heavily editing their output so witholding stuff that does not suit their agenda would seem to be a reasonable assumption, absent hard proof to the contrary (which the…

You're saying it is easy for Wikileaks to provide hard proof they're not withholding stuff not suiting their agenda. How could they do it?

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#133

Post by dingaling »

dpark wrote: post #58
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.

> and any diplomat ... worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country. It’s called diplomatic immunity. Diplomats don’t have secret plans for bailing out of countries because they don’t need them. Diplomats don’t hide in embassies. They walk onto airplanes and fly home.

> They walk onto airplanes and fly home.

Unless they have been declared persona non grata by the receiving nation ( Article 9 ).

Usually the individual is given 72 hours to get out but that is not codified.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#134

Post by jacquesm »

pvg wrote: post #131
jacquesm wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the time when we will know for sure is when Assange visits Disneyland, Florida and nothing happens. And if I were him - just being prudent - on the off chance that the US government is only about 1% as vindictive as various statements by various officials have suggested I'd visit Paris instead.

There's no Disneyland in Florida so we'll never know that one for sure. More seriously, you're moving the goalposts. There are lots of people who are better off sticking to Disneyland, Paris rather than Disneyland, Anaheim. That doesn't mean the US government is actively trying to get a hold of them or considers their apprehension and prosecution in US courts important or even feasible. The idea that the USG is activ…

> There's no Disneyland in Florida so we'll never know that one for sure.

Excuse me, Disneyworld. I'm not exactly their target demographic.

> The idea that the USG is actively hunting Assange is his main excuse for hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy. The main source of that idea, as far as I can tell, is Assange and the evidence for it is very thin indeed.

Well, yes. But given some of the statements of US officials and the way people on the US govt's shitlist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers for instance) have been dealt with in the past lends some credence to this claims.

If any foreigners made it to the doubtful status of being on a list of secret indictments I would very much expect Assange to be one of them.

The fact that there is no proof is the expected status, it does not in any way reduce the likelihood of this being the case.

> The idea that the USG is actively hunting Assange is his main excuse for hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy.

No, he most likely really believes this. Whether or not it is true is another matter but since the US government has never stated the opposite without qualification it will have to remain in limbo.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#135

Post by jacquesm »

lolc wrote: post #132
jacquesm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short of leak from within Wikileaks (or what's left of it) that will be a hard (or even impossible) one to prove. In the meantime, Assange taking sides in an election battle does not help to promote the independence of WL. There is other evidence of WL heavily editing their output so witholding stuff that does not suit their agenda would seem to be a reasonable assumption, absent hard proof to the contrary (which the…

You're saying it is easy for Wikileaks to provide hard proof they're not withholding stuff not suiting their agenda. How could they do it?

3rd party audit of materials received and materials leaked to the public. Not that they'll ever agree to that, but if they really valued transparency they could do that. Choosing the auditor would be an interesting exercise. Glenn Greenwald would be an interesting choice, Edward Snowden another.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#136

Post by jacquesm »

selectodude wrote: post #93
randcraw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Unlike other European countries, the United Kingdom has no statute of limitations for serious sexual crimes."

Indeed they don't, but Assange isn't being charged wit those in the UK. He's charged - rightfully so - with skipping bail.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#137

Post by boomboomsubban »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #82
boomboomsubban wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dunno what organization you're talking about, but this passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by the president.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#138

Post by lolc »

jacquesm wrote: post #135
lolc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying it is easy for Wikileaks to provide hard proof they're not withholding stuff not suiting their agenda. How could they do it?

3rd party audit of materials received and materials leaked to the public. Not that they'll ever agree to that, but if they really valued transparency they could do that. Choosing the auditor would be an interesting exercise. Glenn Greenwald would be an interesting choice, Edward Snowden another.

What you suggest is actually a way.

How would the auditor verify having received the complete dump though? It's not like there is a verifiable index of the material available to Wikileaks. Also I think it would be hard to satisfy the critics; next to the impossibility of securing funding for such an undertaking. On top of everything else Wikileaks would risk exposing their sources.

So please don't say it's easy for Wikileaks to get an audit.

Looking at it from another angle: If leakers are unhappy how Wikileaks is publishing, they may well decide to leak somewhere else too. That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons.

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#139

Post by monocasa »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #104
monocasa wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was leaked in the Stratfor emails. > https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wikileaks-stratfo...

Interesting. I note it's from 2012 but guess could still be current. Thank you for supplying the link. Again though, seems odd they would need to keep it sealed. I wonder what Assange would actually want to do regards to what would happen after he leaves the embassy (legal issues aside). I can't think there are many countries that would allow him entry, bar Ecuador and possibly Russia. Most likely Russia I'd assume a…

> Again though, seems odd they would need to keep it sealed.

Why would they unseal it?

Re: Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

#140

Post by jacquesm »

lolc wrote: post #138
jacquesm wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3rd party audit of materials received and materials leaked to the public. Not that they'll ever agree to that, but if they really valued transparency they could do that. Choosing the auditor would be an interesting exercise. Glenn Greenwald would be an interesting choice, Edward Snowden another.

What you suggest is actually a way. How would the auditor verify having received the complete dump though? It's not like there is a verifiable index of the material available to Wikileaks. Also I think it would be hard to satisfy the critics; next to the impossibility of securing funding for such an undertaking. On top of everything else Wikileaks would risk exposing their sources. So please don't say it's easy for W…

I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is very hard to fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly.

I thought I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this.

> That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons.

Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.

Post reply on HN