15 ms·

Charges like these, which such heavy minimum sentences should he be convicted, are exactly what he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the

Charges like these, which such heavy minimum sentences should he be convicted, are exactly what he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. It appears he wasn’t.

ddingus 7y ago
Yup. Some of us have taken note of "those observers" for the future.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ddingus 7y ago
  Like it, don't like it. We've got a basic conflict in play right now. Ordinary people vs a growing, greedy, authoritarian establishment. Who observes what actually matters. They will get it wrong again. We can have a healthy discussion about intent, and we should. No matter the intent, it's pretty damn important to understand who is lucid on all of this and who is not. And for those who are not? Let's talk more, get them lucid. This isn't a personal thing. It's political, and while the norms surrounding politics seem more harsh than necessary, I refuse to subscribe to any of that. Wrong, right? I personally do not care too much. We get things wrong, and we get them right. The conversation about all of that, the process? That is what matters, and it's where the good stuff is. The times are escalating conflict times. Not growing more stable. Ignore all of that at our mutual peril.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard Did they? I thought it was commonly held he would face such charges. The allegations around delusion were in respect of his ability to evade them for the rest of his life.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Yes, they did. Here is tptacek saying that Assagne was dishonest and irrational when claiming to fear extradition to America: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 Go through his comment history and survey what he's been saying about Assange over the years. It's pretty egregious.
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    Here's the context for that comment, which isn't nearly as black/white as claimed; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043068
  - mamurphy 7y ago
    Well, wait a second here. Tptacek seems to have been clear in saying that Assange being extradited from the UK itself is much more likely than being extradited from Sweden. Assange ended up being extradited from the UK itself. Since he was forced out of the embassy into the arms of UK police, and never planned to go to Sweden, I don't think we'll ever know if he would have been extradited from Sweden (or on route to Sweden) or not. Tptacek was making a point that's a bit more nuanced than you seem to give credit for. He hasn't been "proven wrong" by the UK allowing US to extradite Assange.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Also tptacek: "The fact that they won't render Polanski to the US cuts against Assange's argument." Let's be real here, he never would have made it to Sweden. One way or another, Assange's fear that leaving the embassy would end in him in an American courtroom was neither irrational nor dishonest.
  - patejam 7y ago
    Who is tptacek and why should we care what they have to say?
    - 7y ago
throwaway2048 7y ago
I recall this as well, plenty of posters on HN saying how it wasn't possible.
- TillE 7y ago
  Some of the most prominent, popular users of this site, even.
  - whyenot 7y ago
    Can you back this up with a link or more specifics?
    - peterkelly 7y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329
- bjourne 7y ago
  Can you provide some links please? So that I don't have to trust the memory of a throwaway.
mtgx 7y ago
Indeed. I remember many of his critics saying "but what does he have to lose if he's actually innocent of the Swedish sexual assault charges?!" This is exactly what he said would happen if he would give in to the Swedish/UK authorities. Many may not remember, but Assange also said that the Swedish charges were manufactured precisely so he can be 1) discredited and 2) eventually extradited to U.S. once in custody.
- duxup 7y ago
  >eventually extradited to U.S. once in custody. That result was entirely his choice. He chose to go to the UK. That's not where you go if you're fearful of the US picking you up. He chose to leave Sweden where he wouldn't likely be extradited to the US as Sweden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes ....
  - username444 7y ago
    Which is irrelevant, because they'd manufacture some other charge to get him on. Every single person on the entire planet can be charged with dozens of things by a u.s. prosecutor with enough time and incentive. That's how the laws are designed. If they want you, they _will_ get you.
    - duxup 7y ago
      >Which is irrelevant, Facts are irrelivant... > because they'd manufacture some other charge to get him on. Because of things that aren't facts? I don't know what to tell you other than with that pattern it seems like you could belive in lizard people or something.
    - mcv 7y ago
      But those are not things that Sweden would extradite him for. They'd lock him up for rape, yes, but not extradite him to the US.
      - username444 7y ago
gamblor956 7y ago
No, observers claimed he was delusional to think he would be charged with a capital crime (meaning he could be executed if convicted), because that would violate the terms of any extradition. Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left the embassy.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  >>>> Is it your belief that he would not end up in US custody? And do you think he also believes that? >>> Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes. >> Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody. > I do think he's being dishonest, yes. He has access to skilled lawyers, and his concern about extradition to the US is irrational: it's easier to extradite him where he is.
- krustyburger 7y ago
  I’m not sure whether you’re really making a blanket statement about what all observers had to say. But if you are, your recollection is incorrect. The issue of capital punishment aside, many voices chimed in to say (especially in the early going) that the United States would not hold these cards close to its chest for such a long time and that he should just go face justice in Sweden.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    The terms "many observers" and "many voices" are weasel words, and also blanket statements. Your argument would be much better if you could be more specific about who you are referring to.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Back then, I and a number of the other legal dudes on HN were saying that the US would definitely try to extradite Assange no matter how long he tried to stay in the embassy.[1] We all generally agreed he should face justice in Sweden (if he was innocent, as he claimed) because Sweden does not extradite for the crimes he is now charged with...but the UK does. While it's possible Sweden might have deported him to Australia after whatever happened in Sweden, that scenario was never brought up. [1] We're still trying to extradite Polanski, even though he's been a fugitive for decades. The US legal system has patience, largely because everything takes so long anyways.
duxup 7y ago
>he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard That's a bizarre statement. Most took issue with the hyperbole that was attached to what he would be charged with, "droned" or otherwise dealt with, not if he would or wouldn't be charged with anything. This is one of those classic conspiracy theory type situations where it is "oh look people said this wasn't a thing and here it is" and it's way not what anyone else said either... and that doesn't prove anything.
ChrisSD 7y ago
Many "observers" claimed that fleeing to the UK was a nonsensical move if he feared the US. Sweden would have been much safer.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Exactly. This is why the previous Ecuadorian government granted him political asylum - his legitimate fear of persecution by the American government for publishing their embarrassing secrets. The current government of Ecuador has not only handed him over, however, but has even handed over his personal belongings in the embassy to the US government. So much for protecting him from political persecution!
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  From what I gathered, this sounds more like it happened because he is somewhat grating as an individual, as opposed to a political statement. He would have probably been better off pulling a Snowden and disappearing into Hong Kong for a while...
  - monocasa 7y ago
    I mean, and that $4.2B IMF loan secured by Moreno. Meeting with Manafort about Assange was one of the first things Moreno did when he was in power. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/manafort-tried-to-make-deal-with-ecuador-on-wikileaks-assange-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/manafort-tried-to-make-deal-...
  - ppod 7y ago
    There's a new leader in Ecuador, more US friendly, and they leaned on him with the IMF --- they got a huge loan just as they gave him up. It does seem that he is a bit of an asshole, but I don't think it's conspiratorial to think there's more to it than that. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-imf/ecuador-inks-4-2-billion-financing-deal-with-imf-moreno-idUSKCN1QA05Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-imf/ecuador-inks-... https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuador-jilted-assange-as-it-sought-to-build-ties-with-u-s-11555063200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuador-jilted-assange-as-it-so...
    - throwaway743 7y ago
      This, and apparently he released a bunch of documents proving financial corruption among him and his friends/family.
sleepybrett 7y ago
I mean he's facing these charges, not because he published the leaks themselves, but because he help facilitate the leaking. Journalists don't do that.
- plange 7y ago
  Journalists do that all the time, it's literally part of the job. Though it is rare to see because there are repercussions.
  - Theodores 7y ago
    Journalists just dumb down whatever press releases are on the newswire that day and then head down to the pub. There was some golden age that is always a generation ago where journalists did great things, but, they weren't journalists, they were whistleblowers that happened to work for the media. If you work for the corporate media then this 'golden age' journalism is just not possible. You would be sacked if you wrote the truth or went further than the press releases on the newswire for content.
    - Grangar 7y ago
      So just what is it that Glenn Greenwald did then?
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    Assisting people in an effort to steal classified materials is not in fact something journalists fo all the time. The moment you cross the line from just receiving classified materials to paying for or helping to attempt steal, your stepping into criminality.
- ibeckermayer 7y ago
  What evidence is there that he helped leak anything? Sure, the government has asserted that — based on what?
astine 7y ago
His specific claim was that the Swedish rape charges were a cover so that Sweden could extradite him to the US. He still hasn't been extradited by Sweden. I wonder if he wouldn't have been better of going to Sweden.
- mcv 7y ago
  I think it's extremely unlikely that Sweden would extradite him to the US. The UK is far more likely to do that. In Sweden, however, he runs the risk of getting imprisoned for rape.
  - astine 7y ago
    Right. As I recall, a lot of the prior discussion revolved around the rape charges. One side argued that Assange was hiding from a rape charge and the other arguing that the rape charge was a cover for a secret extradition agreement between Sweden and the US. That latter stance has yet to be proven. I don't think that there were many people arguing that the US didn't want him but it looks like the US was willing to wait for him to wear out his welcome with the Ecuadorans and completely skip over the Swedes. I wonder had he never gotten to the Ecuadorean embassy if the US would have raised a competing claim with Sweden.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > One side argued that Assange was hiding from a rape charge and the other arguing that the rape charge was a cover for a secret extradition agreement between Sweden and the US. One side was arguing he was hiding from a rape charge, the other side argued he was hiding from a possible extradition order. Both of those have to do with Assange's likely motivation and are to some degree independent of the facts on the ground - as you point out, the facts of one argument are so far unprovable. The hiding-from-rape argument has been pretty much debunked by the 7 year timeframe. I don't know what Assange was up for in Sweden, but it beggars belief that he would get more than 7 years jail for a non-violent crime. A fine and community service, maybe. Most aspects of the case must be almost evidence-free and would be a struggle to prove if he says 'didn't happen that way'. Whatever the truth, he was clearly hiding from a greater threat than the charges the Swedes were bringing against him.
noelsusman 7y ago
The only reason anyone thought it wouldn't happen is because it involves stepping into controversial legal territory and angering American journalists. Who described it as delusional? What are you talking about?
2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Julian Assange predicted his fate if he left the embassy? So? I think he should be in court while the accusers plead their case. Ellsberg beat the government in court afterall. The only alternative is to abolish the courts and legal system and let people get a free pass since the system is not perfect.
- 6nf 7y ago
  The point is that many observers claimed that this was just a crazy conspiracy theory. It was not.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
    Claiming that what is a conspiracy theory?
- pablooliva 7y ago
  Why does U.S. law have any jurisdiction over a foreign national?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
    There should be no consequences for carrying out criminal activity across borders due to matters of jurisdiction? International law is incredibly complicated. It's up to the countries involved to make the decision in addition to whether or not extradition makes sense. You don't have to agree with that but once again- what is your alternative?
    - megous 7y ago
      > There should be no consequences for carrying out criminal activity across borders due to matters of jurisdiction? Depends. But sometimes yes. "Criminal activity" is often times country specific.
    - peterkelly 7y ago
      > There should be no consequences for carrying out criminal activity across borders due to matters of jurisdiction? In China it's against the law to publicly criticise the government. Should the US extradite people to China to face the penalties for violating that law?
empath75 7y ago
I bet he’d already be out of prison if he hadn’t voluntarily imprisoned himself in the Ecuadorian embassy.
matt4077 7y ago
It's doubtful that the Obama admin would have gone this route. There have been quite a few stories that they shied away from such a drastic extension of the definition of 'Espionage'. Pardoning Manning also doesn't quite with the idea of the (previous) US admin being too invested in punishing Wikileaks.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Except it wasn't a pardon but a commutation - General Petreaus got an actual pardon for spilling secrets to his biographer he was having an affair with - an obvious position for a honeypot. That still shows a less than friendly attitude to whistleblowers and a hypocritical double standard of holding those in power to a far lower standard. It stinks of cynical "we just want the bad PR to go away but don't want to say she did the right thing" so just commuting to validate the court ruling. Meanwhile Petreaus we should assert that the ruling class are seperate and should be sancrosanct - pardon!
Lazare 7y ago
By no means. The arguments generally present on here was that: 1) He'd already been in custody in the UK for some time, so if the US wanted him, and the UK was willing to hand him over, then that would have already taken place, but had not. 2) Under EU rules, if the UK has extradited him to Sweden, and then the US asked for him, both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to hand him over, making him strictly safer in Sweden than in the UK. 3) Much of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of being charged with a capital crime, but under EU rules neither the UK nor Sweden could have handed him over to face a capital charge. 4) Much of the remainder of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of going to Sweden, but he was already in the UK, and the UK is famously willing to cooperate with the US. The UK was not a safe place for Assange to be! All four points have been vindicated by events so far. What Assange ended up doing was finding a way to avoid going to Sweden and instead hang out in the UK for so long that eventually the US asked, and the UK handed him over, just as expected. Had Assange quietly gone to Sweden to contest the charges against him, would things have worked out better for him? We'll never know now, but it's very plausible. > Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. In any case, the specific claims he made remain, at best, unsubstantiated. He wasn't extradited from Sweden, and he isn't facing a capital charge.

ddingus 7y ago

Yup. Some of us have taken note of "those observers" for the future.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ddingus 7y ago
Like it, don't like it. We've got a basic conflict in play right now. Ordinary people vs a growing, greedy, authoritarian establishment. Who observes what actually matters. They will get it wrong again. We can have a healthy discussion about intent, and we should. No matter the intent, it's pretty damn important to understand who is lucid on all of this and who is not. And for those who are not? Let's talk more, get them lucid. This isn't a personal thing. It's political, and while the norms surrounding politics seem more harsh than necessary, I refuse to subscribe to any of that. Wrong, right? I personally do not care too much. We get things wrong, and we get them right. The conversation about all of that, the process? That is what matters, and it's where the good stuff is. The times are escalating conflict times. Not growing more stable. Ignore all of that at our mutual peril.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard Did they? I thought it was commonly held he would face such charges. The allegations around delusion were in respect of his ability to evade them for the rest of his life.

darkpuma 7y ago
Yes, they did. Here is tptacek saying that Assagne was dishonest and irrational when claiming to fear extradition to America: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 Go through his comment history and survey what he's been saying about Assange over the years. It's pretty egregious.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  Here's the context for that comment, which isn't nearly as black/white as claimed; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043068
- mamurphy 7y ago
  Well, wait a second here. Tptacek seems to have been clear in saying that Assange being extradited from the UK itself is much more likely than being extradited from Sweden. Assange ended up being extradited from the UK itself. Since he was forced out of the embassy into the arms of UK police, and never planned to go to Sweden, I don't think we'll ever know if he would have been extradited from Sweden (or on route to Sweden) or not. Tptacek was making a point that's a bit more nuanced than you seem to give credit for. He hasn't been "proven wrong" by the UK allowing US to extradite Assange.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Also tptacek: "The fact that they won't render Polanski to the US cuts against Assange's argument." Let's be real here, he never would have made it to Sweden. One way or another, Assange's fear that leaving the embassy would end in him in an American courtroom was neither irrational nor dishonest.
- patejam 7y ago
  Who is tptacek and why should we care what they have to say?
  - 7y ago

throwaway2048 7y ago

I recall this as well, plenty of posters on HN saying how it wasn't possible.

TillE 7y ago
Some of the most prominent, popular users of this site, even.
- whyenot 7y ago
  Can you back this up with a link or more specifics?
  - peterkelly 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329
bjourne 7y ago
Can you provide some links please? So that I don't have to trust the memory of a throwaway.

mtgx 7y ago

Indeed. I remember many of his critics saying "but what does he have to lose if he's actually innocent of the Swedish sexual assault charges?!" This is exactly what he said would happen if he would give in to the Swedish/UK authorities. Many may not remember, but Assange also said that the Swedish charges were manufactured precisely so he can be 1) discredited and 2) eventually extradited to U.S. once in custody.

duxup 7y ago
>eventually extradited to U.S. once in custody. That result was entirely his choice. He chose to go to the UK. That's not where you go if you're fearful of the US picking you up. He chose to leave Sweden where he wouldn't likely be extradited to the US as Sweden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes ....
- username444 7y ago
  Which is irrelevant, because they'd manufacture some other charge to get him on. Every single person on the entire planet can be charged with dozens of things by a u.s. prosecutor with enough time and incentive. That's how the laws are designed. If they want you, they _will_ get you.
  - duxup 7y ago
    >Which is irrelevant, Facts are irrelivant... > because they'd manufacture some other charge to get him on. Because of things that aren't facts? I don't know what to tell you other than with that pattern it seems like you could belive in lizard people or something.
  - mcv 7y ago
    But those are not things that Sweden would extradite him for. They'd lock him up for rape, yes, but not extradite him to the US.
    - username444 7y ago

gamblor956 7y ago

No, observers claimed he was delusional to think he would be charged with a capital crime (meaning he could be executed if convicted), because that would violate the terms of any extradition. Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left the embassy.

darkpuma 7y ago
>>>> Is it your belief that he would not end up in US custody? And do you think he also believes that? >>> Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes. >> Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody. > I do think he's being dishonest, yes. He has access to skilled lawyers, and his concern about extradition to the US is irrational: it's easier to extradite him where he is.
krustyburger 7y ago
I’m not sure whether you’re really making a blanket statement about what all observers had to say. But if you are, your recollection is incorrect. The issue of capital punishment aside, many voices chimed in to say (especially in the early going) that the United States would not hold these cards close to its chest for such a long time and that he should just go face justice in Sweden.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  The terms "many observers" and "many voices" are weasel words, and also blanket statements. Your argument would be much better if you could be more specific about who you are referring to.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Back then, I and a number of the other legal dudes on HN were saying that the US would definitely try to extradite Assange no matter how long he tried to stay in the embassy.[1] We all generally agreed he should face justice in Sweden (if he was innocent, as he claimed) because Sweden does not extradite for the crimes he is now charged with...but the UK does. While it's possible Sweden might have deported him to Australia after whatever happened in Sweden, that scenario was never brought up. [1] We're still trying to extradite Polanski, even though he's been a fugitive for decades. The US legal system has patience, largely because everything takes so long anyways.

duxup 7y ago

>he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard That's a bizarre statement. Most took issue with the hyperbole that was attached to what he would be charged with, "droned" or otherwise dealt with, not if he would or wouldn't be charged with anything. This is one of those classic conspiracy theory type situations where it is "oh look people said this wasn't a thing and here it is" and it's way not what anyone else said either... and that doesn't prove anything.

ChrisSD 7y ago

Many "observers" claimed that fleeing to the UK was a nonsensical move if he feared the US. Sweden would have been much safer.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Exactly. This is why the previous Ecuadorian government granted him political asylum - his legitimate fear of persecution by the American government for publishing their embarrassing secrets. The current government of Ecuador has not only handed him over, however, but has even handed over his personal belongings in the embassy to the US government. So much for protecting him from political persecution!

vorpalhex 7y ago
From what I gathered, this sounds more like it happened because he is somewhat grating as an individual, as opposed to a political statement. He would have probably been better off pulling a Snowden and disappearing into Hong Kong for a while...
- monocasa 7y ago
  I mean, and that $4.2B IMF loan secured by Moreno. Meeting with Manafort about Assange was one of the first things Moreno did when he was in power. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/manafort-tried-to-make-deal-with-ecuador-on-wikileaks-assange-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/manafort-tried-to-make-deal-...
- ppod 7y ago
  There's a new leader in Ecuador, more US friendly, and they leaned on him with the IMF --- they got a huge loan just as they gave him up. It does seem that he is a bit of an asshole, but I don't think it's conspiratorial to think there's more to it than that. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-imf/ecuador-inks-4-2-billion-financing-deal-with-imf-moreno-idUSKCN1QA05Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-imf/ecuador-inks-... https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuador-jilted-assange-as-it-sought-to-build-ties-with-u-s-11555063200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuador-jilted-assange-as-it-so...
  - throwaway743 7y ago
    This, and apparently he released a bunch of documents proving financial corruption among him and his friends/family.

sleepybrett 7y ago

I mean he's facing these charges, not because he published the leaks themselves, but because he help facilitate the leaking. Journalists don't do that.

plange 7y ago
Journalists do that all the time, it's literally part of the job. Though it is rare to see because there are repercussions.
- Theodores 7y ago
  Journalists just dumb down whatever press releases are on the newswire that day and then head down to the pub. There was some golden age that is always a generation ago where journalists did great things, but, they weren't journalists, they were whistleblowers that happened to work for the media. If you work for the corporate media then this 'golden age' journalism is just not possible. You would be sacked if you wrote the truth or went further than the press releases on the newswire for content.
  - Grangar 7y ago
    So just what is it that Glenn Greenwald did then?
- GVIrish 7y ago
  Assisting people in an effort to steal classified materials is not in fact something journalists fo all the time. The moment you cross the line from just receiving classified materials to paying for or helping to attempt steal, your stepping into criminality.
ibeckermayer 7y ago
What evidence is there that he helped leak anything? Sure, the government has asserted that — based on what?

astine 7y ago

His specific claim was that the Swedish rape charges were a cover so that Sweden could extradite him to the US. He still hasn't been extradited by Sweden. I wonder if he wouldn't have been better of going to Sweden.

mcv 7y ago
I think it's extremely unlikely that Sweden would extradite him to the US. The UK is far more likely to do that. In Sweden, however, he runs the risk of getting imprisoned for rape.
- astine 7y ago
  Right. As I recall, a lot of the prior discussion revolved around the rape charges. One side argued that Assange was hiding from a rape charge and the other arguing that the rape charge was a cover for a secret extradition agreement between Sweden and the US. That latter stance has yet to be proven. I don't think that there were many people arguing that the US didn't want him but it looks like the US was willing to wait for him to wear out his welcome with the Ecuadorans and completely skip over the Swedes. I wonder had he never gotten to the Ecuadorean embassy if the US would have raised a competing claim with Sweden.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > One side argued that Assange was hiding from a rape charge and the other arguing that the rape charge was a cover for a secret extradition agreement between Sweden and the US. One side was arguing he was hiding from a rape charge, the other side argued he was hiding from a possible extradition order. Both of those have to do with Assange's likely motivation and are to some degree independent of the facts on the ground - as you point out, the facts of one argument are so far unprovable. The hiding-from-rape argument has been pretty much debunked by the 7 year timeframe. I don't know what Assange was up for in Sweden, but it beggars belief that he would get more than 7 years jail for a non-violent crime. A fine and community service, maybe. Most aspects of the case must be almost evidence-free and would be a struggle to prove if he says 'didn't happen that way'. Whatever the truth, he was clearly hiding from a greater threat than the charges the Swedes were bringing against him.

noelsusman 7y ago

The only reason anyone thought it wouldn't happen is because it involves stepping into controversial legal territory and angering American journalists. Who described it as delusional? What are you talking about?

2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago

I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Julian Assange predicted his fate if he left the embassy? So? I think he should be in court while the accusers plead their case. Ellsberg beat the government in court afterall. The only alternative is to abolish the courts and legal system and let people get a free pass since the system is not perfect.

6nf 7y ago
The point is that many observers claimed that this was just a crazy conspiracy theory. It was not.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
  Claiming that what is a conspiracy theory?
pablooliva 7y ago
Why does U.S. law have any jurisdiction over a foreign national?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
  There should be no consequences for carrying out criminal activity across borders due to matters of jurisdiction? International law is incredibly complicated. It's up to the countries involved to make the decision in addition to whether or not extradition makes sense. You don't have to agree with that but once again- what is your alternative?
  - megous 7y ago
    > There should be no consequences for carrying out criminal activity across borders due to matters of jurisdiction? Depends. But sometimes yes. "Criminal activity" is often times country specific.
  - peterkelly 7y ago
    > There should be no consequences for carrying out criminal activity across borders due to matters of jurisdiction? In China it's against the law to publicly criticise the government. Should the US extradite people to China to face the penalties for violating that law?

empath75 7y ago

I bet he’d already be out of prison if he hadn’t voluntarily imprisoned himself in the Ecuadorian embassy.

matt4077 7y ago

It's doubtful that the Obama admin would have gone this route. There have been quite a few stories that they shied away from such a drastic extension of the definition of 'Espionage'. Pardoning Manning also doesn't quite with the idea of the (previous) US admin being too invested in punishing Wikileaks.

Nasrudith 7y ago
Except it wasn't a pardon but a commutation - General Petreaus got an actual pardon for spilling secrets to his biographer he was having an affair with - an obvious position for a honeypot. That still shows a less than friendly attitude to whistleblowers and a hypocritical double standard of holding those in power to a far lower standard. It stinks of cynical "we just want the bad PR to go away but don't want to say she did the right thing" so just commuting to validate the court ruling. Meanwhile Petreaus we should assert that the ruling class are seperate and should be sancrosanct - pardon!

Lazare 7y ago

By no means. The arguments generally present on here was that: 1) He'd already been in custody in the UK for some time, so if the US wanted him, and the UK was willing to hand him over, then that would have already taken place, but had not. 2) Under EU rules, if the UK has extradited him to Sweden, and then the US asked for him, both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to hand him over, making him strictly safer in Sweden than in the UK. 3) Much of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of being charged with a capital crime, but under EU rules neither the UK nor Sweden could have handed him over to face a capital charge. 4) Much of the remainder of Assange and his supporters arguments focused on the risk of going to Sweden, but he was already in the UK, and the UK is famously willing to cooperate with the US. The UK was not a safe place for Assange to be! All four points have been vindicated by events so far. What Assange ended up doing was finding a way to avoid going to Sweden and instead hang out in the UK for so long that eventually the US asked, and the UK handed him over, just as expected. Had Assange quietly gone to Sweden to contest the charges against him, would things have worked out better for him? We'll never know now, but it's very plausible. > Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. In any case, the specific claims he made remain, at best, unsubstantiated. He wasn't extradited from Sweden, and he isn't facing a capital charge.