7 ms·

Let's not kid ourselves. It is terribly naïve to believe that this whole situation has been about rape allegations. The only reason Assange was charged in the f

by marvin 12y ago

Let's not kid ourselves. It is terribly naïve to believe that this whole situation has been about rape allegations. The only reason Assange was charged in the first place was political pressure from the United States, which would provide the opportunity for an extradition (on some suitable pretext) even in the absence of a conviction. This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. The political situation will not change even if this case falls apart - so Assange would still be a refugee or a fugitive, depending on who you ask. British authorities would certainly find some pretext to arrest him and extradite him even if the Swedish government publicly verifies his safety and innocence. I would love to be proved wrong if someone is better informed about this than I, but this just seems completely obvious.

mortov 12y ago
Regardless of whether the case by the Swedish authorities is dropped, he still faces prosecution by the UK now for the breach of bail conditions - distinct offence in UK law with severe penalties regardless of the state of the original reason for being placed on bail. Many people end up in prison on the UK for breach of bail despite being aquitted in court of the original charge they faced and it is naive to think that any hypothetical dropping of charges by Sweden is either the end of the matter or the end of the risk of a one-way ticket to the US.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Isn't most of that then HIS fault? Yes, I think it is.
PeterGriffin 12y ago
And the omnipresent, omniscient commenter who can solve a rape case by reading about it online strikes again. Good job, sir. Good job.
jamespo 12y ago
Please explain exactly how a rape charge changes the opportunity for extradition?
skwirl 12y ago
You seem to be implying that, because Assange leaked government documents, it is impossible for him to afterwards commit crimes. It's like some people in this community believe that leaking documents automatically bestows saint status on the leaker.
- tomp 12y ago
  Assange didn't leak any governments. He only runs a publishing house that publishes the leaks that other people make.
mpyne 12y ago
> This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. Rather, it is instead a textbook example of how public figures that are supported by a group suddenly become incapable of fault. Instead of letting the legal system of Sweden play out (you know, like Snowden had been trying to fight for with his leaks against the FISA Court), Assange's supporters simply declare that this is some vast world conspiracy against Assange, or that it wasn't really "rape" anyways, and even much more misogynistic things. In addition all the contradictory evidence against that hypothesis simply gets glossed over. E.g. the extradition thing makes no sense, and never made any sense. Assange was being processed through courts in the U.K. while avoiding Swedish justice, and the U.K. is hardly knowing for making it difficult to extradite suspects to the U.S.! If Assange was worried about extradition to the U.S. he should have fled from the U.K. ASAP. Given that wasn't what he did, he must have been more worried about something different (perhaps the veracity of the charges of which he was accused?). And either way, as mentioned in a sibling comment, the U.S. would actually have to charge him with something for extradition to apply, and those charges would have to come within the statute of limitations (and perhaps even within a shorter timeframe for whatever country Assange flees to).
- easytiger 12y ago
  Given the crime he is accused of is, unless i am mistaken, having consensual sex but during the act the condom broke, there's not a lot of rationality in this entire thing.
  - rmc 12y ago
    You are mistaken. He's wanted for 4 cases. One is having sex with someone who was asleep. If you come across a sleeping woman, and start to have sex with her, well...
  - mpyne 12y ago
    IIRC, one of the accusations was having sex with no condom at all even though consent had been conditional on using a condom, but had nothing to do with a broken condom.
mongol 12y ago
It's only "obvious" because it fits into Assange's narrative. If he indeed is guilty to the allegations, would it still be "obvious" that this is a political charade? To me it is not obvious. Yes, it could be that you are right, but what proves it?
mootothemax 12y ago
This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. Utterly inept, you mean? If they wanted to lock up Assange so badly, why not just stick some child porn on his laptop? Or send a bomb threat coming from his email address? Or punch someone in the face and claim Assange did it? Or get him rip-roaring drunk, deny him use of a lavatory, and arrest him when the inevitable happens on the walk back to his hotel? Or 5,001 variations on this theme. In other words: I believe it's neither competent enough, nor incompetent enough to be staged.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Because all of that has no third party actors. Here there are walking, talking victims accusing him of difficult-to-(dis)prove crimes. Assange has been shut up good since these allegations came out. Seems pretty effective to me.
  - mootothemax 12y ago
    Because all of that has no third party actors. Here there are walking, talking victims accusing him of difficult-to-(dis)prove crimes Hang on, hang on; is the conspiracy to get Assange to the USA, or to lock him up for a long time in Sweden? From the sounds of things, I thought this was all a ruse so the US could grab him?
    - msandford 12y ago
      If we're going to engage with the conspiracy theory angle (which I do think has some merit) then it's not about one single, definitive plan of action. It's actually about achieving a goal: stopping Assange from exposing secrets that various powerful people don't want exposed. If you're willing to accept that the powerful do have secrets they don't want exposed then you should also be willing to accept that they probably don't care exactly HOW he's neutralized, just that he is. And judging by that criteria having him effectively locked up in the embassy is pretty good.
xorcist 12y ago
US war deserters have taken refuge in Sweden ever since Vietnam. So far none of them has been extradited. So why Sweden? If the US wanted him extradited, it would be far easier to do it from the UK. I think it is better to look for a more likely explanation. Perhaps it is not more complicated than it seems on the surface. Some strange things happened between him and two girls, we don't know what's true there, and when they finally got around to question him he had already left the country. Assange either saw the opportunity to make a PR coup out of it, or he was genuinely paranoid (in which case I wouldn't blame him). So here we are in a stalemate with no easy way out. Also do note that it's not altogether fair to call this "rape allegations". It is the lesser form of the crime and would be better translated to sexual misconduct, or something like that (IANAL).
- hga 12y ago
  It's rape per English law: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat... (That link is off of the article cited here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988717 and by the same author.)
  - xorcist 12y ago
    That's far from clear as he has yet to be formally charged. That takes place after the questioning, which is when the prosecutor must decide how severe charges to go for. Rape and sexual misconduct (but I am unsure of the exact translations here) are different severities of the same type of crime. We only know that he is wanted for questioning regarding crimes on this scale. The document you linked to is in regards to the extradition laws, not the criminal case. It is my personal opinion (hence the IANAL) that the lesser severity is more likely to be pursued, but I wanted to stress that it is not correct to say that he is wanted for rape. That is simply not decided yet. (This process, by the way, is why one must be physically present for the formal questioning.)
    - hga 12y ago
      "We only know that he is wanted for questioning regarding crimes on this scale." While it's clear neither of us really understand Swedish criminal law procedures, it's beyond initial questioning (that happened 30 August 2010), it's at the point for him to be formerly arrested. It's clear in what I've been reading that the case is much further in progress than what in common law based countries is called "questioning", as a matter of Swedish legal procedure formal charging must come after the arrest.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
I've never understood why anyone thinks being charged with rape in Sweden gives the US any advantage. If the claim was that it was some sort of backhanded punishment - that he's going to be stitched up for rape and go to prison as some sort of punishment beating from the US because they know they're not going to get him convicted of what they want to get him convicted of, I could understand that, but how does it aid or enable an extradition to the US? No US citizen was involved, the crime didn't happen in the US, the Swedes would want him to serve any prison sentence before they'd release him elsewhere, the extradition from Sweden will be more complex than from the UK (as if he's been extradited from the UK the UK also have to agree to him going to the US) and it's not as if the UK aren't massively friendly (indeed in cahoots with) US intelligence. I can completely see the idea that the US want Assange on US soil to try, but I don't see how this helps them to that end.
- watwut 12y ago
  The claim was that Sweden is likely to give Assange to US if US asks for it due to US-Sweden Extradition Treaty. If he is in Sweden, for whatever reason, he can be easily sent to USA if USA asks for him.
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    But there's an extradition treaty with the UK which has a worrying low threshold of proof (that of "reasonable suspicion") which they'd easily clear. We've sent 77 people to the US in the last 10 years - it's used all the time. If the UK sent him to Sweden both countries (the UK and Sweden) have to agree to the extradition as the law is set up to prevent exactly this sort of thing happening. The claim you outline doesn't really make sense if you look at what's really involved.
  - nols 12y ago
    This is patently false though. If Assange is extradited to Sweden then both the UK and Sweden must approve of his extradition to the US.
Lazare 12y ago
For your theory to be correct, Sweden would have to be willing to extradite Assange, but the UK would have to be unwilling. There is a major issue with this: By law, extraditing Assange from Sweden would require the consent of the UK and Sweden. So if the UK is not willing to see Assange head to the US, then he cannot be extradited from Sweden. Conversely, if they are, then the extradition to Sweden is not needed. See "Myth Two" here: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...

by marvin 12y ago

mortov 12y ago

Regardless of whether the case by the Swedish authorities is dropped, he still faces prosecution by the UK now for the breach of bail conditions - distinct offence in UK law with severe penalties regardless of the state of the original reason for being placed on bail. Many people end up in prison on the UK for breach of bail despite being aquitted in court of the original charge they faced and it is naive to think that any hypothetical dropping of charges by Sweden is either the end of the matter or the end of the risk of a one-way ticket to the US.

sigzero 12y ago
Isn't most of that then HIS fault? Yes, I think it is.

PeterGriffin 12y ago

And the omnipresent, omniscient commenter who can solve a rape case by reading about it online strikes again. Good job, sir. Good job.

jamespo 12y ago

Please explain exactly how a rape charge changes the opportunity for extradition?

skwirl 12y ago

You seem to be implying that, because Assange leaked government documents, it is impossible for him to afterwards commit crimes. It's like some people in this community believe that leaking documents automatically bestows saint status on the leaker.

tomp 12y ago
Assange didn't leak any governments. He only runs a publishing house that publishes the leaks that other people make.

mpyne 12y ago

> This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. Rather, it is instead a textbook example of how public figures that are supported by a group suddenly become incapable of fault. Instead of letting the legal system of Sweden play out (you know, like Snowden had been trying to fight for with his leaks against the FISA Court), Assange's supporters simply declare that this is some vast world conspiracy against Assange, or that it wasn't really "rape" anyways, and even much more misogynistic things. In addition all the contradictory evidence against that hypothesis simply gets glossed over. E.g. the extradition thing makes no sense, and never made any sense. Assange was being processed through courts in the U.K. while avoiding Swedish justice, and the U.K. is hardly knowing for making it difficult to extradite suspects to the U.S.! If Assange was worried about extradition to the U.S. he should have fled from the U.K. ASAP. Given that wasn't what he did, he must have been more worried about something different (perhaps the veracity of the charges of which he was accused?). And either way, as mentioned in a sibling comment, the U.S. would actually have to charge him with something for extradition to apply, and those charges would have to come within the statute of limitations (and perhaps even within a shorter timeframe for whatever country Assange flees to).

easytiger 12y ago
Given the crime he is accused of is, unless i am mistaken, having consensual sex but during the act the condom broke, there's not a lot of rationality in this entire thing.
- rmc 12y ago
  You are mistaken. He's wanted for 4 cases. One is having sex with someone who was asleep. If you come across a sleeping woman, and start to have sex with her, well...
- mpyne 12y ago
  IIRC, one of the accusations was having sex with no condom at all even though consent had been conditional on using a condom, but had nothing to do with a broken condom.

mongol 12y ago

It's only "obvious" because it fits into Assange's narrative. If he indeed is guilty to the allegations, would it still be "obvious" that this is a political charade? To me it is not obvious. Yes, it could be that you are right, but what proves it?

mootothemax 12y ago

This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. Utterly inept, you mean? If they wanted to lock up Assange so badly, why not just stick some child porn on his laptop? Or send a bomb threat coming from his email address? Or punch someone in the face and claim Assange did it? Or get him rip-roaring drunk, deny him use of a lavatory, and arrest him when the inevitable happens on the walk back to his hotel? Or 5,001 variations on this theme. In other words: I believe it's neither competent enough, nor incompetent enough to be staged.

themartorana 12y ago
Because all of that has no third party actors. Here there are walking, talking victims accusing him of difficult-to-(dis)prove crimes. Assange has been shut up good since these allegations came out. Seems pretty effective to me.
- mootothemax 12y ago
  Because all of that has no third party actors. Here there are walking, talking victims accusing him of difficult-to-(dis)prove crimes Hang on, hang on; is the conspiracy to get Assange to the USA, or to lock him up for a long time in Sweden? From the sounds of things, I thought this was all a ruse so the US could grab him?
  - msandford 12y ago
    If we're going to engage with the conspiracy theory angle (which I do think has some merit) then it's not about one single, definitive plan of action. It's actually about achieving a goal: stopping Assange from exposing secrets that various powerful people don't want exposed. If you're willing to accept that the powerful do have secrets they don't want exposed then you should also be willing to accept that they probably don't care exactly HOW he's neutralized, just that he is. And judging by that criteria having him effectively locked up in the embassy is pretty good.

xorcist 12y ago

US war deserters have taken refuge in Sweden ever since Vietnam. So far none of them has been extradited. So why Sweden? If the US wanted him extradited, it would be far easier to do it from the UK. I think it is better to look for a more likely explanation. Perhaps it is not more complicated than it seems on the surface. Some strange things happened between him and two girls, we don't know what's true there, and when they finally got around to question him he had already left the country. Assange either saw the opportunity to make a PR coup out of it, or he was genuinely paranoid (in which case I wouldn't blame him). So here we are in a stalemate with no easy way out. Also do note that it's not altogether fair to call this "rape allegations". It is the lesser form of the crime and would be better translated to sexual misconduct, or something like that (IANAL).

hga 12y ago
It's rape per English law: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat... (That link is off of the article cited here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988717 and by the same author.)
- xorcist 12y ago
  That's far from clear as he has yet to be formally charged. That takes place after the questioning, which is when the prosecutor must decide how severe charges to go for. Rape and sexual misconduct (but I am unsure of the exact translations here) are different severities of the same type of crime. We only know that he is wanted for questioning regarding crimes on this scale. The document you linked to is in regards to the extradition laws, not the criminal case. It is my personal opinion (hence the IANAL) that the lesser severity is more likely to be pursued, but I wanted to stress that it is not correct to say that he is wanted for rape. That is simply not decided yet. (This process, by the way, is why one must be physically present for the formal questioning.)
  - hga 12y ago
    "We only know that he is wanted for questioning regarding crimes on this scale." While it's clear neither of us really understand Swedish criminal law procedures, it's beyond initial questioning (that happened 30 August 2010), it's at the point for him to be formerly arrested. It's clear in what I've been reading that the case is much further in progress than what in common law based countries is called "questioning", as a matter of Swedish legal procedure formal charging must come after the arrest.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago

I've never understood why anyone thinks being charged with rape in Sweden gives the US any advantage. If the claim was that it was some sort of backhanded punishment - that he's going to be stitched up for rape and go to prison as some sort of punishment beating from the US because they know they're not going to get him convicted of what they want to get him convicted of, I could understand that, but how does it aid or enable an extradition to the US? No US citizen was involved, the crime didn't happen in the US, the Swedes would want him to serve any prison sentence before they'd release him elsewhere, the extradition from Sweden will be more complex than from the UK (as if he's been extradited from the UK the UK also have to agree to him going to the US) and it's not as if the UK aren't massively friendly (indeed in cahoots with) US intelligence. I can completely see the idea that the US want Assange on US soil to try, but I don't see how this helps them to that end.

watwut 12y ago
The claim was that Sweden is likely to give Assange to US if US asks for it due to US-Sweden Extradition Treaty. If he is in Sweden, for whatever reason, he can be easily sent to USA if USA asks for him.
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  But there's an extradition treaty with the UK which has a worrying low threshold of proof (that of "reasonable suspicion") which they'd easily clear. We've sent 77 people to the US in the last 10 years - it's used all the time. If the UK sent him to Sweden both countries (the UK and Sweden) have to agree to the extradition as the law is set up to prevent exactly this sort of thing happening. The claim you outline doesn't really make sense if you look at what's really involved.
- nols 12y ago
  This is patently false though. If Assange is extradited to Sweden then both the UK and Sweden must approve of his extradition to the US.

Lazare 12y ago

For your theory to be correct, Sweden would have to be willing to extradite Assange, but the UK would have to be unwilling. There is a major issue with this: By law, extraditing Assange from Sweden would require the consent of the UK and Sweden. So if the UK is not willing to see Assange head to the US, then he cannot be extradited from Sweden. Conversely, if they are, then the extradition to Sweden is not needed. See "Myth Two" here: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...