10 ms·

It is only not surprising if one believes that all of this is a plot to get him extradited to the US. Which always seems far fetched, till the behaviour of the

by onli 12y ago

It is only not surprising if one believes that all of this is a plot to get him extradited to the US. Which always seems far fetched, till the behaviour of the prosecution made it clear that is the only sane explication - apart from complete incompetence combined with arrogance, a "he has to come crawling to us if we say so" attitude.

notahacker 12y ago
An alternate hypothesis involving a legal system being a bit legalistic (maybe throw in a hardline "we're definitely not making an exception to our usual procedure for you because you're a public figure who fled the country and then claimed it was a conspiracy" stance, if that counts as arrogant) has a lot to recommend it over a null hypothesis involving a conspiracy to use the most difficult, legally complex and embarrassing procedures imaginable to try to get a target to a third party country (a third party country which often takes a very direct and efficient approach to extraordinary rendition)
- vidarh 12y ago
  During the UK extradition hearing, Swedish police travelled to an Eastern European country (can't remember which) to interrogate two murder suspect. In other words, they had no problems carrying out interrogations outside of Sweden at the time. Just not of Assange. If the Swedish legal system had been "a bit legalistic" and not wanted to make exceptions, a lot of what happened in the Assange case could not have happened. E.g. illegal leaks of lots of information to the press, irregular interview procedures, and this curious stubbornness about interviewing him abroad when Swedish police does not seem to have a problem with that in other cases.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    There may well be provision to make exceptions to the standard interview process which are permissible under Swedish law. The question is what constitutes a good basis for making those exceptions. Does "the suspect left the country when asked to interview, refused to come back, contested the ensuing extradition order using every conceivable technicality whilst insisting the charges were politically motivated, then fled bail after exhausting appeals, but is now willing speak to you, conditional on the interview taking place in their current place of residence, which happens to be guarded by a foreign government opposed to your pursuit of the case" ? Some people - even those not especially rigid and legalistic in their thinking, which individual prosecutors are perfectly entitled and possibly even encouraged to be - might reasonably think not. Even now they've opted to back down and talk on Assange's terms, I think it's staggeringly unlikely he's going to walk out of the embassy wearing handcuffs if he is unable to satisfy them of his innocence, so I'm not sure it really advances the case further.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    That's been disproven. Sweden did not interrogate those suspects in order to "charge" them, but in an earlier state of the murder investigation.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Swedish courts can, and have, charged people in absentia, so that argument does not hold. In fact, Swedish courts have even convicted a dead man in absentia, after deciding (before knowing he was dead) the trial could go on in absentia: http://www.thelocal.se/20100526/26862 http://www.thelocal.se/20100526/26862
rmc 12y ago
I've never understood the "US extradition" theory. He went to the UK, which is a co-founder of NATO (which Sweden isn't even in), and has a "special relationship" with the USA. Why go to a country that's more friendly to the USA if you're actually worried about being sent to the USA?
- nailer 12y ago
  Wasn't Sweden's position as a 'covert member of Nato' one of the things revealed by wikileaks? http://wlcentral.org/node/1992 http://wlcentral.org/node/1992
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Exactly. Looking at the whole business from a Nordic perspective, the idea of this process being some kind of a plot to extradite Assange to be tortured by the Americans is just silly. Britain is the poodle in U.S.'s pocket, not Sweden. A more rational perspective to the situation can be seen from the point of view of rape statistics. They are an indication of how seriously countries take accusations of sexual molestation. The rate of police-recorded rape offenses is - US: 27.3 - UK: 28.8 - Sweden: 63.5 Are there really more than twice as many rapes per capita in Sweden than there are in UK or US? Of course not, if you use the same definition for rape. The issue is that Sweden records things differently. I'm quite convinced that if we're looking at what actually happens, Sweden has less rape then UK or US, but Sweden records them with a much lower threshold for what constitutes a "rape" so that the statistics looks different.
  - danabramov 12y ago
    ... or maybe it's under-reported in UK or US?
  - vidarh 12y ago
    > Britain is the poodle in U.S.'s pocket, not Sweden. Sweden has a history of actively handing asylum seekers to the CIA for illegal rendition without even the knowledge of any courts. The UK doesn't to my knowledge have a history of handing over people without proper extradition proceedings, some that have dragged out in the court system for years.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>Which always seems far fetched I'm honestly surprised anybody still thinks this. Particularly after the GCHQ emails confirming it as a 'fit up'.
- XorNot 12y ago
  You're going to need to provide a proper citation for that. Because it wasn't mainstream news and literally two words is not a quote.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    http://bit.ly/19gybge http://bit.ly/19gybge
    - XorNot 12y ago
      So of course, it's actually just a bunch of emails where, in context, it's some people speculating in the exact same way, with the exact same information, as people here on HN (i.e. none). So not actually at all like what the original poster implied.
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        OR it could be GCHQ employees with relevant inside information and full familiarity of their own organization's modus operandi, making an informed judgment. Then again, maybe they're just tin foil crazed conspiracy theorists who just happen to be, err, employed by GCHQ.

by onli 12y ago

notahacker 12y ago

An alternate hypothesis involving a legal system being a bit legalistic (maybe throw in a hardline "we're definitely not making an exception to our usual procedure for you because you're a public figure who fled the country and then claimed it was a conspiracy" stance, if that counts as arrogant) has a lot to recommend it over a null hypothesis involving a conspiracy to use the most difficult, legally complex and embarrassing procedures imaginable to try to get a target to a third party country (a third party country which often takes a very direct and efficient approach to extraordinary rendition)

vidarh 12y ago
During the UK extradition hearing, Swedish police travelled to an Eastern European country (can't remember which) to interrogate two murder suspect. In other words, they had no problems carrying out interrogations outside of Sweden at the time. Just not of Assange. If the Swedish legal system had been "a bit legalistic" and not wanted to make exceptions, a lot of what happened in the Assange case could not have happened. E.g. illegal leaks of lots of information to the press, irregular interview procedures, and this curious stubbornness about interviewing him abroad when Swedish police does not seem to have a problem with that in other cases.
- notahacker 12y ago
  There may well be provision to make exceptions to the standard interview process which are permissible under Swedish law. The question is what constitutes a good basis for making those exceptions. Does "the suspect left the country when asked to interview, refused to come back, contested the ensuing extradition order using every conceivable technicality whilst insisting the charges were politically motivated, then fled bail after exhausting appeals, but is now willing speak to you, conditional on the interview taking place in their current place of residence, which happens to be guarded by a foreign government opposed to your pursuit of the case" ? Some people - even those not especially rigid and legalistic in their thinking, which individual prosecutors are perfectly entitled and possibly even encouraged to be - might reasonably think not. Even now they've opted to back down and talk on Assange's terms, I think it's staggeringly unlikely he's going to walk out of the embassy wearing handcuffs if he is unable to satisfy them of his innocence, so I'm not sure it really advances the case further.
- Tomte 12y ago
  That's been disproven. Sweden did not interrogate those suspects in order to "charge" them, but in an earlier state of the murder investigation.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    Swedish courts can, and have, charged people in absentia, so that argument does not hold. In fact, Swedish courts have even convicted a dead man in absentia, after deciding (before knowing he was dead) the trial could go on in absentia: http://www.thelocal.se/20100526/26862 http://www.thelocal.se/20100526/26862

rmc 12y ago

I've never understood the "US extradition" theory. He went to the UK, which is a co-founder of NATO (which Sweden isn't even in), and has a "special relationship" with the USA. Why go to a country that's more friendly to the USA if you're actually worried about being sent to the USA?

nailer 12y ago
Wasn't Sweden's position as a 'covert member of Nato' one of the things revealed by wikileaks? http://wlcentral.org/node/1992 http://wlcentral.org/node/1992
ptaipale 12y ago
Exactly. Looking at the whole business from a Nordic perspective, the idea of this process being some kind of a plot to extradite Assange to be tortured by the Americans is just silly. Britain is the poodle in U.S.'s pocket, not Sweden. A more rational perspective to the situation can be seen from the point of view of rape statistics. They are an indication of how seriously countries take accusations of sexual molestation. The rate of police-recorded rape offenses is - US: 27.3 - UK: 28.8 - Sweden: 63.5 Are there really more than twice as many rapes per capita in Sweden than there are in UK or US? Of course not, if you use the same definition for rape. The issue is that Sweden records things differently. I'm quite convinced that if we're looking at what actually happens, Sweden has less rape then UK or US, but Sweden records them with a much lower threshold for what constitutes a "rape" so that the statistics looks different.
- danabramov 12y ago
  ... or maybe it's under-reported in UK or US?
- vidarh 12y ago
  > Britain is the poodle in U.S.'s pocket, not Sweden. Sweden has a history of actively handing asylum seekers to the CIA for illegal rendition without even the knowledge of any courts. The UK doesn't to my knowledge have a history of handing over people without proper extradition proceedings, some that have dragged out in the court system for years.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>Which always seems far fetched I'm honestly surprised anybody still thinks this. Particularly after the GCHQ emails confirming it as a 'fit up'.

XorNot 12y ago
You're going to need to provide a proper citation for that. Because it wasn't mainstream news and literally two words is not a quote.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  http://bit.ly/19gybge http://bit.ly/19gybge
  - XorNot 12y ago
    So of course, it's actually just a bunch of emails where, in context, it's some people speculating in the exact same way, with the exact same information, as people here on HN (i.e. none). So not actually at all like what the original poster implied.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      OR it could be GCHQ employees with relevant inside information and full familiarity of their own organization's modus operandi, making an informed judgment. Then again, maybe they're just tin foil crazed conspiracy theorists who just happen to be, err, employed by GCHQ.