6 ms·

Remember all the people, including HN commenters, who said he should just turn himself in and clear his name in court in Sweden. Only conspiracy theorists belie

by Tycho 6y ago

Remember all the people, including HN commenters, who said he should just turn himself in and clear his name in court in Sweden. Only conspiracy theorists believed that powerful authorities were gunning for him behind the scenes.

tome 6y ago
It seems clear that the US would always try to make a case against him. I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Making a case is just the public show, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if instead they just wanted to make him disappear. They know that he / wikileaks have got more material / dirt on the US though, and that if he were to disappear that material would be unlocked (dead man's switch). So for now the illusion of due process is maintained.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  The US doesn't need to make a case against him. They just need to make an accusation in most cases, and that's enough to extradite. What you're missing is, the US has the ability to declare him an enemy combatant, and stuff him in Guantanamo Bay. The US claims there is no right to due process there. The US Gov could lock him away forever with no trial and that's that.
ben_w 6y ago
It is entirely self-consistent to say both that he should’ve faced his accusers in Sweden and that the American charges look like an outrageous attempt to stifle legitime journalism. I don’t see how it is self-consistent to say Sweden would’ve been more dangerous than the UK, when it is the conduct of the UK that led to condemnation by the UN and Amnesty International, and the UK is currently in the process of considering his extradition to the USA. My own personal belief (which is merely at the level of “well I reckon“), is that he probably did the Sweden crimes, and also that the prosecution only even attempted because he was also a political thorn. This belief is based partly on the surveys which show that an enormous number of women have been sexually assaulted and also that they don’t generally report this to the police, partly on his behaviour. It is also partly based on the fact that — as is currently being demonstrated by the very extradition hearing currently occurring — the US is quite capable of extraditing him directly from the UK without going via Sweden.
- emilecantin 6y ago
  I might be wrong about this, but I believe his point was that Sweden often extradites without judicial oversight. While the current hearing is a complete farce, at least there's one.
  - paddez 6y ago
    I'm not sure where you came across this - but in Sweden it's a judge which rules on an extradition based on the extradition treaty between the US & Sweden. There's precedent in the Swedish court system which has previously denied extradition on espionage charges. https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extra...
    - emilecantin 6y ago
      From the article you linked: > But Assange could be more afraid of a snatch-and-grab CIA operation. In 2002, Sweden collaborated with the United States in the extraordinary rendition of two Egyptians seeking asylum. That example is often seen as indicative of what even left-wing Scandinavian governments will do when pressured by the United States in such cases.
    - dontcarethrow2 6y ago
      I must have come across the same as OP somewhere. Where Sweden was more likely to completely skip the judicial process, so we wouldn't notice it as we are now in the U.K. It wouldn't have reached Swedish courts to even see if your source still holds up.
- belorn 6y ago
  It is possible that the intent of the Swedish prosecutor was never to have Assange extradited to Sweden, but simple to contain Assange in UK until the US side was ready to start the process to have him sent to the US.
  - 6y ago
jamespo 6y ago
I also remember him promising to fly over to the US to face charges if Chelsea Manning was freed
- sschueller 6y ago
  She didn't receive a pardon but a commutation and then was put right back in jail for contempt.
- mantap 6y ago
  What is your point exactly?
kybernetikos 6y ago
I still think he should have turned himself in and cleared his name in court in Sweden (or accepted the penalty for his actions if he was found guilty). And after that, I don't think he should have fled bail in the UK. However, I do not think he should be extradited to the US over helping someone who had already decided to leak to do so. I admit I hadn't realised just how badly the USA wanted to make his life miserable, and the fact that he was clearly right about that has made some of his actions more understandable.
- dilap 6y ago
  I think the supposition is the Sweden charges were a pretext, and they would have just turned him over to the US.
dbuder 6y ago
Yes, yes I do, and they are all shrugging their shoulders now because they don't care about what is happening to the world.
zyxzevn 6y ago
As I understand it from the reports. The case in Sweden was already cleared right from the start. There was no crime and this was clear very seen in the beginning. The Sweden accusation was started, because Sweden can send prisoners to the US immediately. The US started this scheme after wikileaks exposed the warcrimes in Iraq. The Uk kept the arrest on Assange, even after this all was cleared. And are still holding him against all laws.
gamblor956 6y ago
I was one of those people. Yes, he should have turned himself in to Sweden instead of sentencing himself to several years of confinement in the UK. The conspiracy theories were about the US seeking to extradite Assange using the rape case as pretext. This was dismissed as lunacy because US authorities didn't need the rape case as pretext; they could have simply sought his extradition on the charges they are now seeking to extradite him for. If anything, the rape case would have made extradition more complicated because Sweden is less willingly to extradite to the US than the UK, the UK would have prioritized extradition to Sweden over extradition to the US.
scoot_718 6y ago
Putin's pet will cover up his connection by disappearing him, and the best thing: America gets the blame.

by Tycho 6y ago

tome 6y ago

It seems clear that the US would always try to make a case against him. I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Making a case is just the public show, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if instead they just wanted to make him disappear. They know that he / wikileaks have got more material / dirt on the US though, and that if he were to disappear that material would be unlocked (dead man's switch). So for now the illusion of due process is maintained.
linuxftw 6y ago
The US doesn't need to make a case against him. They just need to make an accusation in most cases, and that's enough to extradite. What you're missing is, the US has the ability to declare him an enemy combatant, and stuff him in Guantanamo Bay. The US claims there is no right to due process there. The US Gov could lock him away forever with no trial and that's that.

ben_w 6y ago

It is entirely self-consistent to say both that he should’ve faced his accusers in Sweden and that the American charges look like an outrageous attempt to stifle legitime journalism. I don’t see how it is self-consistent to say Sweden would’ve been more dangerous than the UK, when it is the conduct of the UK that led to condemnation by the UN and Amnesty International, and the UK is currently in the process of considering his extradition to the USA. My own personal belief (which is merely at the level of “well I reckon“), is that he probably did the Sweden crimes, and also that the prosecution only even attempted because he was also a political thorn. This belief is based partly on the surveys which show that an enormous number of women have been sexually assaulted and also that they don’t generally report this to the police, partly on his behaviour. It is also partly based on the fact that — as is currently being demonstrated by the very extradition hearing currently occurring — the US is quite capable of extraditing him directly from the UK without going via Sweden.

emilecantin 6y ago
I might be wrong about this, but I believe his point was that Sweden often extradites without judicial oversight. While the current hearing is a complete farce, at least there's one.
- paddez 6y ago
  I'm not sure where you came across this - but in Sweden it's a judge which rules on an extradition based on the extradition treaty between the US & Sweden. There's precedent in the Swedish court system which has previously denied extradition on espionage charges. https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extra...
  - emilecantin 6y ago
    From the article you linked: > But Assange could be more afraid of a snatch-and-grab CIA operation. In 2002, Sweden collaborated with the United States in the extraordinary rendition of two Egyptians seeking asylum. That example is often seen as indicative of what even left-wing Scandinavian governments will do when pressured by the United States in such cases.
  - dontcarethrow2 6y ago
    I must have come across the same as OP somewhere. Where Sweden was more likely to completely skip the judicial process, so we wouldn't notice it as we are now in the U.K. It wouldn't have reached Swedish courts to even see if your source still holds up.
belorn 6y ago
It is possible that the intent of the Swedish prosecutor was never to have Assange extradited to Sweden, but simple to contain Assange in UK until the US side was ready to start the process to have him sent to the US.
- 6y ago

jamespo 6y ago

I also remember him promising to fly over to the US to face charges if Chelsea Manning was freed

sschueller 6y ago
She didn't receive a pardon but a commutation and then was put right back in jail for contempt.
mantap 6y ago
What is your point exactly?

kybernetikos 6y ago

I still think he should have turned himself in and cleared his name in court in Sweden (or accepted the penalty for his actions if he was found guilty). And after that, I don't think he should have fled bail in the UK. However, I do not think he should be extradited to the US over helping someone who had already decided to leak to do so. I admit I hadn't realised just how badly the USA wanted to make his life miserable, and the fact that he was clearly right about that has made some of his actions more understandable.

dilap 6y ago
I think the supposition is the Sweden charges were a pretext, and they would have just turned him over to the US.

dbuder 6y ago

Yes, yes I do, and they are all shrugging their shoulders now because they don't care about what is happening to the world.

zyxzevn 6y ago

As I understand it from the reports. The case in Sweden was already cleared right from the start. There was no crime and this was clear very seen in the beginning. The Sweden accusation was started, because Sweden can send prisoners to the US immediately. The US started this scheme after wikileaks exposed the warcrimes in Iraq. The Uk kept the arrest on Assange, even after this all was cleared. And are still holding him against all laws.

gamblor956 6y ago

I was one of those people. Yes, he should have turned himself in to Sweden instead of sentencing himself to several years of confinement in the UK. The conspiracy theories were about the US seeking to extradite Assange using the rape case as pretext. This was dismissed as lunacy because US authorities didn't need the rape case as pretext; they could have simply sought his extradition on the charges they are now seeking to extradite him for. If anything, the rape case would have made extradition more complicated because Sweden is less willingly to extradite to the US than the UK, the UK would have prioritized extradition to Sweden over extradition to the US.

scoot_718 6y ago

Putin's pet will cover up his connection by disappearing him, and the best thing: America gets the blame.