4 ms·

I'm one of those who would defend his actions. Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. A country

I'm one of those who would defend his actions. Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. A country where the harshest penalty is the death sentence, a country that imprisons people for life without a due process and a country that tortures its prisoners. Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", but that could be wrong. EDIT: Read up on the issue and the accusation is that he had unprotected sex with a woman while she was asleep.

Kristine1975 11y ago
Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. He spent weeks in UK before going to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why didn't the UK extradit him to the US? Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", ...while said woman was sleeping, and when the evening before she had categorically refused to have sex without a condom, AFAIK.
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  Great, but it's still just an accusation. If the UK is willing to spend millions to get Assange back to Sweden so he can be questioned about an accusation... I mean, come on, isn't that a bit too much? There's surely something else going on here the way I see it.
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    That's how the criminal justice system works. How would you prefer it were done? He was tried in absentia, and only arrested in convicted?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- vidarh 11y ago
  The UK has a well established history of actually having a judiciary that is willing to stand up against US extradition requests and make it possible to drag them out for years. Sweden, meanwhile, has a history of black bagging political asylum seekers and illegally handing them over to the CIA. If I was Assange, I know where I would take my chances.
tim333 11y ago
Well it's more that with the two women he agreed to use a condom and then did it without it against their wishes which is certainly bad form and which apparently breaks the law in Sweden.
ars 11y ago
Try not to get your information about the USA from reddit threads. It will give you a very skewed view.
- pizzapill 11y ago
  What is so wrong with my view? What has reddit to do with it? Just asking you to point it out so I can adjust my opinion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cmdkeen 11y ago
"Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA" Now you're the one using absolutes that no-one can be certain of. One of the key points about the whole process is that Sweden can't pre-emptively say what they would do if the US requested extradition because they haven't. The one extradition case we have seen play out, to a country famed for its liberal criminal justice policy (Sweden) from a country famed for the rule of law (UK) gave him many opportunities to test the process through the courts. That was even through the European Arrest Warrant process which is supposed to streamline extradition processes. If, and it is an if, Assange were to be subject to an extradition request from the US he would be able to challenge it through the courts. He wouldn't face the death penalty as European countries don't extradite under those circumstances. Similarly prison conditions can be argued and again European courts can require commitments from the US regarding conditions and treatment before they would approve an extradition. The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. Finally it is also worth saying that Assange has probably also shot himself in the foot if he ever did face extradition to the US. He was bailed in the UK (where there is a presumption of bail) and this able to flee to the embassy. If he were arrested again facing extradition to the US he would be much less likely to be granted bail and so unable to claim political asylum on a much more sympathetic case.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. It is illuminating about why Assange might feel safe in the UK compared to a country that his own leaks have demonstrated continued to host CIA rendition flights for years after the government said they would stop after being caught illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA. UK courts actually do stand up against US extradition requests. In Sweden, on the other hand, it is not clear that the government will abide by Swedish law.
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    Here's the kicker - the UK's permission would be needed if Sweden went on to consider extraditing to the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 It's because we're still vicariously liable because we're handing him into the power of another country. So not only would Swedish courts be an appeal process the UK's would as well. Plus it is worth making the point that it is inconceivable that the USA would "black bag" Assange. Kidnapping a high profile Australian citizen from a European country while he was still being protected by the UK legal system is beyond international incident territory, the repercussions would be immense. If the US wanted to illegally abduct him making him the focus of the international media and several legal systems is a really bad precursor. If anything they want to put him on trial and make an example out of him, not apply car batteries to him in some Egyptian hell hole. A trial means a legal means of getting him before a US court, which means following established extradition processes.
notahacker 11y ago
There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) Frankly, the probability of the USA torturing or executing a celebrity journalist from a Western country isn't particularly high anyway, especially not when it involves extradition from a European country, but of course asking countries to rewrite their statute book to offer him a special personal guarantee it won't happen is a good way of deflecting a rape charge.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) > His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) If you are going by this, then it also doesn't make sense that he's prepared to spend years holed up in an embassy to avoid a case based on allegations that 1) has extremely low conviction rates even before considering that at least one of the women is refusing to cooperate with police, 2) where the punishment generally would be much less time than what he's so far spent holed up in an embassy in a relatively low security Swedish prison. If all is above board, then had he returned to Sweden he'd have been free a long time ago. As I've said many times before before, I don't think that Sweden has been pushed by the US here, but I do think Assange genuinely think they do, and I can see why he'd be worried, especially given the strange behaviour of the prosecutor.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    > Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) Except that he stayed in Sweden for months knowing there was an investigation against him and being free to leave, then left on the day he was advised they intended to interview him under caution with intent to charge him. The former makes no sense whatsoever if you fear conspiracies to render you to the US. The latter makes a lot of sense if what you're really trying to avoid is a reputation-damaging trial. And yes, his reputation isn't exactly unblemished, but making the story about conspiracies against him certainly has a lot more appeal to his natural supporters than making the story about that tearful woman opposite him in the courtroom, even if that tearful woman's testimony amounts to nothing.
ascorbic 11y ago
Why do you think your ten minutes of Googling makes you better placed to judge what constitutes a crime than the UK Supreme Court?
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  It's not worth arguing with Assangers on HackerNews, it's like trying to argue with a Scientologist. Their beliefs are faith-based: facts and logic are of no interest.
- pizzapill 11y ago
  Where did I write anything like that?
PlzSnow 11y ago
Welcome to HackerNews, where people actually believe that Sweden would extradite Assange to the USA where he would be executed. It's so braindead I can't even begin to respond.
- pizzapill 11y ago
  You did respond. What is braindead about it? Sweden and other EU countries are extremely hesitant when it comes to extradition based on "political crimes", therefore the US prosecutors already changed the inducement to computer fraud etc. I live in a EU country where our government looks the other way when our citizens are being illegally detained by the CIA. There is at least one case where one of our citizens was tortured for years w/o court date. When the US found out that he was not a terrorist, they asked our foreign minister what should happen to him. He told them to keep him, so he was tortured for a couple more years. The whole world looked the other way when the US forced down a diplomatic plane to search for Snowden. Chelsea Manning was sentenced to a life in prison under circumstances that can't be called due process. What is so outlandish about thinking that Assange would be extradited?
  - yxhuvud 11y ago
    For starters Sweden have laws against extraditing people for crimes where there is a risk of the offender to be executed on a guilty verdict.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Sweden also has a history of, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, black bagging political asylum seekers and handing them over to CIA to have them shipped off to be tortured. Years later Swedish military intelligence uncovered that CIA rendition flights via Sweden were still ungoing. Conveniently we know of the latter thanks to Wikileaks, seeing as the Swedish government kept quiet about it. I don't think Assange's case is a US conspiracy, but I also am not that surprised if Assange does genuinely believe it, and the bizarre behaviour of the Swedish prosecutor (which my personal theory is down to domestic politics - both the prosecutor and the appointed attorney for the women have a history of pushing for radical tightening of the application of Swedish laws on rape and sexual abuse) certainly would give him more reason to hold on to such a belief.

Kristine1975 11y ago

Lets assume Sweden drops the rape case against him. Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA. He spent weeks in UK before going to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why didn't the UK extradit him to the US? Afaik the rape accusations in Sweden boil down to "he had sex with a woman w/o using a condom", ...while said woman was sleeping, and when the evening before she had categorically refused to have sex without a condom, AFAIK.

Cyph0n 11y ago
Great, but it's still just an accusation. If the UK is willing to spend millions to get Assange back to Sweden so he can be questioned about an accusation... I mean, come on, isn't that a bit too much? There's surely something else going on here the way I see it.
- ascorbic 11y ago
  That's how the criminal justice system works. How would you prefer it were done? He was tried in absentia, and only arrested in convicted?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 11y ago
The UK has a well established history of actually having a judiciary that is willing to stand up against US extradition requests and make it possible to drag them out for years. Sweden, meanwhile, has a history of black bagging political asylum seekers and illegally handing them over to the CIA. If I was Assange, I know where I would take my chances.

tim333 11y ago

Well it's more that with the two women he agreed to use a condom and then did it without it against their wishes which is certainly bad form and which apparently breaks the law in Sweden.

ars 11y ago

Try not to get your information about the USA from reddit threads. It will give you a very skewed view.

pizzapill 11y ago
What is so wrong with my view? What has reddit to do with it? Just asking you to point it out so I can adjust my opinion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cmdkeen 11y ago

"Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA" Now you're the one using absolutes that no-one can be certain of. One of the key points about the whole process is that Sweden can't pre-emptively say what they would do if the US requested extradition because they haven't. The one extradition case we have seen play out, to a country famed for its liberal criminal justice policy (Sweden) from a country famed for the rule of law (UK) gave him many opportunities to test the process through the courts. That was even through the European Arrest Warrant process which is supposed to streamline extradition processes. If, and it is an if, Assange were to be subject to an extradition request from the US he would be able to challenge it through the courts. He wouldn't face the death penalty as European countries don't extradite under those circumstances. Similarly prison conditions can be argued and again European courts can require commitments from the US regarding conditions and treatment before they would approve an extradition. The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. Finally it is also worth saying that Assange has probably also shot himself in the foot if he ever did face extradition to the US. He was bailed in the UK (where there is a presumption of bail) and this able to flee to the embassy. If he were arrested again facing extradition to the US he would be much less likely to be granted bail and so unable to claim political asylum on a much more sympathetic case.

vidarh 11y ago
> The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. It is illuminating about why Assange might feel safe in the UK compared to a country that his own leaks have demonstrated continued to host CIA rendition flights for years after the government said they would stop after being caught illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA. UK courts actually do stand up against US extradition requests. In Sweden, on the other hand, it is not clear that the government will abide by Swedish law.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Here's the kicker - the UK's permission would be needed if Sweden went on to consider extraditing to the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 It's because we're still vicariously liable because we're handing him into the power of another country. So not only would Swedish courts be an appeal process the UK's would as well. Plus it is worth making the point that it is inconceivable that the USA would "black bag" Assange. Kidnapping a high profile Australian citizen from a European country while he was still being protected by the UK legal system is beyond international incident territory, the repercussions would be immense. If the US wanted to illegally abduct him making him the focus of the international media and several legal systems is a really bad precursor. If anything they want to put him on trial and make an example out of him, not apply car batteries to him in some Egyptian hell hole. A trial means a legal means of getting him before a US court, which means following established extradition processes.

notahacker 11y ago

There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) Frankly, the probability of the USA torturing or executing a celebrity journalist from a Western country isn't particularly high anyway, especially not when it involves extradition from a European country, but of course asking countries to rewrite their statute book to offer him a special personal guarantee it won't happen is a good way of deflecting a rape charge.

vidarh 11y ago
> There is little reason to believe he is more likely to be extradited to the USA after being exonerated of a crime in Sweden than before being charged with a crime in Sweden, or from the UK before the courts had exhausted all options to stop him being from extradited to Sweden. Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) > His jurisdiction-hopping simply doesn't square with someone fearing US power rather than Swedish courts (cf. Snowden) If you are going by this, then it also doesn't make sense that he's prepared to spend years holed up in an embassy to avoid a case based on allegations that 1) has extremely low conviction rates even before considering that at least one of the women is refusing to cooperate with police, 2) where the punishment generally would be much less time than what he's so far spent holed up in an embassy in a relatively low security Swedish prison. If all is above board, then had he returned to Sweden he'd have been free a long time ago. As I've said many times before before, I don't think that Sweden has been pushed by the US here, but I do think Assange genuinely think they do, and I can see why he'd be worried, especially given the strange behaviour of the prosecutor.
- notahacker 11y ago
  > Which of the two is known to have continued to cooperate in illegal extradition flights long after its own government told the US to stop it (we know thanks to Wikileaks), and have had a history of illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA to be shipped off and tortured? (that would be Sweden, if it wasn't clear) Except that he stayed in Sweden for months knowing there was an investigation against him and being free to leave, then left on the day he was advised they intended to interview him under caution with intent to charge him. The former makes no sense whatsoever if you fear conspiracies to render you to the US. The latter makes a lot of sense if what you're really trying to avoid is a reputation-damaging trial. And yes, his reputation isn't exactly unblemished, but making the story about conspiracies against him certainly has a lot more appeal to his natural supporters than making the story about that tearful woman opposite him in the courtroom, even if that tearful woman's testimony amounts to nothing.

ascorbic 11y ago

Why do you think your ten minutes of Googling makes you better placed to judge what constitutes a crime than the UK Supreme Court?

PlzSnow 11y ago
It's not worth arguing with Assangers on HackerNews, it's like trying to argue with a Scientologist. Their beliefs are faith-based: facts and logic are of no interest.
pizzapill 11y ago
Where did I write anything like that?

PlzSnow 11y ago

Welcome to HackerNews, where people actually believe that Sweden would extradite Assange to the USA where he would be executed. It's so braindead I can't even begin to respond.

pizzapill 11y ago
You did respond. What is braindead about it? Sweden and other EU countries are extremely hesitant when it comes to extradition based on "political crimes", therefore the US prosecutors already changed the inducement to computer fraud etc. I live in a EU country where our government looks the other way when our citizens are being illegally detained by the CIA. There is at least one case where one of our citizens was tortured for years w/o court date. When the US found out that he was not a terrorist, they asked our foreign minister what should happen to him. He told them to keep him, so he was tortured for a couple more years. The whole world looked the other way when the US forced down a diplomatic plane to search for Snowden. Chelsea Manning was sentenced to a life in prison under circumstances that can't be called due process. What is so outlandish about thinking that Assange would be extradited?
- yxhuvud 11y ago
  For starters Sweden have laws against extraditing people for crimes where there is a risk of the offender to be executed on a guilty verdict.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Sweden also has a history of, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, black bagging political asylum seekers and handing them over to CIA to have them shipped off to be tortured. Years later Swedish military intelligence uncovered that CIA rendition flights via Sweden were still ungoing. Conveniently we know of the latter thanks to Wikileaks, seeing as the Swedish government kept quiet about it. I don't think Assange's case is a US conspiracy, but I also am not that surprised if Assange does genuinely believe it, and the bizarre behaviour of the Swedish prosecutor (which my personal theory is down to domestic politics - both the prosecutor and the appointed attorney for the women have a history of pushing for radical tightening of the application of Swedish laws on rape and sexual abuse) certainly would give him more reason to hold on to such a belief.