3 ms·

- Sweden refused to promise Ecuador that he would not be extradited to the US - Sweden issued police alerts more befitting of an international terrorist suspec

by Tycho 14y ago

- Sweden refused to promise Ecuador that he would not be extradited to the US - Sweden issued police alerts more befitting of an international terrorist suspect - Assange was hit by these charges coincidentally just at the the time when he'd provoked the wrath of the US - the charge they'd managed to conjure up is one for which there can be basically no exhonerating witnesses and no physical evidence, so they simply 'must' question him in person - the supposed victims were tweeting about how excited they were to be with Assange seemingly after the alleged crime and also did not report it until later as if they were prompted by some other motivation I'd put the odds of this being a legitimate criminal case at something like 0.0000034%

arrrg 14y ago
Sigh. Just one thing. no country will promise not to extradite someone. They can't. It's just not possible to promise something like that. How is that supposed to work? If (hypothetically) the US were to request Assange's extradition and if they had (hypothetically) evidence and valid reasons for doing so, Sweden would have to break their treaty. Why do you believe it's possible to promise something like that? That's crazy.
- Tycho 14y ago
  Pretty simple, they ask the US if they wish to have Assange extradited or not. If they don't, then Sweden can say to Ecuador that Assange will not face extradition to the US for anything he has hitherto committed. If they do, then Sweden should just fucking admit it.
- dasil003 14y ago
  Okay. What about the other four points?
  - MarkMc 14y ago
    The four other points are valid defense arguments - something which were probably brought up at the UK extradition hearing and would be brought up in a Swedish trial. However, the allegation of the charge being 'conjured up' would require that both the UK and Swedish judicial systems be severely compromised. That would be an extraordinary conspiracy, so the claim requires extraordinary evidence. The four points mentioned simply don't meet that standard in my opinion.
    - Tycho 14y ago
      Extraordinary claims... A meme that has never made much sense to me. Anyway: Think about this from the start: Assange has just become an enemy of the US due to wikileaks dumping a lot of official documents onto the Internet. Knowing this, Assange would be extra careful not to do anything that could lead to his arrest by a America-comliant government. Next thing we know, he's being accused of the one crime for which there can be almost by definition no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence, no signs of physical harm on the victim. What are the odds? And remember, they haven't even pressed the charges (that way they can deny the judicial system was actually compromised), this is just an excuse to get him into custody so he can then be officially extradited to the US.
- Volpe 14y ago
  Politics isn't as clear cut as you are making it. What treaty (specifically) are you referring to? Its extradition treaty? Well yeah, it'd need to break that. But why is that completely out of the question?
  - arrrg 14y ago
    Simple, really. They don't want to respond to Assange's every whim. You can't expect governments to respond to every stupid request. Do you really think Sweden would break an extradition treaty over one person? Most certainly not. They can't predict the future, they won't make promises like that.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I think Assange is a self-important twit. I have no knowledge of what happened so I have no idea whether he is really guilty or now. I also think he's right to be afraid. The two pieces of evidence that make me fill that way are, first, that the prosecutor that wants the questioning is not the prosecutor that spoke with the women and, second, they won't question him anywhere but Sweden, even though Sweden has done remote interviews in the past. Couple this with one of the accusers refusing to sign her statement and it gets very fishy.

by Tycho 14y ago

arrrg 14y ago

Sigh. Just one thing. no country will promise not to extradite someone. They can't. It's just not possible to promise something like that. How is that supposed to work? If (hypothetically) the US were to request Assange's extradition and if they had (hypothetically) evidence and valid reasons for doing so, Sweden would have to break their treaty. Why do you believe it's possible to promise something like that? That's crazy.

Tycho 14y ago
Pretty simple, they ask the US if they wish to have Assange extradited or not. If they don't, then Sweden can say to Ecuador that Assange will not face extradition to the US for anything he has hitherto committed. If they do, then Sweden should just fucking admit it.
dasil003 14y ago
Okay. What about the other four points?
- MarkMc 14y ago
  The four other points are valid defense arguments - something which were probably brought up at the UK extradition hearing and would be brought up in a Swedish trial. However, the allegation of the charge being 'conjured up' would require that both the UK and Swedish judicial systems be severely compromised. That would be an extraordinary conspiracy, so the claim requires extraordinary evidence. The four points mentioned simply don't meet that standard in my opinion.
  - Tycho 14y ago
    Extraordinary claims... A meme that has never made much sense to me. Anyway: Think about this from the start: Assange has just become an enemy of the US due to wikileaks dumping a lot of official documents onto the Internet. Knowing this, Assange would be extra careful not to do anything that could lead to his arrest by a America-comliant government. Next thing we know, he's being accused of the one crime for which there can be almost by definition no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence, no signs of physical harm on the victim. What are the odds? And remember, they haven't even pressed the charges (that way they can deny the judicial system was actually compromised), this is just an excuse to get him into custody so he can then be officially extradited to the US.
Volpe 14y ago
Politics isn't as clear cut as you are making it. What treaty (specifically) are you referring to? Its extradition treaty? Well yeah, it'd need to break that. But why is that completely out of the question?
- arrrg 14y ago
  Simple, really. They don't want to respond to Assange's every whim. You can't expect governments to respond to every stupid request. Do you really think Sweden would break an extradition treaty over one person? Most certainly not. They can't predict the future, they won't make promises like that.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

I think Assange is a self-important twit. I have no knowledge of what happened so I have no idea whether he is really guilty or now. I also think he's right to be afraid. The two pieces of evidence that make me fill that way are, first, that the prosecutor that wants the questioning is not the prosecutor that spoke with the women and, second, they won't question him anywhere but Sweden, even though Sweden has done remote interviews in the past. Couple this with one of the accusers refusing to sign her statement and it gets very fishy.