14 ms·

Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy

158 points by aestetix 10y ago

tellarin 10y ago
Finally! Hope this finally moves ahead. The guys has been stuck there in 'house arrest' for years.
benevol 10y ago
Sweden's long-standing refusal to interview Assange in Ecuador's embassy was most probably due to pressure from the US. I wonder what element could have changed that. Edit: Or nothing at all has changed and the aim of the visit is purely "discovery".
- krylon 10y ago
  This is slightly paranoid speculation, but consider the following scenario: The US have realized that Assange is not coming out as long as the risk of arrest and extradition looms over his head. So Sweden now does the interview so they can drop the case without losing too much face. Assange goes free, and the US look for another way to snatch him or have him arrested by some allied state. (I am not even sure they would necessarily want to have him extradited - if he got convicted of rape in Sweden and went to prison for a couple of years[1], they might find that an acceptable outcome.) [1] I have no clue what kind of prison time he would face. My gut feeling says 5-10 years, but my gut is not a lawyer and only has a very superficial knowledge of the Swedish criminal law.
  - Cederfjard 10y ago
    I'm not going to try to translate the concepts, since I'm much too unversed in Swedish or any other law. The prison sentences for the crimes that may apply in his case seem as far as I can tell to range between six months and ten years (that is the harshest possible sentence for rape here in Sweden, and I can only imagine that it is given under very aggravating circumstances). Also bear in mind that almost every prisoner is released on parole after serving two thirds of their sentence - anything else is an exception.
- mtgx 10y ago
  Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents about Clinton that he's sure would lead to her indictment. And Obama is trying his hardest to help her avoid that. So maybe the US government is willing to "make a deal" with Assange through Sweden? Just a theory.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    > Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents > about Clinton That he got via FOI requests, iirc, so unlikely to be particularly exciting.
- legulere 10y ago
  How has any of this to do with the US? If the US wanted Assange extradited, they would have simply asked the UK, which is a closer ally to the US than Sweden. Why would Sweden help the US when the UK wouldn't? Edit: To clarify, Assange has been for years in the UK before he went into the embassy.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    They have asked the UK. But by being in the Embassy, Assange is on sovereign soil, and it would be (politically) akin to the UK invading Ecuador. Now, grain-of-salt all that. I've read several things that a) say it's not exactly sovereign, but the political fallout of the U.K. entering the embassy could collapse the entire house of cards that is the Embassy system worldwide, b) states have been kidnapping and assassinating people on foreign soil for ages (see: United States, Russia, Israel, etc). I'm sure being stuck in the Embassy is seen, at least a little, as being contained. But if he ever stepped foot outside, that'd be the end of that.
    - hugh4 10y ago
      But they could have extradited him before he ever went into the embassy. They didn't. Only Sweden is currently attempting to extradite him.
      - afterwise 10y ago
        "attempting"?
    - Kristine1975 10y ago
      Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.
      - gsnedders 10y ago
        > Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition. Not weeks, years. He left Sweden in 27 September 2010, and it wasn't until 14 June 2012 that he had exhausted his rights of appeal in the UK (short of any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). He was on bail for pretty much the entire period (he spend nine days in police custody prior to being granted bail, but I don't believe he was ever in custody after that).
- Trombone12 10y ago
  The long standing refusal was probably mostly down to the preference of the prosecutor regarding the circumstances of the questioning. In any case, she caved last year and since then its been a diplomatic squabble about why there is no progress, with Sweden giving no official comments (as per usual policy) and Ecuador boasting about how kind and full of compromises they are[1]. I don't expect much will be different now, especially as there is no impending deadline like there was last year. [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-...
- gaius 10y ago
  Nonsense. If you are wanted for a crime there is no country on Earth that lets you dictate to the police when and where they can have a word with you.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    That's not what happened though. He dictated where the police were capable of having a word with him, and they chose not to do so there. It's totally possible that there are legitimate reasons for that (if you already have enough evidence to convict, there would be no reason to 'interview' someone except in an arrest-friendly setting), but it's still a worthwhile distinction. This isn't someone calling up the police and going "I'll talk to you, but only if you agree to meet me at Starbucks." It's someone leveraging international law to leave the police with only one option.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    Well that's nonsense. Do you honestly think most countries would rather let the charges expire rather than agreeing to do an interview outside of their jurisdiction.
  - kazagistar 10y ago
    Apparently there is, because he could.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to have an attorney present, at least in one country.
ff10 10y ago
How likely is this to be some kind of bait'n'switch? Scenario: Swedish diplomats enter negotiations – raising delusive hope in Assange and everyone in the Embassy – with the intention to never follow with any feasible agreement in order to make Assange give up so he can deal with his health issues.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  It seems to me that it's the Swedish police that agreed to talk to Assange in the embassy. Not Swedish diplomats.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    And to expound on that, the foreign minister is not allowed to influence the police in Sweden ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre ). Although there have been cases where this has happened (IIRC the US cable leaks revealed there was ministerial interference in the Pirate Bay case)
- Trombone12 10y ago
  Negotiations haven been ongoing since last year, and according to the Swedish prosecution office the last request to interview Assange in the Embassy was sent in March this year (the third such request by their count).
jackweirdy 10y ago
"Assange is suffering deteriorating health, he has a small space and little light. It is an embassy under siege. It is very difficult to make a phone call, the internet collapses the whole time, pictures are taken as people enter and leave the building" Unusual that an embassy would have internet problems. Sounds like GCHQ have a van in the street...
- eli 10y ago
  I used to work in the Albanian embassy building and the internet was terrible. I think they just didn't have much to spend on it.
  - smcl 10y ago
    I would have thought Internet access was a drop in the ocean vs all the other expenses involved in operating an embassy
    - gaius 10y ago
      Many embassies are little more than a house for the ambassador to live in, with a meeting room or two.
    - eli 10y ago
      I think a lot of other expenses were underfunded too.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      According to Wikipedia, the address of the Embassy of Ecuador, London is "Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent, London SW1X 0LS". The "Flat 3b" makes me think it's a bit of a shoestring operation.
      - jonlucc 10y ago
        Interestingly, it looks like a very large apartment building, with several police officers clearly visible near doorways on StreetView.
anotheryou 10y ago
So well timed after the 5th(?) anniversary of Assange moving in to the embassy it sounds like this was the plan for a while: "if we can't make him leave in 5 years, we might as well interview him there before any case becomes invalid."
- themartorana 10y ago
  Does Sweden have a statue of limitations on rape?
  - gabeochoa 10y ago
    "Some in the Foreign Office fear a permanent impasse between the UK and Ecuador, and that Assange will stay in the embassy until 2020, by which time a statute of limitations applies under Swedish law on the rape case." Its implied 10(?) years in the article
    - themartorana 10y ago
      In that case, he's more than half-way there. That doesn't have anything to do with his ailing health, but it's interesting to note.
  - anotheryou 10y ago
    I'm not even sure what the exact allegations are or include. E.g. consensual sex, but without a promised condom might be a different charge.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    Per below, yes. However, England doesn't have a statute of limitations on breach of bail, of which he is pretty clearly guilty. (England rarely has statute of limitations.)
- bjourne 10y ago
  The case is not Sweden vs Assange. The case is handled by one prosecutor (Marianne Ny) and everything attributed to Sweden is actually her decisions. If she has a plan or not, I don't think many people can tell.
6stringmerc 10y ago
For the longest time I had my philosophical issues with WikiLeaks so stayed away. Sure, I'd read stories via mainstream reporting, but getting into the actual 'effort' or 'movement' wasn't (and still isn't) my cup of tea. From a distance, things seemed rather dramatic as well. I'm rather certain the article "Ghosting" by Andrew O'Hagan is something I found through HN, and it was an eye opening long read: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting It certainly influenced my perspective of Assange's decisions, or choices, regarding himself (past, present, future). The story continues, as this article shows.
richmarr 10y ago
It's terrifying that Assange's self-preservation might put Trump in the Whitehouse.
- benevol 10y ago
  It's still the voter who puts Trump in the Whitehouse.
- themartorana 10y ago
  Pretty sure releasing these documents, if they exist, is the opposite of self-preservation. After that he holds no cards at all.
- wernercd 10y ago
  It's terrifying that Clinton might get into the Whitehouse. I mean... are there really THAT many stupid voters? Trump... faaaaaar from perfect. But the reason he's made it as far as he has? Because people are sick of career politicians (Jeb, Marco, Cruz, etc) who make promises then proceed to fuck the voters. Hillary is the worst of the worst examples of Corrupt Rich White Bought-And-Paid-For Politicians.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Trump is, as far as I'm aware, just as bought and paid for. He's just also not a career politician, but that doesn't mean he's not figured out how things get done at that level. Although best case scenario, all the career politicians decide they don't like an outsider and prevent him from doing anything he wants.
    - samdoidge 10y ago
      Hillary donations from corporations dwarf that of Trump. Trump does also not have JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc as donors. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N000...
Pirate-of-SV 10y ago
I tried to find some more information about this. Seems like the article is referring to a request that was made in March 2016 [1] by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Their timeline of "The Assange Matter" in Swedish is a bit more detailed [2] [1] (English) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/the-assange-matter/ https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/the-assange-... [2] (Swedish) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearendet/kronologi/ https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...
SixSigma 10y ago
Pardon Chelsea Manning !
bArray 10y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if Assange is found not guilty by the Swedish authorities and then Assange thinks he is free and leaves the embassy (which he plans to do). (I think the US could get Sweden to do that on the promise they have a worse sentence for him.) Meanwhile, the UK suddenly finds the UN's ruling as fair and extradite him to the US. If we're honest, the only reason the UK hasn't so far is because they are worried about the circumstances of doing so. If not for that, they really couldn't care and would probably use the favour with the US at another time. What's really horrible here is that the UN seems to exist to serve the US agenda. I wonder whether if push come to shove, if other Countries in the UN would get help at all? After all, they turned a blind eye to Ukraine because they didn't want to deal with Russia. Whilst there are still so many games at play, I think Assange is much better off where he is. I think Assange needs to find some funding from somewhere (shouldn't be too difficult) and upgrade that internet connection. Until all the cards are revealed he's probably going to be there a while.
- Trombone12 10y ago
  What is never clear in these convoluted conspiracies is why the United "yes we'll go to war with Irak with you US" Kingdom would not extradite Assange so that it would be necessary to ask Sweden to do it.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    I heard it was because he was a (high-profile) British citizen.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      What difference do you think that would make?
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        There would supposedly (IIRC) be certain rules against allowing the extradition of citizens of the commonwealth?
Neil44 10y ago
Could the timing of this somehow be Brexit related?
- lazyjones 10y ago
  It could also be related to his announcement regarding compromising material against Hillary Clinton (i.e. Killary wants him dead ;-)): http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-publish-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-pu... But let's not get carried away with wild theories...
- johnflan 10y ago
  Interesting point
- tptacek 10y ago
  Probably not. The ECHR is formally part of the UK's law; simply exiting the EU won't revoke it. Brexit would mean that no part of Assange's case would be appealable to the European Court of Justice while Assange was in the UK, but that seems like less a big deal. This probably has more to do with the UN working group findings from earlier this year, and with the fact that Assange has imposed on himself a longer period of house arrest than he probably would have faced even if he'd been found guilty in Sweden.
amelius 10y ago
For how long has he been in that embassy? Versus how much sentence would he get from a possible conviction?
sorenjan 10y ago
It surprises me that HN is so full of conspiracy theorists. Assange is stuck in the embassy of a less than ideal country regarding freedom of press etc because of his own actions, and he's free to leave at any time. When he does, he will get arrested by English police, extradited to Sweden, and questioned regarding alleged rape. If the prosecutor thinks he's guilty he will get arrested, and he will stand trial in Sweden. Nothing in this case supports any of the scare tactics he himself and parts of the Internet is using. Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK. Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. He was in the UK for months before he started hiding in the embassy. He is not in house arrest, he's fleeing the justice system of two well developed western countries. Sweden's government can't give any guarantees that he's been asking for, because it's against Swedish law for the government to interfere in legal matters. It's all a bunch of FUD, and people seem to eat it up because it fits their narrative.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Possibly. However, if it was your life on the line, wouldn't you want assurances? I know I would. Especially if you look at what happened to others. You state that Sweden can't extradite him to the US. Given the fact that most of the laws created in most western countries (ranging from tax law to civil law) are often not extremely well defined (or frankly not even well thought out / put together), and can often easily be interpreted in very different ways by different judges, I can totally understand his point of view. At the end of the day, as long as Ecuador doesn't kick him out, all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire. He's got leverage. If Sweden really wanted a solution to this, they would've done this years ago.
  - ProfChronos 10y ago
    "You state that Sweden can't extradite him to the US. Given the fact that most of the laws created in most Western countries (ranging from tax law to civil law) are often not extremely well defined, and can be interpreted in different ways by different judges, I can totally understand his point of view." => It is not a matter of justice system (common law vs civil law) or law definition, but a matter of independence. And when it comes to independence, Europe has shown a strong will not to extradite people to the US. Add the media pressure around Assange's case and you get a good assurance that he won't be extradited to the US
jmkni 10y ago
I would put money on Assange putting some sort of road-block in the way to prevent this from happening. He has done it before. He wants to present himself as being a co-operative victim whilst simultaneously being as un co-operative as possible!
ed_blackburn 10y ago
He'd still be in breach of his original bail conditions if Sweden dropped the charges and risks being arrested for breach of bail conditions if he were to leave the embassy.
sfifs 10y ago
It appears US and allied governments have achieved much of what they wanted to anyway by immobilising Assagne in a small building with limited connectivity. This is possibly more valuable than highly publicised trial etc if he were in fact actually extradited.
walrus01 10y ago
"the internet collapses the whole time" ? I really wonder what's going on from a layer 1/2 perspective their with last mile connection and ISPs. I'm assuming the british authorities haven't tried to stop the Ecuadorians from ordering ordinary internet service, though of course anything going into/out of there is subject to a great deal of scrutiny and signals intelligence attention. In that part of London they should be able to obtain a fairly ordinary VDSL2 17a profile last mile connection which will be anywhere from 55 to 85 Mbps symmetric depending on how shitty the POTS phone wiring is, and how close the DSLAM is to the premises.

158 points by aestetix 10y ago

Finally! Hope this finally moves ahead. The guys has been stuck there in 'house arrest' for years.

Sweden's long-standing refusal to interview Assange in Ecuador's embassy was most probably due to pressure from the US. I wonder what element could have changed that. Edit: Or nothing at all has changed and the aim of the visit is purely "discovery".

krylon 10y ago
This is slightly paranoid speculation, but consider the following scenario: The US have realized that Assange is not coming out as long as the risk of arrest and extradition looms over his head. So Sweden now does the interview so they can drop the case without losing too much face. Assange goes free, and the US look for another way to snatch him or have him arrested by some allied state. (I am not even sure they would necessarily want to have him extradited - if he got convicted of rape in Sweden and went to prison for a couple of years[1], they might find that an acceptable outcome.) [1] I have no clue what kind of prison time he would face. My gut feeling says 5-10 years, but my gut is not a lawyer and only has a very superficial knowledge of the Swedish criminal law.
- Cederfjard 10y ago
  I'm not going to try to translate the concepts, since I'm much too unversed in Swedish or any other law. The prison sentences for the crimes that may apply in his case seem as far as I can tell to range between six months and ten years (that is the harshest possible sentence for rape here in Sweden, and I can only imagine that it is given under very aggravating circumstances). Also bear in mind that almost every prisoner is released on parole after serving two thirds of their sentence - anything else is an exception.
mtgx 10y ago
Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents about Clinton that he's sure would lead to her indictment. And Obama is trying his hardest to help her avoid that. So maybe the US government is willing to "make a deal" with Assange through Sweden? Just a theory.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents > about Clinton That he got via FOI requests, iirc, so unlikely to be particularly exciting.
legulere 10y ago
How has any of this to do with the US? If the US wanted Assange extradited, they would have simply asked the UK, which is a closer ally to the US than Sweden. Why would Sweden help the US when the UK wouldn't? Edit: To clarify, Assange has been for years in the UK before he went into the embassy.
- themartorana 10y ago
  They have asked the UK. But by being in the Embassy, Assange is on sovereign soil, and it would be (politically) akin to the UK invading Ecuador. Now, grain-of-salt all that. I've read several things that a) say it's not exactly sovereign, but the political fallout of the U.K. entering the embassy could collapse the entire house of cards that is the Embassy system worldwide, b) states have been kidnapping and assassinating people on foreign soil for ages (see: United States, Russia, Israel, etc). I'm sure being stuck in the Embassy is seen, at least a little, as being contained. But if he ever stepped foot outside, that'd be the end of that.
  - hugh4 10y ago
    But they could have extradited him before he ever went into the embassy. They didn't. Only Sweden is currently attempting to extradite him.
    - afterwise 10y ago
      "attempting"?
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      > Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition. Not weeks, years. He left Sweden in 27 September 2010, and it wasn't until 14 June 2012 that he had exhausted his rights of appeal in the UK (short of any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). He was on bail for pretty much the entire period (he spend nine days in police custody prior to being granted bail, but I don't believe he was ever in custody after that).
Trombone12 10y ago
The long standing refusal was probably mostly down to the preference of the prosecutor regarding the circumstances of the questioning. In any case, she caved last year and since then its been a diplomatic squabble about why there is no progress, with Sweden giving no official comments (as per usual policy) and Ecuador boasting about how kind and full of compromises they are[1]. I don't expect much will be different now, especially as there is no impending deadline like there was last year. [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-...
gaius 10y ago
Nonsense. If you are wanted for a crime there is no country on Earth that lets you dictate to the police when and where they can have a word with you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  That's not what happened though. He dictated where the police were capable of having a word with him, and they chose not to do so there. It's totally possible that there are legitimate reasons for that (if you already have enough evidence to convict, there would be no reason to 'interview' someone except in an arrest-friendly setting), but it's still a worthwhile distinction. This isn't someone calling up the police and going "I'll talk to you, but only if you agree to meet me at Starbucks." It's someone leveraging international law to leave the police with only one option.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  Well that's nonsense. Do you honestly think most countries would rather let the charges expire rather than agreeing to do an interview outside of their jurisdiction.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  Apparently there is, because he could.
- hackuser 10y ago
  You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to have an attorney present, at least in one country.

ff10 10y ago

How likely is this to be some kind of bait'n'switch? Scenario: Swedish diplomats enter negotiations – raising delusive hope in Assange and everyone in the Embassy – with the intention to never follow with any feasible agreement in order to make Assange give up so he can deal with his health issues.

Kristine1975 10y ago
It seems to me that it's the Swedish police that agreed to talk to Assange in the embassy. Not Swedish diplomats.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  And to expound on that, the foreign minister is not allowed to influence the police in Sweden ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre ). Although there have been cases where this has happened (IIRC the US cable leaks revealed there was ministerial interference in the Pirate Bay case)
Trombone12 10y ago
Negotiations haven been ongoing since last year, and according to the Swedish prosecution office the last request to interview Assange in the Embassy was sent in March this year (the third such request by their count).

jackweirdy 10y ago

"Assange is suffering deteriorating health, he has a small space and little light. It is an embassy under siege. It is very difficult to make a phone call, the internet collapses the whole time, pictures are taken as people enter and leave the building" Unusual that an embassy would have internet problems. Sounds like GCHQ have a van in the street...

eli 10y ago
I used to work in the Albanian embassy building and the internet was terrible. I think they just didn't have much to spend on it.
- smcl 10y ago
  I would have thought Internet access was a drop in the ocean vs all the other expenses involved in operating an embassy
  - gaius 10y ago
    Many embassies are little more than a house for the ambassador to live in, with a meeting room or two.
  - eli 10y ago
    I think a lot of other expenses were underfunded too.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    According to Wikipedia, the address of the Embassy of Ecuador, London is "Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent, London SW1X 0LS". The "Flat 3b" makes me think it's a bit of a shoestring operation.
    - jonlucc 10y ago
      Interestingly, it looks like a very large apartment building, with several police officers clearly visible near doorways on StreetView.

anotheryou 10y ago

So well timed after the 5th(?) anniversary of Assange moving in to the embassy it sounds like this was the plan for a while: "if we can't make him leave in 5 years, we might as well interview him there before any case becomes invalid."

themartorana 10y ago
Does Sweden have a statue of limitations on rape?
- gabeochoa 10y ago
  "Some in the Foreign Office fear a permanent impasse between the UK and Ecuador, and that Assange will stay in the embassy until 2020, by which time a statute of limitations applies under Swedish law on the rape case." Its implied 10(?) years in the article
  - themartorana 10y ago
    In that case, he's more than half-way there. That doesn't have anything to do with his ailing health, but it's interesting to note.
- anotheryou 10y ago
  I'm not even sure what the exact allegations are or include. E.g. consensual sex, but without a promised condom might be a different charge.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  Per below, yes. However, England doesn't have a statute of limitations on breach of bail, of which he is pretty clearly guilty. (England rarely has statute of limitations.)
bjourne 10y ago
The case is not Sweden vs Assange. The case is handled by one prosecutor (Marianne Ny) and everything attributed to Sweden is actually her decisions. If she has a plan or not, I don't think many people can tell.

6stringmerc 10y ago

For the longest time I had my philosophical issues with WikiLeaks so stayed away. Sure, I'd read stories via mainstream reporting, but getting into the actual 'effort' or 'movement' wasn't (and still isn't) my cup of tea. From a distance, things seemed rather dramatic as well. I'm rather certain the article "Ghosting" by Andrew O'Hagan is something I found through HN, and it was an eye opening long read: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting It certainly influenced my perspective of Assange's decisions, or choices, regarding himself (past, present, future). The story continues, as this article shows.

richmarr 10y ago

It's terrifying that Assange's self-preservation might put Trump in the Whitehouse.

benevol 10y ago
It's still the voter who puts Trump in the Whitehouse.
themartorana 10y ago
Pretty sure releasing these documents, if they exist, is the opposite of self-preservation. After that he holds no cards at all.
wernercd 10y ago
It's terrifying that Clinton might get into the Whitehouse. I mean... are there really THAT many stupid voters? Trump... faaaaaar from perfect. But the reason he's made it as far as he has? Because people are sick of career politicians (Jeb, Marco, Cruz, etc) who make promises then proceed to fuck the voters. Hillary is the worst of the worst examples of Corrupt Rich White Bought-And-Paid-For Politicians.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Trump is, as far as I'm aware, just as bought and paid for. He's just also not a career politician, but that doesn't mean he's not figured out how things get done at that level. Although best case scenario, all the career politicians decide they don't like an outsider and prevent him from doing anything he wants.
  - samdoidge 10y ago
    Hillary donations from corporations dwarf that of Trump. Trump does also not have JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc as donors. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N000...

Pirate-of-SV 10y ago

I tried to find some more information about this. Seems like the article is referring to a request that was made in March 2016 [1] by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Their timeline of "The Assange Matter" in Swedish is a bit more detailed [2] [1] (English) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/the-assange-matter/ https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/the-assange-... [2] (Swedish) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearendet/kronologi/ https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...

SixSigma 10y ago

Pardon Chelsea Manning !

bArray 10y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Assange is found not guilty by the Swedish authorities and then Assange thinks he is free and leaves the embassy (which he plans to do). (I think the US could get Sweden to do that on the promise they have a worse sentence for him.) Meanwhile, the UK suddenly finds the UN's ruling as fair and extradite him to the US. If we're honest, the only reason the UK hasn't so far is because they are worried about the circumstances of doing so. If not for that, they really couldn't care and would probably use the favour with the US at another time. What's really horrible here is that the UN seems to exist to serve the US agenda. I wonder whether if push come to shove, if other Countries in the UN would get help at all? After all, they turned a blind eye to Ukraine because they didn't want to deal with Russia. Whilst there are still so many games at play, I think Assange is much better off where he is. I think Assange needs to find some funding from somewhere (shouldn't be too difficult) and upgrade that internet connection. Until all the cards are revealed he's probably going to be there a while.

Trombone12 10y ago
What is never clear in these convoluted conspiracies is why the United "yes we'll go to war with Irak with you US" Kingdom would not extradite Assange so that it would be necessary to ask Sweden to do it.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  I heard it was because he was a (high-profile) British citizen.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    What difference do you think that would make?
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      There would supposedly (IIRC) be certain rules against allowing the extradition of citizens of the commonwealth?

Neil44 10y ago

Could the timing of this somehow be Brexit related?

lazyjones 10y ago
It could also be related to his announcement regarding compromising material against Hillary Clinton (i.e. Killary wants him dead ;-)): http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-publish-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-pu... But let's not get carried away with wild theories...
johnflan 10y ago
Interesting point
tptacek 10y ago
Probably not. The ECHR is formally part of the UK's law; simply exiting the EU won't revoke it. Brexit would mean that no part of Assange's case would be appealable to the European Court of Justice while Assange was in the UK, but that seems like less a big deal. This probably has more to do with the UN working group findings from earlier this year, and with the fact that Assange has imposed on himself a longer period of house arrest than he probably would have faced even if he'd been found guilty in Sweden.

amelius 10y ago

For how long has he been in that embassy? Versus how much sentence would he get from a possible conviction?

sorenjan 10y ago

It surprises me that HN is so full of conspiracy theorists. Assange is stuck in the embassy of a less than ideal country regarding freedom of press etc because of his own actions, and he's free to leave at any time. When he does, he will get arrested by English police, extradited to Sweden, and questioned regarding alleged rape. If the prosecutor thinks he's guilty he will get arrested, and he will stand trial in Sweden. Nothing in this case supports any of the scare tactics he himself and parts of the Internet is using. Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK. Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. He was in the UK for months before he started hiding in the embassy. He is not in house arrest, he's fleeing the justice system of two well developed western countries. Sweden's government can't give any guarantees that he's been asking for, because it's against Swedish law for the government to interfere in legal matters. It's all a bunch of FUD, and people seem to eat it up because it fits their narrative.

charlesdm 10y ago
Possibly. However, if it was your life on the line, wouldn't you want assurances? I know I would. Especially if you look at what happened to others. You state that Sweden can't extradite him to the US. Given the fact that most of the laws created in most western countries (ranging from tax law to civil law) are often not extremely well defined (or frankly not even well thought out / put together), and can often easily be interpreted in very different ways by different judges, I can totally understand his point of view. At the end of the day, as long as Ecuador doesn't kick him out, all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire. He's got leverage. If Sweden really wanted a solution to this, they would've done this years ago.
- ProfChronos 10y ago
  "You state that Sweden can't extradite him to the US. Given the fact that most of the laws created in most Western countries (ranging from tax law to civil law) are often not extremely well defined, and can be interpreted in different ways by different judges, I can totally understand his point of view." => It is not a matter of justice system (common law vs civil law) or law definition, but a matter of independence. And when it comes to independence, Europe has shown a strong will not to extradite people to the US. Add the media pressure around Assange's case and you get a good assurance that he won't be extradited to the US

jmkni 10y ago

I would put money on Assange putting some sort of road-block in the way to prevent this from happening. He has done it before. He wants to present himself as being a co-operative victim whilst simultaneously being as un co-operative as possible!

ed_blackburn 10y ago

He'd still be in breach of his original bail conditions if Sweden dropped the charges and risks being arrested for breach of bail conditions if he were to leave the embassy.

sfifs 10y ago

It appears US and allied governments have achieved much of what they wanted to anyway by immobilising Assagne in a small building with limited connectivity. This is possibly more valuable than highly publicised trial etc if he were in fact actually extradited.

walrus01 10y ago

"the internet collapses the whole time" ? I really wonder what's going on from a layer 1/2 perspective their with last mile connection and ISPs. I'm assuming the british authorities haven't tried to stop the Ecuadorians from ordering ordinary internet service, though of course anything going into/out of there is subject to a great deal of scrutiny and signals intelligence attention. In that part of London they should be able to obtain a fairly ordinary VDSL2 17a profile last mile connection which will be anywhere from 55 to 85 Mbps symmetric depending on how shitty the POTS phone wiring is, and how close the DSLAM is to the premises.