Legal myths about the Assange extradition • Hacker News Board

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#11

Post by at-fates-hands » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 4:40 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #9

jeltz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that was under the section called “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”. If it had been under the previous section it would have meant what you state.

I think it's hard to miss the comparison that's actually being made in the article between the protections Assange has in the UK versus those he'd have in Sweden, as those comparisons are made explicitly in each sentence in which the ECHR protections are mentioned. In fact, the article points out the additional protection Assange has in Sweden: should the US seek to extradite, both Sweden and the UK would need to agr…

I agree. It would seem his best odds for justice are to go to Sweden and face the music. If he's acquitted, then he should start to look for political asylum in other countries.

The only glitch is if the Swedish authorities can detain him while the extradition process to the US is being processed.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#12

Post by option_greek » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

Would any one really trust the due course of law argument after the Kim Dotcom incident. Basically it can now be argued that the US can get who ever it wants from where ever they are for what ever their crimes are.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#13

Post by tptacek » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #10

“By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press” This is perhaps the strangest proposition. / Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. The proposition doesn't actually say that protecting the freedom of the press is their motivation . Good things can arise from bad motives.

This article isn't laying out a coherent argument for Assange's extradition; that's not its point. The point of the article is to catalog common misconceptions about the legal issues arising from the Assange drama. The "courage" of Ecuador in offering asylum to Assange is one of those misconceptions.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#14

Post by tptacek » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 4:45 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #12

Would any one really trust the due course of law argument after the Kim Dotcom incident. Basically it can now be argued that the US can get who ever it wants from where ever they are for what ever their crimes are.

That being the case, what does it matter what country Assange is in? If it's all the same be he in New Zealand, Sweden, or the UK, shouldn't he be required to face charges in Sweden?

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#15

Post by philwelch » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 4:47 PM UTC

jeltz wrote: post #4

"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition in the United States in such circumstances." Except that law has been violated before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Ze... Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assan…

That's not extradition, that's extraordinary rendition, an extrajudicial process. It's always illegal. And while it's a worrying thing, it would be very odd if that was an option on the table for Assange, if only because they could have done it before, and can still do it just as easily from the UK, or actual Ecuadorian soil for that matter, than from Sweden. Assange is too much of a high profile target for renditioning to do anything but backfire.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#16

Post by marvin » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 4:52 PM UTC

I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts.

But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would lead to an international manhunt through Interpol. It makes me angry when the newspapers keep parroting that "Assange is wanted in Sweden for rape". Obviously this isn't the heart of the issue. Assange is wanted by the most powerful country in the world for revealing military secrets. This is what is really going on, but not many newspapers are as willing to spell this out explicitly.

This is what the "Assange supporters" in this case are saying. Assange is completely justified in fearing extradition to the US, especially since such a small criminal allegation (I'm sorry, but the word "rape" in this case doesn't imply a grave violent offence) has turned into an international manhunt against Assange. I have huge problems believing that the rape charges are anything but a pretext. In the interest of gauging people's opinions, does anyone disagree with this particular point?

Additionally, regardless of what lawyers are saying about the specifics of this case, extraditions are largely politically motivated. There is no central international body or law system governing cases like these, so the choices are usually left to politicians. And really, Sweden has a pretty bad track record with regards to looking after US interests. The case against The Pirate Bay is another good contemporary example of this. The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. So clearly they won't.

[Edit: Spelling]

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#17

Post by philwelch » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 4:55 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #12

Would any one really trust the due course of law argument after the Kim Dotcom incident. Basically it can now be argued that the US can get who ever it wants from where ever they are for what ever their crimes are.

Kim Dotcom's situation isn't that unusual. To whatever extent law enforcement overstepped their bounds, due process will eventually prevail. He's still in New Zealand after all.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#18

Post by cube13 » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 5:02 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #15

jeltz wrote: post #4

"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition in the United States in such circumstances." Except that law has been violated before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Ze... Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assan…

That's not extradition, that's extraordinary rendition, an extrajudicial process. It's always illegal. And while it's a worrying thing, it would be very odd if that was an option on the table for Assange, if only because they could have done it before, and can still do it just as easily from the UK, or actual Ecuadorian soil for that matter, than from Sweden. Assange is too much of a high profile target for rendition…

That's what bothers me about the "Sweden will send him to the US" argument.

I don't get why he's concerned about it, AND(at the same time) is in the UK, who, out of any country in the world, is quite possibly the MOST likely to agree to a US extradition request.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#19

Post by podperson » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 5:04 PM UTC

I'm assuming the article is accurate, in which case there's pretty much no reason for Assange not to go to Sweden and clear all this up, unless of course he's guilty.

Certainly as things stand he gives a lot of people -- myself included -- the impression that he's guilty, and if the only reason he has for not wanting to face the music in Sweden is that he's afraid of extradition to the US then, assuming the article is accurate, he's damaging his cause by fighting extradition.

Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition

#20

Post by e12e » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 5:05 PM UTC

I'll be a little impolite and reuse my comment on a previous, somewhat similar story:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4404549

I think it contains some information that is relevant for those trying to make sense of this:

I found this overview from the Swedish prosecutor to be very helpful:

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/T...

Obviously this is "biased" -- but I've not been able to spot any "overt" errors here. I've been looking at Norwegian and Swedish media in addition to the (pretty fact starved) international media coverage -- and I was also under the impression that Assange wasn't considered a suspect -- he is.

I have no idea why apparently no media source has managed to get this right -- as presented it has appeared that Assange has been wanted extradited to testify -- which makes absolutely no (legal) sense. It would appear that's not what has happened.

My (personal, IANAL etc) interpretation of the events is that a complaint was filed against Assange -- the prosecutor that handled the case found no reason to prosecute. Then (probably due to political pressure -- although I have no evidence of this) -- the head prosecutor picks up the case again, and an arrest warrant is issued.

The whole affair dovetails a little to nicely with CIA procedure for discrediting inconvenient persons, eg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

That being said, it's not inconceivable that Assange is a misogynistic pig -- he certainly appear to have a bit of an ego -- and I don't think anyone would be against him being sentenced in a fair trial.

However, the political pressure involved in this case seems rather extreme -- I do think there's a real danger of Assange disappearing into a black bag at some point -- after all if the US wants him, it would be for espionage -- and kidnapping a single individual is nothing compared to drone strike assassinations.

It is of course inconvenient that this dissident is white, articulate and currently in a country that has a working government.

A Swedish English language media source I discovered recently might also be of interest:

http://www.thelocal.se/42424/20120804/

Additionally, I came across this old piece by Virginia Wolf that also highlights some of the political pressure that seems to be involved in this case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1435_b_797188....