4 ms·

whatever happened to the r--- allegations from Sweden, I understand that Sweden has dropped the charges but.. can we get some closure about that as interested f

whatever happened to the r--- allegations from Sweden, I understand that Sweden has dropped the charges but.. can we get some closure about that as interested followers of this entire saga? Hope that's not too much to ask..

chgs 2y ago
He fled and let the statute of limitations expire. His excuse was Sweden might extradite him to the US, but the UK wouldnt.
- ChrisKnott 2y ago
  > Sweden might extradite him to the US, but the UK wouldnt An excuse that was always made zero sense. It later emerged that at the time of the Swedish investigation, there was no indictment from the US.
  - lukan 2y ago
    And you do not think, that would have changed the minute, he was in jail in sweden?
    - blitzar 2y ago
      > but the UK wouldnt The UK routinely extradites people to the US (and facilitated extraordinary renditions from UK soil). The claim he could not leave the UK for fear of being extradited to the US was always a nonsensical lie.
      - lukan 2y ago
        I did not comment on that. But it seems he was right that he was in fact not extradited to the US after all while being in the UK. (there was no claim that the UK does not extradict to the US in general, but in this specific case they might not)
        blitzar 2y ago
        > it seems he was right that he was in fact not extradited to the US after all while being in the UK He is on his way to US soil right now and will appear in US territory before a US judge, he has been extradited.
        lukan 2y ago
        "the only reason he is not "extradited" is he is surrendering himself." He was already in prison. Usually you do not let people go out to let them extradict themself. It is a weird comprimise to put an end to this farce.
        blitzar 2y ago
        It is perfectly normal - If the judge orders the person's extradition, he must remand the person in custody or on bail pending the extradition. He was granted bail by the High Court in London and was released at Stansted airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the UK. In reality he is not "free" till the judge slaps their hammer down.
    - ChrisKnott 2y ago
      No, I don't think that would have changed, because the decision making of the Obama administration and DOJ at the time is now known.
    - chgs 2y ago
      No more than if he was in the UK.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
You can say "rape". It's not a dirty word.
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  [dead]
- weberer 2y ago
  So many people are trained nowadays to self-censor certain words so that "the algorithm" won't shadowban their comment. Thankfully, HN is one of the few websites on the modern internet to not have such censorship algorithm.
  - MaKey 2y ago
    Some things have become pretty dystopian these days.
xandrius 2y ago
Is the secret word "rape"?
- CRConrad 2y ago
  Yes.

chgs 2y ago

He fled and let the statute of limitations expire. His excuse was Sweden might extradite him to the US, but the UK wouldnt.

ChrisKnott 2y ago
> Sweden might extradite him to the US, but the UK wouldnt An excuse that was always made zero sense. It later emerged that at the time of the Swedish investigation, there was no indictment from the US.
- lukan 2y ago
  And you do not think, that would have changed the minute, he was in jail in sweden?
  - blitzar 2y ago
    > but the UK wouldnt The UK routinely extradites people to the US (and facilitated extraordinary renditions from UK soil). The claim he could not leave the UK for fear of being extradited to the US was always a nonsensical lie.
    - lukan 2y ago
      I did not comment on that. But it seems he was right that he was in fact not extradited to the US after all while being in the UK. (there was no claim that the UK does not extradict to the US in general, but in this specific case they might not)
      - blitzar 2y ago
        > it seems he was right that he was in fact not extradited to the US after all while being in the UK He is on his way to US soil right now and will appear in US territory before a US judge, he has been extradited.
        lukan 2y ago
        "the only reason he is not "extradited" is he is surrendering himself." He was already in prison. Usually you do not let people go out to let them extradict themself. It is a weird comprimise to put an end to this farce.
        blitzar 2y ago
        It is perfectly normal - If the judge orders the person's extradition, he must remand the person in custody or on bail pending the extradition. He was granted bail by the High Court in London and was released at Stansted airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the UK. In reality he is not "free" till the judge slaps their hammer down.
  - ChrisKnott 2y ago
    No, I don't think that would have changed, because the decision making of the Obama administration and DOJ at the time is now known.
  - chgs 2y ago
    No more than if he was in the UK.

bigstrat2003 2y ago

You can say "rape". It's not a dirty word.

BiteCode_dev 2y ago
[dead]
weberer 2y ago
So many people are trained nowadays to self-censor certain words so that "the algorithm" won't shadowban their comment. Thankfully, HN is one of the few websites on the modern internet to not have such censorship algorithm.
- MaKey 2y ago
  Some things have become pretty dystopian these days.

xandrius 2y ago

Is the secret word "rape"?

CRConrad 2y ago
Yes.