4 ms·

> Can't imagine being constrained to the same place for 2 years, horrible stuff. Yep. A lot like prison, in fact. Which raises an interesting question: As t

by Lazare 12y ago

> Can't imagine being constrained to the same place for 2 years, horrible stuff. Yep. A lot like prison, in fact. Which raises an interesting question: As this drags on, at some point wouldn't it have been easier for him to cooperate, go to Sweden, and take his lumps? He could just about be out on parole by now; instead he still has it hanging over his head. The whole thing seems very short sighted; the UK and Sweden aren't going to just get bored. Is he hoping to drag things out until he dies, or what?

jacquesm 12y ago
It wasn't going to Sweden and taking his 'lumps' that Assange was afraid of, it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after being moved to Sweden. Assange (rightly or wrongly) believed strongly that the chances of Sweden doing such an extradition were more likely than the UK doing something similar. There is a lot of stuff about the rape charges that is fairly suspicious, I'm not sure if the risk of extradition today is as large as it was back when this all went down and maybe that figures into Assange's decision to exit the embassy now. If he goes to Sweden (which I would consider highly likely if he in fact does exit the embassy and gets apprehended by the UK authorities) I suspect the chances of him doing any significant jail time as a result of the case there are slim, so then the only thing that he should still be worried about is eventual extradition to the US on charges still to be brought, but the spotlight will be very much on Sweden pulling any fast ones in the extradition process there. Time will tell.
- Lazare 12y ago
  > it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after being moved to Sweden. That's entirely impossible under EU law. If extradited to UK to Sweden, he can ONLY be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK. Scenario A: The UK would agree (in which case, he didn't need to be extradited to Sweden, as he was already in UK custody). Scenario B: The UK would not agree (in which case, he cannot be extradited from Sweden). Nobody has ever been able to outline any way in which being extradited to Sweden could have increased his risk of being extradited to the US. If the US even wanted him; the UK is well known for rolling over to US extradition requests, and he was in UK custody for an extended period of time. The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try. "Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. [...] there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States [...] the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom." Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "That's entirely impossible under EU law" When has the law ever got in the way? Governments can no longer be trusted. Only within the last week it was revealed the the UK tried to have evidence that they allowed the US to torture people on a UK owned island redacted from reports. I've always been for big government/welfare state etc. but recently I've been becoming more and more libertarian. Politicians are untrustworthy and arguably evil people. They don't give one shit about us unless they are running for election. In that case they will lie and promise and then break those promises when we elect them. I've come to the conclusion that although I want a government that helps it's citizens and I'm fine with paying high taxes for that it's no longer worth the risk to our freedom.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      But then, why was he not extradited from the UK when they had him in custody? That totally makes no sense: Sweden would have no interest at all in such a scheme - they'd go against UK and the EU and their own population while the UK would loose the same in both scenarios. That leaves extrajudicial extradition, but if the US really wanted that, they'd just let Assange fly to Ecuador, nap him there and avoid illegal actions on EU soil.
  - agd 12y ago
    > That's entirely impossible under EU law. No it isn't. You have admitted yourself that it would be possible if the UK gave consent (which they would). > The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try. This is by no means obvious. There is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks. These typically take a long time, and it was likely not complete when the Swedish extradition request was made. It seems plausible that the US will wait until after the Swedish investigation has played out before serving their own warrant. edit: The New Statesman article you referenced has a large inaccuracy. Details: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-sta...
    - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DominikR 12y ago
Maybe he hoped that he could reach an agreement with the UK. Anyways, I'd rather sit in a room for the rest of my life than to face what could await him in the US: Solitary confinement for the rest of his life (if not, maybe being raped), torture, forcing him to answer prison wards every 30 minutes - even during nights - to make sure he doesn't commit suicide (that's what they did to Manning) I'd probably even prefer suicide to that treatment.
thret 12y ago
More like house arrest than prison I think. Prison is a whole other ball game.

by Lazare 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

It wasn't going to Sweden and taking his 'lumps' that Assange was afraid of, it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after being moved to Sweden. Assange (rightly or wrongly) believed strongly that the chances of Sweden doing such an extradition were more likely than the UK doing something similar. There is a lot of stuff about the rape charges that is fairly suspicious, I'm not sure if the risk of extradition today is as large as it was back when this all went down and maybe that figures into Assange's decision to exit the embassy now. If he goes to Sweden (which I would consider highly likely if he in fact does exit the embassy and gets apprehended by the UK authorities) I suspect the chances of him doing any significant jail time as a result of the case there are slim, so then the only thing that he should still be worried about is eventual extradition to the US on charges still to be brought, but the spotlight will be very much on Sweden pulling any fast ones in the extradition process there. Time will tell.

Lazare 12y ago
> it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after being moved to Sweden. That's entirely impossible under EU law. If extradited to UK to Sweden, he can ONLY be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK. Scenario A: The UK would agree (in which case, he didn't need to be extradited to Sweden, as he was already in UK custody). Scenario B: The UK would not agree (in which case, he cannot be extradited from Sweden). Nobody has ever been able to outline any way in which being extradited to Sweden could have increased his risk of being extradited to the US. If the US even wanted him; the UK is well known for rolling over to US extradition requests, and he was in UK custody for an extended period of time. The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try. "Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. [...] there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States [...] the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom." Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "That's entirely impossible under EU law" When has the law ever got in the way? Governments can no longer be trusted. Only within the last week it was revealed the the UK tried to have evidence that they allowed the US to torture people on a UK owned island redacted from reports. I've always been for big government/welfare state etc. but recently I've been becoming more and more libertarian. Politicians are untrustworthy and arguably evil people. They don't give one shit about us unless they are running for election. In that case they will lie and promise and then break those promises when we elect them. I've come to the conclusion that although I want a government that helps it's citizens and I'm fine with paying high taxes for that it's no longer worth the risk to our freedom.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    But then, why was he not extradited from the UK when they had him in custody? That totally makes no sense: Sweden would have no interest at all in such a scheme - they'd go against UK and the EU and their own population while the UK would loose the same in both scenarios. That leaves extrajudicial extradition, but if the US really wanted that, they'd just let Assange fly to Ecuador, nap him there and avoid illegal actions on EU soil.
- agd 12y ago
  > That's entirely impossible under EU law. No it isn't. You have admitted yourself that it would be possible if the UK gave consent (which they would). > The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try. This is by no means obvious. There is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks. These typically take a long time, and it was likely not complete when the Swedish extradition request was made. It seems plausible that the US will wait until after the Swedish investigation has played out before serving their own warrant. edit: The New Statesman article you referenced has a large inaccuracy. Details: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-sta...
  - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

DominikR 12y ago

Maybe he hoped that he could reach an agreement with the UK. Anyways, I'd rather sit in a room for the rest of my life than to face what could await him in the US: Solitary confinement for the rest of his life (if not, maybe being raped), torture, forcing him to answer prison wards every 30 minutes - even during nights - to make sure he doesn't commit suicide (that's what they did to Manning) I'd probably even prefer suicide to that treatment.

thret 12y ago

More like house arrest than prison I think. Prison is a whole other ball game.