4 ms·

The statement was made Wednesday night, U.S. time: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273

by jccc 11y ago

The statement was made Wednesday night, U.S. time: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/695084493825273856 Do we have reason to believe Assange knew about the decision beforehand? Moreover, do we have reason to be less interested in the larger context of the UN panel's decision than in the ways in which we can paint the motives of Assange's statement?

tptacek 11y ago
I'm not invested in this situation either way. I think the charges against Assange are weak, but that he should face them. I don't believe he ever will, though. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the US wants to spirit him out of Sweden; in fact, my personal belief is that if he himself flew to JFK Airport tomorrow, his only problem would be that we would take 8 hours of waiting in a room at customs before informing him that we wouldn't let him in the country at all. A lot of the hypothesizing about the US kidnapping or assassinating Assange makes sense only on a message board. In reality, just about the worst thing that could happen for the US is for Assange to suddenly disappear. Meanwhile, I think things are playing out in the embassy exactly how everyone watching it figured it would, and exactly as Assange hoped: he's waiting out the charges, which grow staler and less immediate to the victim and harder to prosecute by the day. Eventually, Sweden will stop caring enough to force extradition. He'll never be able to go back to Sweden again without risking prosecution, so he just won't, and that will be the end of the story. The comparison to Polanski is apt. Let me just say this in advance: I am a person on the Internet who probably does not agree with you about this stuff. You need to be ok with that. I'm certainly ok with you, a total stranger, not agreeing with me!
- Tomte 11y ago
  My hunch is that someday Assange will be extradited to Sweden (or go on his own volition), the Swedish prosecutor will interrogate him, and shortly afterwards (hours or days) he will be set free. And nobody will kidnap him. And then he can wonder if his self-imposed imprisonment was worth it.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Why does he have to go to Sweden when there is no real need for him to do so? Swedish courts already confirmed that they don't need him present there, they could've easily have tried him already if the prosecutor did their job.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      That is something you could ask about everyone who has ever been accused of anything and later acquitted. Unfortunately, it's also the same thing everyone accused and later convicted would like to say, so that logic can't control.
      - ryanlol 11y ago
        Having someone else represent you at trial is very common. Swedish courts have already confirmed that there is no need for Assange to be extradited. Had he been given a fair trial and sentenced, then it would be a whole different situation. For years the prosecution has been preventing him from having his day in court by illegally refusing to interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is what this whole UN thing is about.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  >I think the charges against Assange are weak, but that he should face them. I don't believe he ever will, though. He hasn't really been allowed to, there's no need for him to be present in Sweden to face those charges.
- pyre 11y ago
  I'm curious on why you feel that the Swedish prosecutor delayed the case, and kept it in a stalemate even though the Swedish courts have stated (as others have stated here) that Assange does not need to be present in Sweden. If they really wanted to proceed with the case in Sweden, it seems like they could have. If you believe that this whole thing had nothing to do with extraditing Assange to the US (or using the stalemate to keep him confined to one place), then what was the purpose of waiting for Assange's physical presence in Sweden?
ascorbic 11y ago
It was just a few hours before the BBC published the leak.

by jccc 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

I'm not invested in this situation either way. I think the charges against Assange are weak, but that he should face them. I don't believe he ever will, though. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the US wants to spirit him out of Sweden; in fact, my personal belief is that if he himself flew to JFK Airport tomorrow, his only problem would be that we would take 8 hours of waiting in a room at customs before informing him that we wouldn't let him in the country at all. A lot of the hypothesizing about the US kidnapping or assassinating Assange makes sense only on a message board. In reality, just about the worst thing that could happen for the US is for Assange to suddenly disappear. Meanwhile, I think things are playing out in the embassy exactly how everyone watching it figured it would, and exactly as Assange hoped: he's waiting out the charges, which grow staler and less immediate to the victim and harder to prosecute by the day. Eventually, Sweden will stop caring enough to force extradition. He'll never be able to go back to Sweden again without risking prosecution, so he just won't, and that will be the end of the story. The comparison to Polanski is apt. Let me just say this in advance: I am a person on the Internet who probably does not agree with you about this stuff. You need to be ok with that. I'm certainly ok with you, a total stranger, not agreeing with me!

Tomte 11y ago
My hunch is that someday Assange will be extradited to Sweden (or go on his own volition), the Swedish prosecutor will interrogate him, and shortly afterwards (hours or days) he will be set free. And nobody will kidnap him. And then he can wonder if his self-imposed imprisonment was worth it.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Why does he have to go to Sweden when there is no real need for him to do so? Swedish courts already confirmed that they don't need him present there, they could've easily have tried him already if the prosecutor did their job.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That is something you could ask about everyone who has ever been accused of anything and later acquitted. Unfortunately, it's also the same thing everyone accused and later convicted would like to say, so that logic can't control.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Having someone else represent you at trial is very common. Swedish courts have already confirmed that there is no need for Assange to be extradited. Had he been given a fair trial and sentenced, then it would be a whole different situation. For years the prosecution has been preventing him from having his day in court by illegally refusing to interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is what this whole UN thing is about.
ryanlol 11y ago
>I think the charges against Assange are weak, but that he should face them. I don't believe he ever will, though. He hasn't really been allowed to, there's no need for him to be present in Sweden to face those charges.
pyre 11y ago
I'm curious on why you feel that the Swedish prosecutor delayed the case, and kept it in a stalemate even though the Swedish courts have stated (as others have stated here) that Assange does not need to be present in Sweden. If they really wanted to proceed with the case in Sweden, it seems like they could have. If you believe that this whole thing had nothing to do with extraditing Assange to the US (or using the stalemate to keep him confined to one place), then what was the purpose of waiting for Assange's physical presence in Sweden?

ascorbic 11y ago

It was just a few hours before the BBC published the leak.