8 ms·

I do feel for Assange. Hi is in a bad situation, but personally so do I not see how his voluntary attempt to evade a legal arrest order is detention. Hi is accu

• danieltillett 11y ago
  The whole situation has nothing to do with the alleged crimes - he would be out of jail by now if he was even convicted. It is all about if he is to be extradited to the USA or not. If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today.
  • alkonaut 11y ago
    > If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA So the catch-22 is that he says he is happy to go to Sweden in case he is given guarantees of not being extradited, but no such guarantee is possible under Swedish law. What swedish authorities could (and should) do in this situation is just make some really broad statements about how even though they have agreements with the USA, no one would ever be extradited from Sweden to any country in case they risked facing the death penalty and/or are whistle blowers.
    • Tomte 11y ago
      As a European country Sweden does not extradite in case the extradited person faces the death penalty.
      • runarb 11y ago
        Sweden has done some questionable extraditions in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
        • alkonaut 11y ago
          The previous "CIA scandal" is still very well remembered here, and is just another reason that it won't be repeated. The political fallout would be massive.
          • vacri 11y ago
            If it happened right now, it'd be forgotten amongst the migrant crisis. Assange is soap opera. Migrant crisis is literally at doorsteps, and has Sweden closing borders.
            • psykovsky 11y ago
              Migrants at least use condoms when they rape Swedish girls. /s
              • dang 11y ago
                We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines despite repeated requests not to do that.
                • psykovsky 11y ago
                  Because making a new account is oh, so difficult... ffs
          • belorn 11y ago
            Like the political fallout of downing the presidential plane of an other nation, breaking the standing rules of immunity and inviolability. No nation, especially three of the largest nations in Europe at the same time, would ever dare to do that. Political fallout from actions taken in the war against whistleblowers has so far been quite minimal.
        • Ressuder 11y ago
          While that was a regrettable error, you can't really compare repatration with extradition.
      • ryanlol 11y ago
        I'm not entirely sure why that's relevant, it only protects Assange from being executed.
    • halviti 11y ago
      What Swedish authorities should do is just interview him remotely and then decide whether to prosecute. Case closed.
      • k-mcgrady 11y ago
        Didn't they come to the embassy a few weeks ago to interview him?
        • ryanlol 11y ago
          Few weeks ago is also when UN announced the decision to state parties.
      • hedwall 11y ago
        They agreed to do an interview at the embassy, then the embassy declined.
        • Tepix 11y ago
          That's a rather incomplete summary of the story, if you are interested in the topic you should make sure to read the various reports about this whole affair.
    • blowski 11y ago
      Is Julian Assange a whistle blower or a reporter on whistleblowers?
      • pessimizer 11y ago
        A whistleblower is a reporter.
        • blowski 11y ago
          When I hear the term "whistleblower" I assume the person works inside the organisation on whom they are 'blowing the whistle'.
    • ryanlol 11y ago
      And the US would just say "we won't execute Assange"
      • bb88 11y ago
        "...we'll just lock him up with convicted gang members and rapists."
    • rmc 11y ago
      > no one would ever be extradited from Sweden to any country in case they risked facing the death penalty and/or are whistle blowers. Capital punishment is against the European Convention of Human Rights. No EU (well Council of Europe) country is legally allowed extradite anyone where they would face the death penalty. That's been the law for years. There has never been any question of Assange being extradited and executed, because you can't extradite someone in that case. Cripes, even Russia has stopped capital punishment because of the ECHR.
      • crapiola 11y ago
        Portugal, a member of the EU has an extradition treaty with India, where criminals can be killed by the state. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-Portugal-sign-extradition-treaty/articleshow/1143722.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-Portugal-sign... Abu Salem was actually extradited from Portugal to India before this treaty existed
        • Tomte 11y ago
          That's not a refutation of what he said. EU countries also extradite to the US. But only after the US assure that in the specific case the death penalty will be neither sought nor imposed.
        • kiiski 11y ago
          A quote from the link: > The treaty with Portugal comes after India accepted its two main conditions that the extradited person would not face either a death sentence or life imprisonment beyond 25 years.
      • tveita 11y ago
        They're not supposed to be extradited if they will be tortured either, but prolonged solitary detention is not considered torture for reasons of political convenience. (No one wants to call the U.S. out on their extensive ongoing humans rights violations.)
      • kafkaesq 11y ago
        Even Russia has stopped capital punishment. That is, claimed to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky
    • Tepix 11y ago
      This isn't about the death penalty. The US would probably guarantee that Assange will not be sentenced to death, then they can put him into solitary confinement for the rest of his life.
    • vidarh 11y ago
      > but no such guarantee is possible under Swedish law. There is no legal impediment to for the Swedish government preventing them from refusing extradition. What makes you think there is?
  • rmc 11y ago
    > If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today. Can the US President give a guarantee that the Supreme Court will decide a case in a certain manner? Because that's what that means. Sweden is a country with laws, and an independent judiciary. Sweden has extradition treaty with the US (as do many people). If the USA follows a procedure, then the Swedish courts must hand someone over (and vice versa). That's what the (Swedish) law says. You're asking the Swedish government to guarantee that the Swedish courts won't decide a particular case in a particular manner.
    • jellicle 11y ago
      Extradition is a political process, not a judicial one. It is the U.S. Department of State that decides who gets extradited from the U.S.A., for example. If they want you extradited you're gone, if they don't you aren't. In Sweden it's the Government (prime minister, effectively) that decides, not any court. The idea that there's some sort of independent, non-partisan process for extraditions is completely, totally false. It is entirely political.
      • dagw 11y ago
        In Sweden it's the Government (prime minister, effectively) that decides, not any court. Only in one direction. If the Supreme Court blocks an extradition as illegal under Swedish law then the Government cannot overrule that judgement (though I suppose they could change the law and ask the country to refile the extradition request). They can however refuse to extradite someone even if the courts rule the extradition legal.
    • Tepix 11y ago
      Every government can deny an extradition for political or human rights reasons.
      • krotton 11y ago
        And it would be an absurd and a clear indication of lack of any kind of independence if they could not.
  • tptacek 11y ago
    The exact same thing is true of Roman Polanski, who long ago would have been free in the US had he not fled his sentence after being convicted. The only reason Polanski still has detention in the US hanging over his head is that he evaded the sentence.
    • danieltillett 11y ago
      I used to think that Polanski’s case was rather open and shut (what he did was not excusable in any way), but the way the judge behaved in his case was rather disturbing.
• lmilcin 11y ago
  From what I understand he is accused of having sex without a condom. Girl objected to not using condom but not to having sex. Still, she went with it without being forced physically. The argument is that it is a pretense to have him detained by US-controlled country to get him sent to US without proper judicial procedure. Basically, both UK and Sweden said it can't rule out that he is sent over to US if he's detained for this unrelated "crime".
  • alkonaut 11y ago
    It was a bit more complicated than that. The allegations were of what would definitely be considered statutory rape under swedish law (and probably the laws of most similar countries including the US).
    • gillianseed 11y ago
      I made a swedish to english translation of the actual allegation (as in the actual case file), the original can be found here, naturally it's in swedish: http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avs.. http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avs.... Here's my translation of the accusation (to the best of my ability): Sexual Assault They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass. They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'. She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night. She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards. She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian. Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby. They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills. His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour. After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would. She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills). After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'. edit: the old link s no longer working, here is a working one (again it's in swedish): http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf
• Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  The problem is that he's also wanted for leaking secret documents (like Snowden), and there's a high chance that the allegations were only intended so he can be arrested in a country that has an extradition policy with the US. He fears for his life, and given the US's "secret" concentration camps (Guantanamo, secret CIA bases, secret planes waiting to move Snowden, etc), I don't blame him.
  • rwmj 11y ago
    Strange comment .. He was already arrested in the UK, which has an extremely liberal extradition policy with the US. He spent a week in Wandsworth prison.
    • xxs 11y ago
      Being Commonwealth citizen he can't be extradited from UK (to US). He would have been if he was UK one, though. However he is fugitive in UK on his right own, skipping bail is no joke.
      • rwmj 11y ago
        > Being Commonwealth citizen he can't be extradited from UK (to US) Source for this claim?
      • ascorbic 11y ago
        I believe the legal term for that is bollocks. The procedures are here[1]. Note that it forbids extradition if the person would face the death penalty. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
        • vixen99 11y ago
          Although the death penalty in the US seems to be a very remote possibility, one gathers that the prospect of 45 years in a US jail is not. At present it looks like 45 years in the UK Ecuadorian Embassy: ""We will not allow Mr. Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom nor is there any legal basis for us to do so," UK Foreign Minister.
• DominikR 11y ago
  If it was just for the alleged rape in Sweden then it wouldn't make any sense to hide in the embassy for almost 4 years now, since it is very likely that he would have spent less time in prison in Sweden for this crime. It's the Supermax prison treatment including solitary confinement for life that he fears in the US. You just have to look at how they treated Manning. In face of that risk it certainly would feel like detention to me. Imagine someone would threaten to lock you up for life in solitary confinement and possibly even torture you on top of that if you ever left the room you are sitting in right now. Wouldn't that feel like detention? Yes, because it is. That threat alone significantly restricts your freedom.
• rurban 11y ago
  Serious crime? Are you out of your mind? His "crime" would be no crime at all in every other country. Only in Sweden a prosecutor is allowed to call that a possible rape. The "victims" did not so. It's entirely a political theatre. See e.g. http://assangerape.tumblr.com/ http://assangerape.tumblr.com/ or https://justice4assange.com/Assange-Case-Fact-Checker.html https://justice4assange.com/Assange-Case-Fact-Checker.html
  • fastball 11y ago
    You might want to find some sources that seem slightly more credible. One is an obviously biased website and the other is a Tumblr...
    • MichaelBurge 11y ago
      Aren't people who are biased towards a cause a good source if you are looking for reasons why people believe that cause? A neutral third party wouldn't have a strong opinion, so they'd be less motivated to do their research since the issue wouldn't matter to them as much.
      • fastball 11y ago
        Many people are motivated to perform thorough and high-quality research even though they are not personally invested in the topic they are researching. Journalists, for instance. I personally prefer a source that is as unbiased as possible, even if that means that there is less "content", because I don't want to have to sort fact from fiction in the biased source. If I had to sort fact from fiction, I would basically be doing the research myself, which would defeat the point of looking at someone else's corpus of research in the first place.
  • rmc 11y ago
    > His "crime" would be no crime at all in every other country. One of the requirements of extradition treaties is that the person is accused of something that's a crime in both countries. Assanges lawyers argued in the UK High and Supreme Courts that what he wanted for wasn't a crime in the UK. They lost. It's the opinion of the UK courts that what Assange is accused of, would count as a crime in the UK.