8 ms·

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

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
  - render_ceasar 10y ago
    Then again this actually happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Swed...
    - ProfChronos 10y ago
      It happened for alleged terrorists no one knew about - apart from people working in security/intelligence/military services - and Sweden felt extremely shameful. Not sure they want to do that again with somebody almost every has heard of and who hasn't been a threat to Sweden
      - render_ceasar 10y ago
        To paraphrase grandparent, if it were you, would you be willing to risk it? It won't be much consolation to you if it happens and somebody in Sweden might feel ashamed about it.
  - Tharkun 10y ago
    I seem to remember Belgium extraditing someone for plotting to attack US soldiers on Belgian base. When the US barks, Europe rolls over. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Trabelsi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Trabelsi
    - efdee 10y ago
      Belgium was recently fined for this by the EU. So I'm not sure Europe is the one that rolled over.
      - kahnpro 10y ago
        Yeah but if you're Assange, some kind of punishment like a silly little fine later on really doesn't matter if you end up kidnapped.
- pascalmemories 10y ago
  > all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire. The Swedish investigation may well expire (parts have already). This has never really been about the Swedish charges. The English charges (relating to failing to comply with bail) do not expire. Very few offences in English law expire - something I'm sure will surprise Americans who are used to relatively short statute of limitations on even some serious crimes (e.g. the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations). England routinely prosecutes and jails people for alleged offences 50 & 60 years ago; many are elderly men in their 80's & 90's with little chance of mounting any sort of defence due to their age, but that's another issue. Arrange cannot wait out the English charges and England is well documented as an enthusiastic participant in torture and rendition of both it's own citizens and foreign nationals. The UK-US extradition treaty is a shocking travesty of justice and is routinely used to send people from the UK to the US for activity carried out in the UK and considered lawful in the UK but which has upset US authorities. [1] He has good reason to remain in the Embassy. Unfortunately he's likely to be there for many years to come and either be grabbed when he requires hospital treatment at some point in the future, or, the UK will decide it can live with some diplomatic protests and expulsion of UK diplomats after sending the SAS in to grab him from the embassy and hand him over to the US. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901
- peeters 10y ago
  > 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. Don't know about Sweden, but in the U.S. the statute of limitations is not granted to those fleeing from the law. > No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice. - 18 U.S.C 3290 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3290 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3290):
  - sorenjan 10y ago
    Some of the charges against him has already expired, the rape charge expires in august 2020.
- sorenjan 10y ago
  Forgive me, but this comment reads like yet more FUD. Do you have anything to add except more scare tactics? Of course I'd like assurances regarding anything with my life on the line, but why would I be special? Why would Assange be special? The law is the law, and an important principle in western law is that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Should you or I be allowed to flee abroad and then demand to be questioned where we are? Sweden's government can't give any assurances beforehand, since every case must be judged independently. Sweden can't extradite Assange anywhere after he's been extradited to Sweden from the UK without the UK's permission [0, 1]. If the US needs Sweden and the UK to cooperate, why wouldn't they just ask the UK from the start, who's a much closer allied? [0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/Forstein_53-CJTL-363.pdf http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F... [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index...
  - james-watson 10y ago
    This is an absurdly naive view of a utopian hyper-rationalist. The laws are created by those in power to serve those in power. They do not stand on their own, because they are enforced by cops, lawyers and judges, who are people. These people choose to enforce the law based on the situation at hand, and this can lead to a large disparity in outcomes given technically similar cases. Assange and Snowden will both rot in Guantanamo the second they leave their safe houses. If you think otherwise, you are absurdly naive to the geopolitics of the world we live in.
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    He has a special case because they have been treating this as a special case from the start. Had he not been wanted for something beyond the official claim then he wouldn't have been treated as he is
- notahacker 10y ago
  If he sincerely believed his life was on the line from people that were willing to creatively reinterpret the law to get him to the US, he probably wouldn't have twice waited until the day there were no further legal impediments to him being prosecuted in Sweden before changing jurisdiction. On the other hand, insisting that superfluous assurances are made by bodies that don't have any legal authority to make them is a very good excuse for not going anywhere.
- toomanybeersies 10y ago
  Look at Kim Dotcom for a counterpoint. He's been fighting extradition for what, 4 or 5 years now? New Zealand is just as much a lapdog of the USA as Sweden, and Dotcom actually has had charges laid.
  - MrMullen 10y ago
    Dotcom is a New Zealand citizen facing charges within the borders of New Zealand. New Zealand just can't grab on of its citizens and toss them out.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      This is incorrect. The US is attempting to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand for violating US law outside of US jurisdiction. I don't like the guy, but let's not lie about it.
    - toomanybeersies 10y ago
      Dotcom is not a New Zealand citizen. He is a German citizen and a New Zealand resident. He was specifically barred from a path to citizenship and owning property because he failed the good character requirement.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    >New Zealand is just as much a lapdog of the USA as Sweden This doesn't sound like something a lapdog would do (February 2016): http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296076/us-requests-fast-track-for-dotcom-case http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296076/us-requests-fa... Lawyers for the US were at the High Court in Auckland today, where they asked Justice Asher to give the appeal priority and set an early date for the hearing. Justice Asher declined that request but set a date for August.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      The current New Zealand leadership are worse than lapdogs. The goings on with Hollywood contracts (The Hobbit), Dotcom and spy agency leadership, TPPA etc etc are shameful. The lengths the PM goes to get in a photo with Obama etc etc. USA asks, we say yes. It's gross. A shining light is New Zealand's judiciary who seem fairly offside with political leadership.
TomorrowRich 10y ago
Thank you for posting this. I love HM but the conspiracy mindset here can get overwhelming at times.
lazyant 10y ago
You mean like nobody will force to land a plane carrying a prime minister for example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
- sorenjan 10y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Snowden, an American citizen, formally charged with a serious crime in the US? Is Assange, not an American citizen, charged with any such crime in the US?
  - goldenkey 10y ago
    Snowden should be protected by WPA [1]. Unfortunately, trusting ones' government will follow its' own laws is quite a risk. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
    - drawnwren 10y ago
      Sorry, you're way off base here. The WPA only protects Whistleblowers who work within the government reporting system. It's not a get out of jail free card for any action you perform under the auspices of 'blowing the whistle.'
      - goldenkey 10y ago
        So let me get this straight. You contact "The Office of Special Counsel [1]" and they contact the FBI/CIA to take you away to an undisclosed location. You are never seen again. I'm just not buying the effectiveness of the formal procedure unless ones' goal is to die in vain.. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Special_Counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Specia...
      - calgoo 10y ago
        In this case exactly. For Snowden, there is a reason he was hired as a contractor. The government contractors do not have the WPA protection that their fellow government works do.
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
Already mentioned, but deserving to be mentioned again: in a normal criminal law case you don't have multiple nations deny airspace to a prime minister's plane on a hunch the suspect is on board.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
> It's all a bunch of FUD, and people seem to eat it up because it fits their narrative. Not even particularly original FUD. Jacob Appelbaum was able to get away with a lot of things because he could always point to his accusers as being planted by the FBI or whoever.
AndyMcConachie 10y ago
Sometimes it's OK to say, "I don't know." The term conspiracy theorist is used to denote some idea that is irrational. Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people. Thus it's probably more prudent to accept one's own ignorance of the situation, and await more information before calling anything a conspiracy theory.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Yes, exactly. >Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people. It is really frustrating to witness people throw the 'conspiracy theorist' derision around so liberally when we know the above is true.
Bartweiss 10y ago
> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. Can you support that claim? My understanding was exactly the opposite. Sweden can't execute someone who would face the death penalty where they are being extradited. That's part of why Assange hasn't been charged under the Espionage Act - it would bar extradition. I'm not conspiracy theorizing there, it's been explicitly stated that extradition is a reason to delay charging him until he can be brought here to face a grand jury. > "Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK." This claim doesn't seem relevant. As soon as he was facing legal involvement in the UK (or as soon as he got asylum, I'm not sure how the timing shook out there), he ran for the embassy. Your implication seems to be that he's hiding from Swedish prosecution rather US law, but I've seen no indication that he would leave the embassy if Sweden dropped charges. Without that, I don't see how the Sweden/UK distinction matters - he's avoiding both legal systems which could extradite him. This is a sincere question - I'd like to know anything backing those points. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that A) Sweden couldn't extradite, or B) Assange is willing to face the UK legal system but not the Swedish one. One or both of those seems necessary for your conclusion.
- sorenjan 10y ago
  >> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. > Can you support that claim? Yes, and I've linked to a source in a different comment that's at the moment at -2 here. It's both due to the The Doctrine of Specialty and whether what he has done is a crime in Sweden or not [0, 1, 2]. When Sweden asked for Assange's extradition from the UK he was arrested after presenting himself to the London police and then let out on bail. London's Belmarsh Magistrate's Court then rules in favor of Assange's extradition. Then the High Court upholds this decision. Then he wins the right to appeal to the UK Supreme Court because his case is "a question of general public importance." He was certainly willing to face the UK legal system. The UK's Supreme Court also ruled that he should be extradited to Sweden, at which point he jumped bail and fled to the embassy where he sought and received political asylum. He fled to the embassy only after all legal ways of getting out of the extradition from the UK to Sweden was exhausted. Nowhere in this has the US made any claims on him, all such talk comes from Assange himself that says it's all part of a smear campaign. If the Swedish charges are dropped he will still face the criminal charges in the UK from jumping bail. [0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/Forstein_53-CJTL-363.pdf http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F... [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index... [2] https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearendet/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/ https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...
jkot 10y ago
Alleged rape happened six years ago. There was enough time to investigate, and make trial in absentia. Stretching this case for years (possibly decades) is not fair to his victims.
- Tomte 10y ago
  Trial in absentia is not legally possible in many, many countries. Oh, surprise! That includes Sweden.
jellicle 10y ago
> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him Of course they are.
cabalamat 10y ago
Here are some more facts: 1. the Vice President of the USA, Joe Biden, has publicly called Julian Assange a terrorist 2. the US Government has a policy of assassinating people it considers to be terrorists. Make of these facts what you will
- danem 10y ago
  This is exactly the kind of irrational, sensationalist, FUD the parent was talking about. Do you honestly believe that the moment Assange steps foot outside the embassy, he's a dead man walking?
  - ghostDancer 10y ago
    It can be worse he can be sent to Guantamo, the no rights land maintained by the democracy and human rights defender US government, the same that says that waterboarding is a good investigation technique.
    - Tomte 10y ago
      Guantanamo is worse than being killed? I suppose you have found a way to improve the prisoners' lot and at the same time outwit US Congress who is adamant in not letting them set foot in the United States... But I believe very few people actually agree with you.
      - calgoo 10y ago
        Yes, i agree with grand-parent, torture is worse then death. Especially when you know there is no way to escape it, and you will probably spend the rest of you life there.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Even life in prison can well be torture. I'm often surprised at the common thought that prisoners should get life instead of execution, like that's some kind of prize.

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
- render_ceasar 10y ago
  Then again this actually happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Swed...
  - ProfChronos 10y ago
    It happened for alleged terrorists no one knew about - apart from people working in security/intelligence/military services - and Sweden felt extremely shameful. Not sure they want to do that again with somebody almost every has heard of and who hasn't been a threat to Sweden
    - render_ceasar 10y ago
      To paraphrase grandparent, if it were you, would you be willing to risk it? It won't be much consolation to you if it happens and somebody in Sweden might feel ashamed about it.
- Tharkun 10y ago
  I seem to remember Belgium extraditing someone for plotting to attack US soldiers on Belgian base. When the US barks, Europe rolls over. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Trabelsi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Trabelsi
  - efdee 10y ago
    Belgium was recently fined for this by the EU. So I'm not sure Europe is the one that rolled over.
    - kahnpro 10y ago
      Yeah but if you're Assange, some kind of punishment like a silly little fine later on really doesn't matter if you end up kidnapped.
pascalmemories 10y ago
> all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire. The Swedish investigation may well expire (parts have already). This has never really been about the Swedish charges. The English charges (relating to failing to comply with bail) do not expire. Very few offences in English law expire - something I'm sure will surprise Americans who are used to relatively short statute of limitations on even some serious crimes (e.g. the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations). England routinely prosecutes and jails people for alleged offences 50 & 60 years ago; many are elderly men in their 80's & 90's with little chance of mounting any sort of defence due to their age, but that's another issue. Arrange cannot wait out the English charges and England is well documented as an enthusiastic participant in torture and rendition of both it's own citizens and foreign nationals. The UK-US extradition treaty is a shocking travesty of justice and is routinely used to send people from the UK to the US for activity carried out in the UK and considered lawful in the UK but which has upset US authorities. [1] He has good reason to remain in the Embassy. Unfortunately he's likely to be there for many years to come and either be grabbed when he requires hospital treatment at some point in the future, or, the UK will decide it can live with some diplomatic protests and expulsion of UK diplomats after sending the SAS in to grab him from the embassy and hand him over to the US. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901
peeters 10y ago
> 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. Don't know about Sweden, but in the U.S. the statute of limitations is not granted to those fleeing from the law. > No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice. - 18 U.S.C 3290 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3290 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3290):
- sorenjan 10y ago
  Some of the charges against him has already expired, the rape charge expires in august 2020.
sorenjan 10y ago
Forgive me, but this comment reads like yet more FUD. Do you have anything to add except more scare tactics? Of course I'd like assurances regarding anything with my life on the line, but why would I be special? Why would Assange be special? The law is the law, and an important principle in western law is that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Should you or I be allowed to flee abroad and then demand to be questioned where we are? Sweden's government can't give any assurances beforehand, since every case must be judged independently. Sweden can't extradite Assange anywhere after he's been extradited to Sweden from the UK without the UK's permission [0, 1]. If the US needs Sweden and the UK to cooperate, why wouldn't they just ask the UK from the start, who's a much closer allied? [0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/Forstein_53-CJTL-363.pdf http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F... [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index...
- james-watson 10y ago
  This is an absurdly naive view of a utopian hyper-rationalist. The laws are created by those in power to serve those in power. They do not stand on their own, because they are enforced by cops, lawyers and judges, who are people. These people choose to enforce the law based on the situation at hand, and this can lead to a large disparity in outcomes given technically similar cases. Assange and Snowden will both rot in Guantanamo the second they leave their safe houses. If you think otherwise, you are absurdly naive to the geopolitics of the world we live in.
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  He has a special case because they have been treating this as a special case from the start. Had he not been wanted for something beyond the official claim then he wouldn't have been treated as he is
notahacker 10y ago
If he sincerely believed his life was on the line from people that were willing to creatively reinterpret the law to get him to the US, he probably wouldn't have twice waited until the day there were no further legal impediments to him being prosecuted in Sweden before changing jurisdiction. On the other hand, insisting that superfluous assurances are made by bodies that don't have any legal authority to make them is a very good excuse for not going anywhere.
toomanybeersies 10y ago
Look at Kim Dotcom for a counterpoint. He's been fighting extradition for what, 4 or 5 years now? New Zealand is just as much a lapdog of the USA as Sweden, and Dotcom actually has had charges laid.
- MrMullen 10y ago
  Dotcom is a New Zealand citizen facing charges within the borders of New Zealand. New Zealand just can't grab on of its citizens and toss them out.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    This is incorrect. The US is attempting to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand for violating US law outside of US jurisdiction. I don't like the guy, but let's not lie about it.
  - toomanybeersies 10y ago
    Dotcom is not a New Zealand citizen. He is a German citizen and a New Zealand resident. He was specifically barred from a path to citizenship and owning property because he failed the good character requirement.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  >New Zealand is just as much a lapdog of the USA as Sweden This doesn't sound like something a lapdog would do (February 2016): http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296076/us-requests-fast-track-for-dotcom-case http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296076/us-requests-fa... Lawyers for the US were at the High Court in Auckland today, where they asked Justice Asher to give the appeal priority and set an early date for the hearing. Justice Asher declined that request but set a date for August.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    The current New Zealand leadership are worse than lapdogs. The goings on with Hollywood contracts (The Hobbit), Dotcom and spy agency leadership, TPPA etc etc are shameful. The lengths the PM goes to get in a photo with Obama etc etc. USA asks, we say yes. It's gross. A shining light is New Zealand's judiciary who seem fairly offside with political leadership.

TomorrowRich 10y ago

Thank you for posting this. I love HM but the conspiracy mindset here can get overwhelming at times.

lazyant 10y ago

You mean like nobody will force to land a plane carrying a prime minister for example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

sorenjan 10y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Snowden, an American citizen, formally charged with a serious crime in the US? Is Assange, not an American citizen, charged with any such crime in the US?
- goldenkey 10y ago
  Snowden should be protected by WPA [1]. Unfortunately, trusting ones' government will follow its' own laws is quite a risk. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
  - drawnwren 10y ago
    Sorry, you're way off base here. The WPA only protects Whistleblowers who work within the government reporting system. It's not a get out of jail free card for any action you perform under the auspices of 'blowing the whistle.'
    - goldenkey 10y ago
      So let me get this straight. You contact "The Office of Special Counsel [1]" and they contact the FBI/CIA to take you away to an undisclosed location. You are never seen again. I'm just not buying the effectiveness of the formal procedure unless ones' goal is to die in vain.. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Special_Counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Specia...
    - calgoo 10y ago
      In this case exactly. For Snowden, there is a reason he was hired as a contractor. The government contractors do not have the WPA protection that their fellow government works do.

Lawtonfogle 10y ago

Already mentioned, but deserving to be mentioned again: in a normal criminal law case you don't have multiple nations deny airspace to a prime minister's plane on a hunch the suspect is on board.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

> It's all a bunch of FUD, and people seem to eat it up because it fits their narrative. Not even particularly original FUD. Jacob Appelbaum was able to get away with a lot of things because he could always point to his accusers as being planted by the FBI or whoever.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago

Sometimes it's OK to say, "I don't know." The term conspiracy theorist is used to denote some idea that is irrational. Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people. Thus it's probably more prudent to accept one's own ignorance of the situation, and await more information before calling anything a conspiracy theory.

wallace_f 10y ago
Yes, exactly. >Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people. It is really frustrating to witness people throw the 'conspiracy theorist' derision around so liberally when we know the above is true.

Bartweiss 10y ago

> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. Can you support that claim? My understanding was exactly the opposite. Sweden can't execute someone who would face the death penalty where they are being extradited. That's part of why Assange hasn't been charged under the Espionage Act - it would bar extradition. I'm not conspiracy theorizing there, it's been explicitly stated that extradition is a reason to delay charging him until he can be brought here to face a grand jury. > "Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK." This claim doesn't seem relevant. As soon as he was facing legal involvement in the UK (or as soon as he got asylum, I'm not sure how the timing shook out there), he ran for the embassy. Your implication seems to be that he's hiding from Swedish prosecution rather US law, but I've seen no indication that he would leave the embassy if Sweden dropped charges. Without that, I don't see how the Sweden/UK distinction matters - he's avoiding both legal systems which could extradite him. This is a sincere question - I'd like to know anything backing those points. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that A) Sweden couldn't extradite, or B) Assange is willing to face the UK legal system but not the Swedish one. One or both of those seems necessary for your conclusion.

sorenjan 10y ago
>> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. > Can you support that claim? Yes, and I've linked to a source in a different comment that's at the moment at -2 here. It's both due to the The Doctrine of Specialty and whether what he has done is a crime in Sweden or not [0, 1, 2]. When Sweden asked for Assange's extradition from the UK he was arrested after presenting himself to the London police and then let out on bail. London's Belmarsh Magistrate's Court then rules in favor of Assange's extradition. Then the High Court upholds this decision. Then he wins the right to appeal to the UK Supreme Court because his case is "a question of general public importance." He was certainly willing to face the UK legal system. The UK's Supreme Court also ruled that he should be extradited to Sweden, at which point he jumped bail and fled to the embassy where he sought and received political asylum. He fled to the embassy only after all legal ways of getting out of the extradition from the UK to Sweden was exhausted. Nowhere in this has the US made any claims on him, all such talk comes from Assange himself that says it's all part of a smear campaign. If the Swedish charges are dropped he will still face the criminal charges in the UK from jumping bail. [0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/Forstein_53-CJTL-363.pdf http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F... [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index... [2] https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearendet/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/ https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...

jkot 10y ago

Alleged rape happened six years ago. There was enough time to investigate, and make trial in absentia. Stretching this case for years (possibly decades) is not fair to his victims.

Tomte 10y ago
Trial in absentia is not legally possible in many, many countries. Oh, surprise! That includes Sweden.

jellicle 10y ago

> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him Of course they are.

cabalamat 10y ago

Here are some more facts: 1. the Vice President of the USA, Joe Biden, has publicly called Julian Assange a terrorist 2. the US Government has a policy of assassinating people it considers to be terrorists. Make of these facts what you will

danem 10y ago
This is exactly the kind of irrational, sensationalist, FUD the parent was talking about. Do you honestly believe that the moment Assange steps foot outside the embassy, he's a dead man walking?
- ghostDancer 10y ago
  It can be worse he can be sent to Guantamo, the no rights land maintained by the democracy and human rights defender US government, the same that says that waterboarding is a good investigation technique.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Guantanamo is worse than being killed? I suppose you have found a way to improve the prisoners' lot and at the same time outwit US Congress who is adamant in not letting them set foot in the United States... But I believe very few people actually agree with you.
    - calgoo 10y ago
      Yes, i agree with grand-parent, torture is worse then death. Especially when you know there is no way to escape it, and you will probably spend the rest of you life there.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Even life in prison can well be torture. I'm often surprised at the common thought that prisoners should get life instead of execution, like that's some kind of prize.