8 ms·

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

by 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
      Mail fraud, wire fraud, intellectual property theft, copyright infringement/piracy, subpeonas, a law from 1806 about people with white hair, i-dont-like-your-face, etc. My point isn't so much that this one specific violation wouldn't qualify for extradition. It's that the laws are so intentionally vague and broad and numerous that they can be interpreted in such a way to charge _anybody_ with _something_ if they want to.
- codedokode 7y ago
  Then US could think out any other crime to get him extradited.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I feel like these "they could" things are endless and doesn't really provide much justification. Stuff could happen in Ecuador too. Sweeden still seems like a far better bet, legally, and visibility wise.
- ehrtt 7y ago
  He chose to go to Ecuador, once the US plans became obvious to them.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  ... but where he was charged with rape. So he gave up protection from extradition to the US in exchange for protection against the rape charge. A cynic might think it tells you which one he thought he had more reason to fear.
  - duxup 7y ago
    IMO I think Asssange has had trouble with the truth in favor of cultivating his image for a long while now. Granted, that's a very human thing to do. He's not alone... politicians all the time. Back in the day when there was a wikileaks facebook page, if you followed up asking about "hey you said you'd release X" after they talked something up and did nothing ... they'd just delete your comment.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Sweden has allowed the US government to just black bag people in the past. The UK doesn't from their soil. There's good reason to think they don't have a issue with extraordinary rendition in the global sense; I think they just don't like the idea of a former colony subverting their legal system. But all of that means that it's more likely for Assange to stay in the legal system in the UK rather than being black bagged.
    - duxup 7y ago
      How many people go to the UK to escape the US? This is a very strange argument.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        He found himself stuck in the UK, and didn't want to go to Sweden, which has a habit of allowing the CIA to kidnap people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... I'm sure he'd prefer to leave the UK too if he could, but between Sweden and the UK, when facing this amount of scrutiny from the US, the UK is his obvious choice since they don't allow extraordinary rendition starting from their soil.

by mtgx 7y ago

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
    Mail fraud, wire fraud, intellectual property theft, copyright infringement/piracy, subpeonas, a law from 1806 about people with white hair, i-dont-like-your-face, etc. My point isn't so much that this one specific violation wouldn't qualify for extradition. It's that the laws are so intentionally vague and broad and numerous that they can be interpreted in such a way to charge _anybody_ with _something_ if they want to.
codedokode 7y ago
Then US could think out any other crime to get him extradited.
- duxup 7y ago
  I feel like these "they could" things are endless and doesn't really provide much justification. Stuff could happen in Ecuador too. Sweeden still seems like a far better bet, legally, and visibility wise.
ehrtt 7y ago
He chose to go to Ecuador, once the US plans became obvious to them.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
... but where he was charged with rape. So he gave up protection from extradition to the US in exchange for protection against the rape charge. A cynic might think it tells you which one he thought he had more reason to fear.
- duxup 7y ago
  IMO I think Asssange has had trouble with the truth in favor of cultivating his image for a long while now. Granted, that's a very human thing to do. He's not alone... politicians all the time. Back in the day when there was a wikileaks facebook page, if you followed up asking about "hey you said you'd release X" after they talked something up and did nothing ... they'd just delete your comment.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Sweden has allowed the US government to just black bag people in the past. The UK doesn't from their soil. There's good reason to think they don't have a issue with extraordinary rendition in the global sense; I think they just don't like the idea of a former colony subverting their legal system. But all of that means that it's more likely for Assange to stay in the legal system in the UK rather than being black bagged.
  - duxup 7y ago
    How many people go to the UK to escape the US? This is a very strange argument.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      He found himself stuck in the UK, and didn't want to go to Sweden, which has a habit of allowing the CIA to kidnap people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... I'm sure he'd prefer to leave the UK too if he could, but between Sweden and the UK, when facing this amount of scrutiny from the US, the UK is his obvious choice since they don't allow extraordinary rendition starting from their soil.