9 ms·

He never really answered the question as to why he thinks that Sweden is ready and willing to extradite him to the US, and that him being wanted for questioning

He never really answered the question as to why he thinks that Sweden is ready and willing to extradite him to the US, and that him being wanted for questioning is a pretense. Is there some evidence that supports his belief?

foobarqux 14y ago
Among other things Swedish prosecutors refuse to question him in the UK, something which has been done recently for an alleged murderer. There is no obvious reason why they would refuse and none has been given by the prosecutor.
- philwelch 14y ago
  I don't see how this matters anyway. After they question him, they will still want him to go to jail in Sweden pending trial, and he will still be in the Ecuadorean embassy pretending to be a political prisoner.
  - foobarqux 14y ago
    It matters because it is believed the Swedish prosecutor does not have enough evidence to actually bring charges. After questioning she will either have to bring charges or drop the case. On the other hand, as you say, questioning Assange in the UK has no obvious downside for the prosecutor.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Assange's supporters and conspiracy theorists will believe anything except the possibility that someone with a documented history of narcissistic behavior actually sexually assaulted someone.
      - foobarqux 14y ago
        You can believe that Assange had sex with someone without a condom, in violation of their expressed wishes, without believing that 1. sufficient evidence exists for a case to be brought 2. that he is safer in Sweden from onward extradition to the US for what arguably amounts to political persecution.
        tptacek 14y ago
        If this was how criminal law worked, Hans Reiser would be working on another filesystem from his house in Oakland right now. Nobody on the Internet believed the case brought against him either. You cannot reasonably believe that he is less safe in Sweden than the UK. That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The list of reasons why his safety changes not- at- all after going to Sweden is compelling and widely documented. Occam's razor strongly indicates that Assange isn't going to Sweden because he simply doesn't want to face criminal proceedings.
        rdl 14y ago
        Or, remaining a "fugitive" is an excellent PR strategy for himself and wikileaks.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Conceded.
        foobarqux 14y ago
        Some people may believe he is innocent but what I said is that there may not be enough evidence to bring a case, as I imagine is common in sexual molestation cases, and this is a good explanation for why he has not been questioned. Sweden is less safe than the UK primarily because it is a far smaller country that is more susceptible to American influence, because there is less support for Assange there than the UK (and therefore it would politically easier to extradite him) and because the UK has a history of resisting extradition (e.g. McKinnon) while the best example of Sweden's willingness to comply were the rendition cases and that Sweden has complied with essentially every extradition request in the previous few years. The arguments for why he would be as safe in Sweden are essentially that extradition requests are subject to judicial review in Sweden. I would expect the UK's judicial's system to be more refined that Sweden's but putting that aside we would expect the Swedish judiciary to be less reliable for the reasons of outside influence given above. The idea that any judiciary is immune from political pressure or not influenced by current political views is naive. In addition the judiciary can be overridden by the executive branch. The argument for why they wouldn't abuse that power is that the Swedish executive would be violating international law. However this is not an effective deterrent because Assange likely cannot afford to pay for such legal proceedings, the extradition would probably occur before the legal challenge anyway (after which it is game over anyway), and the penalty for violating international law is negligible when the US/UK are on your side. Even when Sweden lost in the rendition cases they only had to pay a fine. The US would gladly pay several millions of dollars to get custody of Assange. Policing the embassy alone is costing the UK something like a million dollars a day. Finally one must consider that thinking Sweden is comparably safe to the UK and being wrong is almost certainly many many years in US prison if not life.
      - ucee054 14y ago
        That's great except the rape warrant was dropped. Then it was re-issued. Here's the timeline: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 Does that seem like normal behaviour to you, that the authorities keeping hitting "retry" on legal proceedings until they get the result they want? Oh I forgot, to point out basic facts is to be a "conspiracy theorist". I guess if you grew up in Iran, you'd find it perfectly plausible when the Islamic Republic claim that the Green Movement are foreign spies. And you'd call anyone who distrusted the authorities on that point a "conspiracy theorist".
summerdown2 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and...
calhoun137 14y ago
"The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a... see also - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-a... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-stat...
mpyne 14y ago
What I have never understood is why he feels that Sweden would turn him over but that the U.K. (where he had been staying before) would not? If the U.S. can gin up a fake rape case in Sweden of all places they can certainly do it in a country with which they have a "special relationship".
- kintamanimatt 14y ago
  This is one of the things that I was wondering about. Why isn't the UK willing and able to extradite him, when Sweden apparently is? What makes Sweden different? The UK does appear to have some strict-ish rules regarding extradition, and only appears willing to extradite people when the matter would also be considered criminal under British law. (I'm not entirely sure whether Assange's publishing of leaked documents would be considered a criminal act that meets the standard in the UK.) Maybe there's something different about Swedish law that would make it easier?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The UK does not have stricter rules regarding extradition than Sweden. That's a meme that germinated from a revision to the extradition rules that closed a gap between the US and the UK in which it was easier for the UK to extradite from the US than vice versa. Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation, so the whole issue is moot.
    - chc 14y ago
      > Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation I don't mean this to sound combative, because I am really just curious about how practical the distinction is: Can't or shouldn't? What would happen to Sweden if it neglected to wait for the UK's approval and just stuck him on a plane to the US a day after he arrived?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        It would violate the ECHR, and the UK's treaty with Sweden.

foobarqux 14y ago

Among other things Swedish prosecutors refuse to question him in the UK, something which has been done recently for an alleged murderer. There is no obvious reason why they would refuse and none has been given by the prosecutor.

philwelch 14y ago
I don't see how this matters anyway. After they question him, they will still want him to go to jail in Sweden pending trial, and he will still be in the Ecuadorean embassy pretending to be a political prisoner.
- foobarqux 14y ago
  It matters because it is believed the Swedish prosecutor does not have enough evidence to actually bring charges. After questioning she will either have to bring charges or drop the case. On the other hand, as you say, questioning Assange in the UK has no obvious downside for the prosecutor.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Assange's supporters and conspiracy theorists will believe anything except the possibility that someone with a documented history of narcissistic behavior actually sexually assaulted someone.
    - foobarqux 14y ago
      You can believe that Assange had sex with someone without a condom, in violation of their expressed wishes, without believing that 1. sufficient evidence exists for a case to be brought 2. that he is safer in Sweden from onward extradition to the US for what arguably amounts to political persecution.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        If this was how criminal law worked, Hans Reiser would be working on another filesystem from his house in Oakland right now. Nobody on the Internet believed the case brought against him either. You cannot reasonably believe that he is less safe in Sweden than the UK. That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The list of reasons why his safety changes not- at- all after going to Sweden is compelling and widely documented. Occam's razor strongly indicates that Assange isn't going to Sweden because he simply doesn't want to face criminal proceedings.
        rdl 14y ago
        Or, remaining a "fugitive" is an excellent PR strategy for himself and wikileaks.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Conceded.
        foobarqux 14y ago
        Some people may believe he is innocent but what I said is that there may not be enough evidence to bring a case, as I imagine is common in sexual molestation cases, and this is a good explanation for why he has not been questioned. Sweden is less safe than the UK primarily because it is a far smaller country that is more susceptible to American influence, because there is less support for Assange there than the UK (and therefore it would politically easier to extradite him) and because the UK has a history of resisting extradition (e.g. McKinnon) while the best example of Sweden's willingness to comply were the rendition cases and that Sweden has complied with essentially every extradition request in the previous few years. The arguments for why he would be as safe in Sweden are essentially that extradition requests are subject to judicial review in Sweden. I would expect the UK's judicial's system to be more refined that Sweden's but putting that aside we would expect the Swedish judiciary to be less reliable for the reasons of outside influence given above. The idea that any judiciary is immune from political pressure or not influenced by current political views is naive. In addition the judiciary can be overridden by the executive branch. The argument for why they wouldn't abuse that power is that the Swedish executive would be violating international law. However this is not an effective deterrent because Assange likely cannot afford to pay for such legal proceedings, the extradition would probably occur before the legal challenge anyway (after which it is game over anyway), and the penalty for violating international law is negligible when the US/UK are on your side. Even when Sweden lost in the rendition cases they only had to pay a fine. The US would gladly pay several millions of dollars to get custody of Assange. Policing the embassy alone is costing the UK something like a million dollars a day. Finally one must consider that thinking Sweden is comparably safe to the UK and being wrong is almost certainly many many years in US prison if not life.
    - ucee054 14y ago
      That's great except the rape warrant was dropped. Then it was re-issued. Here's the timeline: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 Does that seem like normal behaviour to you, that the authorities keeping hitting "retry" on legal proceedings until they get the result they want? Oh I forgot, to point out basic facts is to be a "conspiracy theorist". I guess if you grew up in Iran, you'd find it perfectly plausible when the Islamic Republic claim that the Green Movement are foreign spies. And you'd call anyone who distrusted the authorities on that point a "conspiracy theorist".

summerdown2 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and...

calhoun137 14y ago

"The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a... see also - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-a... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-stat...

mpyne 14y ago

What I have never understood is why he feels that Sweden would turn him over but that the U.K. (where he had been staying before) would not? If the U.S. can gin up a fake rape case in Sweden of all places they can certainly do it in a country with which they have a "special relationship".

kintamanimatt 14y ago
This is one of the things that I was wondering about. Why isn't the UK willing and able to extradite him, when Sweden apparently is? What makes Sweden different? The UK does appear to have some strict-ish rules regarding extradition, and only appears willing to extradite people when the matter would also be considered criminal under British law. (I'm not entirely sure whether Assange's publishing of leaked documents would be considered a criminal act that meets the standard in the UK.) Maybe there's something different about Swedish law that would make it easier?
- tptacek 14y ago
  The UK does not have stricter rules regarding extradition than Sweden. That's a meme that germinated from a revision to the extradition rules that closed a gap between the US and the UK in which it was easier for the UK to extradite from the US than vice versa. Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation, so the whole issue is moot.
  - chc 14y ago
    > Moreover, Sweden can't extradite without the UK's approval in this situation I don't mean this to sound combative, because I am really just curious about how practical the distinction is: Can't or shouldn't? What would happen to Sweden if it neglected to wait for the UK's approval and just stuck him on a plane to the US a day after he arrived?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      It would violate the ECHR, and the UK's treaty with Sweden.