7 ms·

"Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed to b

"Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden." If you think of Sweden as ABBA, think again: "In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US." "The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation" http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic-struggle-for-justice http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-a...

happyscrappy 11y ago
There is a reason Snowden didn't dump all the data he had into a public file like some meglomaniacle clown.
- cinquemb 11y ago
  All this does is just keep information from the general public, and enable the present asymmetry we see at play between the State (might as well throw in corporate contractors and NGO's) and the public. The "Chinese" certainly don't have too hard of time getting good info (OPM hack, etc), at least going by the way you hear the cries of fire in the crowded theatre of what passes for journalism and news.
rmc 11y ago
Because the UK has a fine human rights record (look at Northern Ireland) and always stands up the the USA (look at Iraq)
- Tloewald 11y ago
  He's not relying on the UK, but on Ecuador (which doesn't have such a great track record either). Then again, Snowden is relying on Russia. Enemy of my enemy, and all that.
cmdkeen 11y ago
If Sweden was such a terrible place for Assange to be why did apply for a work permit there? Why did he leave and go the UK, after all a nation with far closer ties to the US? Onward extradition would have been far more complicated via Sweden as the UK would have had to approve it as well. Why not just have the US extradite Assange from the UK to the USA directly? If the CIA was going to concoct a rape claim why not make it a little more than "she was asleep"? If the USA is ruthless in the pursuit of its enemies (except of course Snowdon is a US citizen who, rightly or wrongly, very much did break US law) then why has it been so decidedly non ruthless in the pursuit of Assange?
stenl 11y ago
From that link: "the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington." Weeeell, maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings. Also, note that Assange was obviously in Sweden when the rape allegedly happened, and only became conveniently afraid of extraditiom to US after those allegations surfaced.
- jbssm 11y ago
  "maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings." An extradition is not a legal proceeding, it's a diplomatic one and being a democracy they can very well agree not to engage in a diplomatic exchange beforehand.
  - gamblor956 11y ago
    Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is sought for charges not covered by the treaty.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Treaties are not laws.
      - arjunnarayan 11y ago
        > Treaties are not laws. Well, I don't know what treaties are to the United Kingdom and Sweden, so I can't speak to the relevant matter, but there is a general sense (insofar as "international law" can be thought of as an actual concrete thing) that treaties are laws. To the United States, for example, treaties are explicitly treated as laws (see http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-...). Most other countries take their treaty obligations very seriously, although the actual mechanics depend on each country's legal/political system.

happyscrappy 11y ago

There is a reason Snowden didn't dump all the data he had into a public file like some meglomaniacle clown.

cinquemb 11y ago
All this does is just keep information from the general public, and enable the present asymmetry we see at play between the State (might as well throw in corporate contractors and NGO's) and the public. The "Chinese" certainly don't have too hard of time getting good info (OPM hack, etc), at least going by the way you hear the cries of fire in the crowded theatre of what passes for journalism and news.

rmc 11y ago

Because the UK has a fine human rights record (look at Northern Ireland) and always stands up the the USA (look at Iraq)

Tloewald 11y ago
He's not relying on the UK, but on Ecuador (which doesn't have such a great track record either). Then again, Snowden is relying on Russia. Enemy of my enemy, and all that.

cmdkeen 11y ago

If Sweden was such a terrible place for Assange to be why did apply for a work permit there? Why did he leave and go the UK, after all a nation with far closer ties to the US? Onward extradition would have been far more complicated via Sweden as the UK would have had to approve it as well. Why not just have the US extradite Assange from the UK to the USA directly? If the CIA was going to concoct a rape claim why not make it a little more than "she was asleep"? If the USA is ruthless in the pursuit of its enemies (except of course Snowdon is a US citizen who, rightly or wrongly, very much did break US law) then why has it been so decidedly non ruthless in the pursuit of Assange?

stenl 11y ago

From that link: "the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington." Weeeell, maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings. Also, note that Assange was obviously in Sweden when the rape allegedly happened, and only became conveniently afraid of extraditiom to US after those allegations surfaced.

jbssm 11y ago
"maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings." An extradition is not a legal proceeding, it's a diplomatic one and being a democracy they can very well agree not to engage in a diplomatic exchange beforehand.
- gamblor956 11y ago
  Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is sought for charges not covered by the treaty.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Treaties are not laws.
    - arjunnarayan 11y ago
      > Treaties are not laws. Well, I don't know what treaties are to the United Kingdom and Sweden, so I can't speak to the relevant matter, but there is a general sense (insofar as "international law" can be thought of as an actual concrete thing) that treaties are laws. To the United States, for example, treaties are explicitly treated as laws (see http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-...). Most other countries take their treaty obligations very seriously, although the actual mechanics depend on each country's legal/political system.