4 ms·

As I understood it, he fled to the embassy because he was afraid the Swedish allegations would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US. Now that his UK

by Vinnl 8y ago

As I understood it, he fled to the embassy because he was afraid the Swedish allegations would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US. Now that his UK charges can be used for that, that's no longer an objection.

gsnedders 8y ago
What relationship does his English conviction have to any US extradition request? (Be it the one that's been sent, or any hypothetical one to Sweden.)
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Ehm, good question; it's been a while since I read about this. I think, but don't pin me down on this, that his being kept in a single country would give the US enough time to draw up a formal extradition request for that specific country, whereas if a country isn't able to hold him, the request might not come in time. Hopefully somebody else can chime in with a more reliable explanation.
  - celticninja 8y ago
    He would never leave willingly if there was an existing extradition request for him. So they waited until he was out, however that came about. he was guaranteed to be arrested on exiting if only for the bail breach. At which point he is in custody and you can serve the extradition request. Similarly the US will not request extradition for some suspects and wait until they set foot in the US and arrest them then. Saving the need for an extradition battle. If they really want you and you are Russian, they wait until you go on holiday outside russian borders and grab you as you step off the plane.
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    If he were extradited to Sweden from the UK, under an EAW, to then be further extradited from Sweden to the US, the extradition would need to fulfil the requirements to be extradited from both the UK and Sweden. Being extradited to Sweden would merely make extradition to the US more complex, not less. He would still be able to challenge the extradition in the (presumably) English courts, but he would further be able to challenge it in the Swedish courts.
- maxlybbert 8y ago
  I never understood why Assange worried more about being extradited from Sweden than from the UK. However, I think it is a good point that now he’s fighting an extradition request in Britain, he would be happy to instead go to Sweden.
duxup 8y ago
>would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US That makes no sense. Sweeden does not extradite people for political crimes and espionage is considered a political crime in Sweeden. His chance of being extradited to the US for espionage from Sweeden was extremely low from the start ... and going to the UK out of fear of being extradited to the US makes no sense considering UK and US relations.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  I’m sure that Assange saw it differently, because otherwise he wouldn’t have trapped himself in an embassy for years.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I think it is more of a question of if he is being honest about the reasons for going to the UK.... "I was avoiding being arrested for rape" doesn't fit his narrative.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Fleeing to the UK seems like a terrible plan if you're looking to evade the Swedish justice system. Assange might not be a genius, but I don't think he'd be that daft.
    - belorn 8y ago
      So he is accused of a crime and he go to the police station and give his statement. He lets the investigator know he is staying in the country for several week, in the case they have any more questions. The case get closed. Months later he publish the leaks and travel to the UK, and a European arrest warrant is issued. After which there is a report that US diplomats visited the justice department before the case was reopened, but the department head swears that it did not influence the decision. Just like Sweden has laws against extraditing people for political crimes and espionage, its justice department has laws that forbids it from being influenced by politics. The official statement is that the chain of events is just a coincident and the leaks, US diplomats and everything else did not effect the decision of the prosecutor when they decided to reopen the case and issue the European arrest warrant. Some other minor details is that not only is the Assange case the most expensive UK police case in UK history, but this European arrest warrant is also a record in Sweden. No other warrant that Sweden has issued has as low maximal punishment. This is official also just a coincident. I personally are not that surprised that Assange do not believe it to be coincident. I wonder if not most people would become a bit paranoid if they were under similar circumstances, and not accept the claim that it is just a coincident and that the Sweden and UK legal system are just following standard procedure.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Neither the Swedish nor British charges were needed for that purpose, all that was needed was an extradition request from the US. The other charges are immaterial to extradition to the US except insofar as they might prevent or delay it, though being in jail facing the other charges might make it harder to flee extradition to the US if that request came later.

by Vinnl 8y ago

gsnedders 8y ago

What relationship does his English conviction have to any US extradition request? (Be it the one that's been sent, or any hypothetical one to Sweden.)

Vinnl 8y ago
Ehm, good question; it's been a while since I read about this. I think, but don't pin me down on this, that his being kept in a single country would give the US enough time to draw up a formal extradition request for that specific country, whereas if a country isn't able to hold him, the request might not come in time. Hopefully somebody else can chime in with a more reliable explanation.
- celticninja 8y ago
  He would never leave willingly if there was an existing extradition request for him. So they waited until he was out, however that came about. he was guaranteed to be arrested on exiting if only for the bail breach. At which point he is in custody and you can serve the extradition request. Similarly the US will not request extradition for some suspects and wait until they set foot in the US and arrest them then. Saving the need for an extradition battle. If they really want you and you are Russian, they wait until you go on holiday outside russian borders and grab you as you step off the plane.
- gsnedders 8y ago
  If he were extradited to Sweden from the UK, under an EAW, to then be further extradited from Sweden to the US, the extradition would need to fulfil the requirements to be extradited from both the UK and Sweden. Being extradited to Sweden would merely make extradition to the US more complex, not less. He would still be able to challenge the extradition in the (presumably) English courts, but he would further be able to challenge it in the Swedish courts.
maxlybbert 8y ago
I never understood why Assange worried more about being extradited from Sweden than from the UK. However, I think it is a good point that now he’s fighting an extradition request in Britain, he would be happy to instead go to Sweden.

duxup 8y ago

>would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US That makes no sense. Sweeden does not extradite people for political crimes and espionage is considered a political crime in Sweeden. His chance of being extradited to the US for espionage from Sweeden was extremely low from the start ... and going to the UK out of fear of being extradited to the US makes no sense considering UK and US relations.

Cyph0n 8y ago
I’m sure that Assange saw it differently, because otherwise he wouldn’t have trapped himself in an embassy for years.
- duxup 8y ago
  I think it is more of a question of if he is being honest about the reasons for going to the UK.... "I was avoiding being arrested for rape" doesn't fit his narrative.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Fleeing to the UK seems like a terrible plan if you're looking to evade the Swedish justice system. Assange might not be a genius, but I don't think he'd be that daft.
  - belorn 8y ago
    So he is accused of a crime and he go to the police station and give his statement. He lets the investigator know he is staying in the country for several week, in the case they have any more questions. The case get closed. Months later he publish the leaks and travel to the UK, and a European arrest warrant is issued. After which there is a report that US diplomats visited the justice department before the case was reopened, but the department head swears that it did not influence the decision. Just like Sweden has laws against extraditing people for political crimes and espionage, its justice department has laws that forbids it from being influenced by politics. The official statement is that the chain of events is just a coincident and the leaks, US diplomats and everything else did not effect the decision of the prosecutor when they decided to reopen the case and issue the European arrest warrant. Some other minor details is that not only is the Assange case the most expensive UK police case in UK history, but this European arrest warrant is also a record in Sweden. No other warrant that Sweden has issued has as low maximal punishment. This is official also just a coincident. I personally are not that surprised that Assange do not believe it to be coincident. I wonder if not most people would become a bit paranoid if they were under similar circumstances, and not accept the claim that it is just a coincident and that the Sweden and UK legal system are just following standard procedure.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Neither the Swedish nor British charges were needed for that purpose, all that was needed was an extradition request from the US. The other charges are immaterial to extradition to the US except insofar as they might prevent or delay it, though being in jail facing the other charges might make it harder to flee extradition to the US if that request came later.