3 ms·

>It's easier to extra judicially grab at least non citizens from Sweden. I see this repeated all over the place as if it were an obviously established fact, bu

by foldr 6y ago

>It's easier to extra judicially grab at least non citizens from Sweden. I see this repeated all over the place as if it were an obviously established fact, but there is no reason to think that this is true. Extrajudicial actions and their consequences are inherently unpredictable. It's pure speculation to say that it would have been easier to do it from Sweden than from the UK. In any case, this particular line of Assange apologism is rather obviously out of date, since we see that the US can (in all likelihood) quite easily extradite him now that he's out of the embassy, and thus has no reason to use extrajudicial means.

monocasa 6y ago
> I see this repeated all over the place as if it were an obviously established fact, but there is no reason to think that this is true. Extrajudicial actions and their consequences are inherently unpredictable. It's pure speculation to say that it would have been easier to do it from Sweden than from the UK. The proof is an empirical one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... > In any case, this particular line of Assange apologism is rather obviously out of date, since we see that the US can (in all likelihood) quite easily extradite him now that he's out of the embassy, and thus has no reason to use extrajudicial means. If they went the Sweden route, they wouldn't have needed this public trial that we're all commenting on, and he'd already be in US custody.
- foldr 6y ago
  You have a strange idea of "proof". The fact that something happened in Sweden once is hardly proof that it could not happen in the UK. By the way, you might want to look at the "aftermath" section of that Wikipedia article. It's far from clear to me that the US wants to avoid a public trial. It's not as if Assange is particularly popular these days.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    > You have a strange idea of "proof". The fact that something happened in Sweden once is hardly proof that it could not happen in the UK. Except the UK has a very clear no extraordinary rendition policy, and even the idea that UK airports had been used as a refueling stop for rendition flights was a minor scandal in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6736227.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6736227.stm Meanwhile Sweden has broken it's own laws to assist the US in black bagging it's own residents. > By the way, you might want to look at the "aftermath" section of that Wikipedia article. Can you be more specific? My reading is that Sweden found it's own actions to be illegal, paid out a settlement to those whose genitals were electro shocked in an Egyptian prision, but no Swedes faced any real consequences. > It's far from clear to me that the US wants to avoid a public trial. It's not as if Assange is particularly popular these days. And yet even this article you're commenting on goes into the large amount of work going on by the US government to remove observers, including Amnesty International, from the proceedings.
    - foldr 6y ago
      There was a scandal in Sweden too. It’s telling that you Assange conspiracists have been referring to an isolated event in 2007 for over a decade now. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that it would be easier to snatch Assange from Sweden than from the UK. Especially when you consider what a huge international scandal that would inevitably have caused either government. The idea only makes sense as part of a silly conspiracy theory. If you want sensible people to believe the conspiracy theory, you'll have to do offer more than a largely irrelevant Wikipedia article plus a ton of wild speculation. The trial is going to be public, as I understand it, so who cares if Amnesty International are there or not? They'll see and hear the same things as anyone else who is there. But anyway, if you are right, this just goes to show that the US can avoid a fully public trial and yet still extradite him, which by your logic gives them even less motive for using extraordinary rendition!
      - vidarh 6y ago
        There was a scandal, yes, and then cablegate revealed rendition-flights via Sweden kept happening for years afterwards and the Swedish government kept it quiet when they discovered it.

by foldr 6y ago

monocasa 6y ago

> I see this repeated all over the place as if it were an obviously established fact, but there is no reason to think that this is true. Extrajudicial actions and their consequences are inherently unpredictable. It's pure speculation to say that it would have been easier to do it from Sweden than from the UK. The proof is an empirical one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... > In any case, this particular line of Assange apologism is rather obviously out of date, since we see that the US can (in all likelihood) quite easily extradite him now that he's out of the embassy, and thus has no reason to use extrajudicial means. If they went the Sweden route, they wouldn't have needed this public trial that we're all commenting on, and he'd already be in US custody.

foldr 6y ago
You have a strange idea of "proof". The fact that something happened in Sweden once is hardly proof that it could not happen in the UK. By the way, you might want to look at the "aftermath" section of that Wikipedia article. It's far from clear to me that the US wants to avoid a public trial. It's not as if Assange is particularly popular these days.
- monocasa 6y ago
  > You have a strange idea of "proof". The fact that something happened in Sweden once is hardly proof that it could not happen in the UK. Except the UK has a very clear no extraordinary rendition policy, and even the idea that UK airports had been used as a refueling stop for rendition flights was a minor scandal in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6736227.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6736227.stm Meanwhile Sweden has broken it's own laws to assist the US in black bagging it's own residents. > By the way, you might want to look at the "aftermath" section of that Wikipedia article. Can you be more specific? My reading is that Sweden found it's own actions to be illegal, paid out a settlement to those whose genitals were electro shocked in an Egyptian prision, but no Swedes faced any real consequences. > It's far from clear to me that the US wants to avoid a public trial. It's not as if Assange is particularly popular these days. And yet even this article you're commenting on goes into the large amount of work going on by the US government to remove observers, including Amnesty International, from the proceedings.
  - foldr 6y ago
    There was a scandal in Sweden too. It’s telling that you Assange conspiracists have been referring to an isolated event in 2007 for over a decade now. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that it would be easier to snatch Assange from Sweden than from the UK. Especially when you consider what a huge international scandal that would inevitably have caused either government. The idea only makes sense as part of a silly conspiracy theory. If you want sensible people to believe the conspiracy theory, you'll have to do offer more than a largely irrelevant Wikipedia article plus a ton of wild speculation. The trial is going to be public, as I understand it, so who cares if Amnesty International are there or not? They'll see and hear the same things as anyone else who is there. But anyway, if you are right, this just goes to show that the US can avoid a fully public trial and yet still extradite him, which by your logic gives them even less motive for using extraordinary rendition!
    - vidarh 6y ago
      There was a scandal, yes, and then cablegate revealed rendition-flights via Sweden kept happening for years afterwards and the Swedish government kept it quiet when they discovered it.