5 ms·

>How do european (or perhaps just the UK's) legal system(s) work in that regard? The general rule is that the laws by which other nations have to abide and the

>How do european (or perhaps just the UK's) legal system(s) work in that regard? The general rule is that the laws by which other nations have to abide and the standards other nations have to meet don't apply when the USA is involved. I seriously had to read the headline twice, to make sure I'd got it right, I was so stunned at the UK not kowtowing to the US, as a matter of course.

sneak 6y ago
I, too, am surprised. Perhaps the US has given up on threatening his custodians to get their way, now that so much damage has already been done to Assange, both in the embassy and now in Belmarsh. I still wonder what the CIA must have done to get those Swedish prosecutors to spin all of that bullshit for the original arrest warrant. I'd also have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the phone calls were made to those in charge of European airspace when Morales' jet was forcibly grounded over Austria for no reason other than the US incorrectly suspected Snowden being aboard.
- morelisp 6y ago
  > I still wonder what the CIA must have done to get those Swedish prosecutors to spin all of that bullshit for the original arrest warrant. What would it take to convince you this didn't actually happen? It still doesn't make legal sense - Obama's DOJ publicly declined to charge him given the evidence, and extradition from Sweden would still have required extradition from the UK since he would've been serving time in both countries. Assange never got charged by the US administration he actually embarassed, successfully jumped bail, waited out the clock on the rape charges, and finally got his extradition denied. It seems to me he got everything he wanted out of this - he just wasn't careful what he wished for.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > Obama's DOJ publicly declined to charge him given the evidence Which means very little - the fact that the US has now tried to extradite him proves that. > extradition from Sweden would still have required extradition from the UK since he would've been serving time in both countries. How so? AIUI Sweden would have notionally promised not to extradite him, but there was little mechanism to enforce this.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      The charges the US attempted to extradite him for were based primarily on things he did or allegedly did or which came to light after the rape charges. Ockham's razor also applies. If you want Assange charged in the US on 'espionage' or similar and you have a choice of notifying the Swedish authorities that he is wanted for serious crimes in the US or instead relying upon separate local allegations that are so vague the Swedish legal system has to work its way through an appeals process to even decide to whether to pursue the case or not whilst leaving him at liberty to leave the country, you're unlikely to choose the latter.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > which came to light after the rape charges There were never any rape charges. Please get your facts correct before asserting falsehoods.
    - Camas 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant#Specialty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant#Specia... > A state wishing to prosecute a surrendered person for offences committed before his or her surrender, or extradite a surrendered person to a third state, must, subject to certain exception, obtain the permission of the executing judicial authority. Such a request is made in the same form as a European Arrest Warrant, and granted or refused using the same rules which determine whether surrender would be granted or refused.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      > the fact that the US has now tried to extradite him proves that. It proves they care now, under a wildly different (and totally clownshoes) DOJ, which if anything lends more credence to the theory they did not care back then or we would have seen them try back then.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > What would it take to convince you this didn't actually happen? What it would take to convince me would be for Assange to not be literally fighting a US extradition order, right now. What was always going to happen, is what is happening now. If a person was one of the people who said things for years like "Well, actually, the US is not trying to extradite Assange", then they were completely and totally wrong, and should be embarrassed as to how they could have possible thought that.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      What makes it impossible to believe the DOJ under one outgoing president declined to prosecute a case, and then a new DOJ under a new infamously press-hostile president took it up? Extradition requests are not platonic and timeless, they are issued by specific people for specific reasons at specific times.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        No, people don't get to retroactively make up new excuses as for why this doesn't count. This is was what always was going to happen. The motivation for the US to extradite him was always clear. And exactly what people predicted was going to happen, did indeed happen. And the people who predicted otherwise were wrong, and should be made fun of for how wrong that they were, and how misinformed they were to think anything else could have happened. The Obama administration prosecuted Manning, and would have had an equal amount of reason to prosecute Assange, and the extradition request is exactly what happened at the end of the day. The only possible situation for me to believe that they were not prospecting Assange would have been if Obama simply pardoned Assange, which did not happen.
        morelisp 6y ago
        > how misinformed they were to think anything else could have happened. How exactly am I misinformed? What facts am I wrong on? What inconsistency is there if I believe that Obama's DOJ genuinely never intended to charge Assange with anything? > The Obama administration prosecuted Manning, and would have had an equal amount of reason to prosecute Assange No, because Manning and Assange did different things. A key claim in Assange's defense in this case is that Manning did all the illegal things! > The only possible situation for me to believe that they were not prospecting Assange would have been if Obama simply pardoned Assange, which did not happen. Obama repeatedly stated he would not pardon anyone not convicted of a crime (e.g. in the context of Snowden) and as far as I know held true to this for all 1927 of his pardons.[0] So why would he pardon Assange, who was not even accused of a crime? [0] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons
  - sneak 6y ago
    > waited out the clock on the rape charges There were never any charges in Sweden.
ForHackernews 6y ago
I suspect it's because Trump is so staggeringly unpopular outside the USA. American soft power has taken a massive hit with this presidency, and there's domestic political upside to being seen to publicly rebuke the Trump administration - and since he's leaving, there's no foreign policy downside.
- hjanssen 6y ago
  Why would there be no foreign policy downside? The mutual relationship does not "reset" after Trump leaves office. Most of the time, diplomats stay the same and even if they change, surely the new ones will remember such occurrences.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    Some ambassadors are career diplomats. The current ambassador to the UK is not one, and he's not going to stay in his job. Let's just say that his ownership of the NY Jets is one of the less embarrassing points on his resume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Johnson
  - michaelt 6y ago
    > The mutual relationship does not "reset" after Trump leaves office. Well, it does and it doesn't. After all, why should today's politicians feel they owe you a favour just because you helped their predecessors? George W Bush may have warm feelings about the UK after Blair helped him with the war in Iraq, but would you expect to cash that favour in with Obama, Trump or Biden? Of course not - A new president comes in, they decide to impose new tariffs on imports from the UK, of course something that happened 17 years and two presidents ago doesn't give him much pause. Obviously there are longstanding structures of cooperation like NATO and suchlike, which don't get reset. But an awful lot does. Besides, Assange is old news now. America's message to other would-be whistleblowers has been delivered. If the UK releases him, no American politicians will have to face scrutiny or look weak over the decision. And British politicians won't face any domestic blowback, post Harry Dunn.
- jopsen 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sneak 6y ago

I, too, am surprised. Perhaps the US has given up on threatening his custodians to get their way, now that so much damage has already been done to Assange, both in the embassy and now in Belmarsh. I still wonder what the CIA must have done to get those Swedish prosecutors to spin all of that bullshit for the original arrest warrant. I'd also have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the phone calls were made to those in charge of European airspace when Morales' jet was forcibly grounded over Austria for no reason other than the US incorrectly suspected Snowden being aboard.

morelisp 6y ago
> I still wonder what the CIA must have done to get those Swedish prosecutors to spin all of that bullshit for the original arrest warrant. What would it take to convince you this didn't actually happen? It still doesn't make legal sense - Obama's DOJ publicly declined to charge him given the evidence, and extradition from Sweden would still have required extradition from the UK since he would've been serving time in both countries. Assange never got charged by the US administration he actually embarassed, successfully jumped bail, waited out the clock on the rape charges, and finally got his extradition denied. It seems to me he got everything he wanted out of this - he just wasn't careful what he wished for.
- lmm 6y ago
  > Obama's DOJ publicly declined to charge him given the evidence Which means very little - the fact that the US has now tried to extradite him proves that. > extradition from Sweden would still have required extradition from the UK since he would've been serving time in both countries. How so? AIUI Sweden would have notionally promised not to extradite him, but there was little mechanism to enforce this.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    The charges the US attempted to extradite him for were based primarily on things he did or allegedly did or which came to light after the rape charges. Ockham's razor also applies. If you want Assange charged in the US on 'espionage' or similar and you have a choice of notifying the Swedish authorities that he is wanted for serious crimes in the US or instead relying upon separate local allegations that are so vague the Swedish legal system has to work its way through an appeals process to even decide to whether to pursue the case or not whilst leaving him at liberty to leave the country, you're unlikely to choose the latter.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > which came to light after the rape charges There were never any rape charges. Please get your facts correct before asserting falsehoods.
  - Camas 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant#Specialty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant#Specia... > A state wishing to prosecute a surrendered person for offences committed before his or her surrender, or extradite a surrendered person to a third state, must, subject to certain exception, obtain the permission of the executing judicial authority. Such a request is made in the same form as a European Arrest Warrant, and granted or refused using the same rules which determine whether surrender would be granted or refused.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    > the fact that the US has now tried to extradite him proves that. It proves they care now, under a wildly different (and totally clownshoes) DOJ, which if anything lends more credence to the theory they did not care back then or we would have seen them try back then.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > What would it take to convince you this didn't actually happen? What it would take to convince me would be for Assange to not be literally fighting a US extradition order, right now. What was always going to happen, is what is happening now. If a person was one of the people who said things for years like "Well, actually, the US is not trying to extradite Assange", then they were completely and totally wrong, and should be embarrassed as to how they could have possible thought that.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    What makes it impossible to believe the DOJ under one outgoing president declined to prosecute a case, and then a new DOJ under a new infamously press-hostile president took it up? Extradition requests are not platonic and timeless, they are issued by specific people for specific reasons at specific times.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      No, people don't get to retroactively make up new excuses as for why this doesn't count. This is was what always was going to happen. The motivation for the US to extradite him was always clear. And exactly what people predicted was going to happen, did indeed happen. And the people who predicted otherwise were wrong, and should be made fun of for how wrong that they were, and how misinformed they were to think anything else could have happened. The Obama administration prosecuted Manning, and would have had an equal amount of reason to prosecute Assange, and the extradition request is exactly what happened at the end of the day. The only possible situation for me to believe that they were not prospecting Assange would have been if Obama simply pardoned Assange, which did not happen.
      - morelisp 6y ago
        > how misinformed they were to think anything else could have happened. How exactly am I misinformed? What facts am I wrong on? What inconsistency is there if I believe that Obama's DOJ genuinely never intended to charge Assange with anything? > The Obama administration prosecuted Manning, and would have had an equal amount of reason to prosecute Assange No, because Manning and Assange did different things. A key claim in Assange's defense in this case is that Manning did all the illegal things! > The only possible situation for me to believe that they were not prospecting Assange would have been if Obama simply pardoned Assange, which did not happen. Obama repeatedly stated he would not pardon anyone not convicted of a crime (e.g. in the context of Snowden) and as far as I know held true to this for all 1927 of his pardons.[0] So why would he pardon Assange, who was not even accused of a crime? [0] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons
- sneak 6y ago
  > waited out the clock on the rape charges There were never any charges in Sweden.

ForHackernews 6y ago

I suspect it's because Trump is so staggeringly unpopular outside the USA. American soft power has taken a massive hit with this presidency, and there's domestic political upside to being seen to publicly rebuke the Trump administration - and since he's leaving, there's no foreign policy downside.

hjanssen 6y ago
Why would there be no foreign policy downside? The mutual relationship does not "reset" after Trump leaves office. Most of the time, diplomats stay the same and even if they change, surely the new ones will remember such occurrences.
- microtherion 6y ago
  Some ambassadors are career diplomats. The current ambassador to the UK is not one, and he's not going to stay in his job. Let's just say that his ownership of the NY Jets is one of the less embarrassing points on his resume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Johnson
- michaelt 6y ago
  > The mutual relationship does not "reset" after Trump leaves office. Well, it does and it doesn't. After all, why should today's politicians feel they owe you a favour just because you helped their predecessors? George W Bush may have warm feelings about the UK after Blair helped him with the war in Iraq, but would you expect to cash that favour in with Obama, Trump or Biden? Of course not - A new president comes in, they decide to impose new tariffs on imports from the UK, of course something that happened 17 years and two presidents ago doesn't give him much pause. Obviously there are longstanding structures of cooperation like NATO and suchlike, which don't get reset. But an awful lot does. Besides, Assange is old news now. America's message to other would-be whistleblowers has been delivered. If the UK releases him, no American politicians will have to face scrutiny or look weak over the decision. And British politicians won't face any domestic blowback, post Harry Dunn.
jopsen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]