6 ms·

I'm so fucking sick of seeing people spout this, like it's something that would 100% happen. Yes, Swedens' intelligence community collaborates with their US co

by Nemcue 11y ago

I'm so fucking sick of seeing people spout this, like it's something that would 100% happen. Yes, Swedens' intelligence community collaborates with their US counterpart. Sweden has also in the past extradited suspected terrorists. But there's a huge caveat there; they did so in /secret/ — and most importantly — the people involved were not Swedish citizens. Understand that if Julian were to come to Sweden, and get extradited to the US it would be a HUGE deal. The protests would be so massive it's not even funny. The only reason why the current situation hasn't been a bigger thing in Sweden is that it clashes with the semi-radical feministic narrative driven by the media.

danieltillett 11y ago
Sure it might be a big deal in Sweden, but would this stop it happening? Unfortunately for Julian he is not a Swedish citizen. Since Julian has yet to be charged with anything and the Swedish authorities apparently just want to talk to him why can't they get on a Ryan Air flight and come and talk to him in London? Provide a rational answer for this question and I will believe that Julian is not looking a one way trip to the USA.
- Nemcue 11y ago
  Personally I think it's for the same reason Peter Sunde was treated like shit in prison, and all his applications to be moved to a prison with appropriate security (i.e. not be around murderers and rapists) was all thrown in the bin. Purely political. To make a statement. I can of course not prove this; nor have anyone else been able to as far as I know. But, that said, I think it's a non sequitur that the current situation, which at least in my mind can only be understood by either absolute incompetence from the prosecution or being under political pressure, would also lead to extradition. I would absolutely go so far as to say that extraditing him from Sweden would severely impact the relationship between the US and Sweden.
- notahacker 11y ago
  The Swedish authorities don't "just want to talk to him", they want to do the equivalent of interviewing him under caution with a view to probably making an arrest afterwards. They have now eventually indicated they'll visit the Ecuadorean embassy in lieu of other alternatives, but it's fairly rational for a judicial system to try to avoid setting the precedent that fugitives get to dictate how and when they can be questioned, especially when said fugitive also has an expensive legal team trying to get the case thrown out on every conceivable technicality going. If police ever indicate that you're wanted on suspicion of a crime, try telling them you'll agree to help them with their enquiries so long as they agree that you set up the interview environment and they can't take you into custody afterwards. I guarantee they won't accede to your request, even if you've never leaked a diplomatic cable in your life. Now provide us with a rational answer as to why those same Swedish authorities let him walk around freely and even leave the country after tipping him off about the allegations if their primary motivation was a one-way ticket to the USA?
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > Now provide us with a rational answer as to why those same Swedish authorities let him walk around freely and even leave the country after tipping him off about the allegations if their primary motivation was a one-way ticket to the USA? Regardless whether or not the motivation is a one-way ticket to the USA, the answer to why they let him walk around freely and leave the country is simple: It was not the same people. The current prosecutor intervened in highly unusual manner after the previous prosecutor had indicated there clearly was no crime. Whether or not that is because of US involvement or, say, her own personal political point-scoring is another matter, but to present it as if it was the "same people" driving the decision to free him initially and the decision to pursue him afterwards is misleading at best.
    - notahacker 11y ago
      Assange walked freely around the country for 27 days after Marianne Ny - the present prosecutor - announced that the investigation needed to be reopened, and was then allowed to leave the country. Even if she couldn't have intervened in earlier decisions that went the other way, this doesn't seem like the course of action that a prosecutor motivated by the desire to restrict Assange's freedom of movement would take...
      - vidarh 11y ago
        If she was willing to, and had the political backing to e.g. hand him over to the CIA, then it doesn't make sense, yes. If she was merely told it would be beneficial to her career if she helpfully found a way to get him locked up, and others behind the scenes prepared to smooth the road towards getting him to the US, then it's not so strange. She could have rattled a lot of cages and brought him in right away, but then they'd also need to be prepared to handle much more fallout. Note that I'm not saying the US is behind this. I don't think it's the most likely motivation between Ny's strange behaviour in this case. But I also think that the two prosecutors different opinions about the case is the easy explanation for why he was allowed to walk free to the extent that he got the opportunity to leave before they were ready to arrest him.
  - 11y ago
mseebach 11y ago
The biggest cognitive dissonance of all is the fact that the UK is orders of magnitude better friends with the US than Sweden. They're not even a NATO member. For the purposes of avoiding extradition to the US, few places would be better than Sweden.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The UK might be a better "friend" than Sweden, but they have this pesky problem of an independent judiciary. Why does nobody stop and think why has Julian self-incarcerated for longer than he would have faced if he was actually convicted of the crimes he has been accused of?
  - Nemcue 11y ago
    What are you saying? Sweden doesn't have an independent judiciary?
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      I am not saying anything about the Swedish judiciary since I am not in a position to judge, but others far more informed than me (such as the GCHQ) seem to think that it will be easier to get Julian to the USA out of Sweden than the UK.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      The Scandinavian judiciaries in general are far less aggressive about being independent than UK judges are. There's very much an attitude that authorities are more trustworthy that ordinary people in the Scandinavian judiciaries, and a reluctance of the courts to seriously question the police or political decisions. It's a paradox that the Scandinavian penal systems are far more gentle than the British system (after reforms in the last half a century - they used to be atrocious), and sentences tend to be far shorter, but the police and especially court system are in many respects far more authoritarian, and far more elitist (e.g. Norway is experimenting with more "normal" juries now but is still dominated by a system of "lay judges" picked from a jury pool - I really like the overall system however the jury pool is not regular people as most places, but picked from a pool of candidates nominated by the political parties) And unlike the UK, which have repeatedly frustrated US authorities by allowing lengthy court proceedings over extraditions, Sweden has kidnapped and black bagged political asylum seekers to illegally hand them over to the CIA, knowing they'd be handed over to the regime they were seeking asylum from. I'm Norwegian, living in the UK, and I'd be worried about Norwegian courts in a situation like this, but I'd be terrified of Swedish courts if I believed there was a chance of extradition to the US, because in part I'd see it as far less likely I'd get a fair hearing than in the UK, and I'd see it as far more likely that I'd simply get black bagged without the involvement of a court at all. The big question to me is whether or not Assange genuinely fears that, or if that's been an excuse to avoid going to Sweden. The longer he's staid in the embassy, the more genuine his fear seems to me - he'd likely have been out if he went to Sweden and was convicted. Unless he'd get extradited. Of course that doesn't need to mean his fear is rational.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>I'm so fucking sick of seeing people spout this, like it's something that would 100% happen. People like GCHQ employees: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-gchq-messages-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-... What do you know that they don't?
- Nemcue 11y ago
  There was nothing in that article providing any substantial evidence that Sweden would extradite him. The GCHQ employees were speculating. As am I, of course.
  - Sir_Substance 11y ago
    The difference is they work for involved intelligence agencies, and you're a pseudo-anonymous punter on an internet board. Their speculation is relevant, yours is not.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      GCHQ employs thousands of people. Why is the idle speculation of a translator or mathematician relevant? Don't forget that they only handed over the non-classified communication. I suspect that the GCHQ employees who know anything would have either not commented or have had their comments classified.
vidarh 11y ago
It was a big deal when the illegal kidnapping and black bagging of political asylum seekers (your "extradition of suspected terrorists") was first revealed in Sweden, but that didn't stop the CIA from continuing to operate extradition flights through Swedish airports for years.

by Nemcue 11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago

Sure it might be a big deal in Sweden, but would this stop it happening? Unfortunately for Julian he is not a Swedish citizen. Since Julian has yet to be charged with anything and the Swedish authorities apparently just want to talk to him why can't they get on a Ryan Air flight and come and talk to him in London? Provide a rational answer for this question and I will believe that Julian is not looking a one way trip to the USA.

Nemcue 11y ago
Personally I think it's for the same reason Peter Sunde was treated like shit in prison, and all his applications to be moved to a prison with appropriate security (i.e. not be around murderers and rapists) was all thrown in the bin. Purely political. To make a statement. I can of course not prove this; nor have anyone else been able to as far as I know. But, that said, I think it's a non sequitur that the current situation, which at least in my mind can only be understood by either absolute incompetence from the prosecution or being under political pressure, would also lead to extradition. I would absolutely go so far as to say that extraditing him from Sweden would severely impact the relationship between the US and Sweden.
notahacker 11y ago
The Swedish authorities don't "just want to talk to him", they want to do the equivalent of interviewing him under caution with a view to probably making an arrest afterwards. They have now eventually indicated they'll visit the Ecuadorean embassy in lieu of other alternatives, but it's fairly rational for a judicial system to try to avoid setting the precedent that fugitives get to dictate how and when they can be questioned, especially when said fugitive also has an expensive legal team trying to get the case thrown out on every conceivable technicality going. If police ever indicate that you're wanted on suspicion of a crime, try telling them you'll agree to help them with their enquiries so long as they agree that you set up the interview environment and they can't take you into custody afterwards. I guarantee they won't accede to your request, even if you've never leaked a diplomatic cable in your life. Now provide us with a rational answer as to why those same Swedish authorities let him walk around freely and even leave the country after tipping him off about the allegations if their primary motivation was a one-way ticket to the USA?
- vidarh 11y ago
  > Now provide us with a rational answer as to why those same Swedish authorities let him walk around freely and even leave the country after tipping him off about the allegations if their primary motivation was a one-way ticket to the USA? Regardless whether or not the motivation is a one-way ticket to the USA, the answer to why they let him walk around freely and leave the country is simple: It was not the same people. The current prosecutor intervened in highly unusual manner after the previous prosecutor had indicated there clearly was no crime. Whether or not that is because of US involvement or, say, her own personal political point-scoring is another matter, but to present it as if it was the "same people" driving the decision to free him initially and the decision to pursue him afterwards is misleading at best.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Assange walked freely around the country for 27 days after Marianne Ny - the present prosecutor - announced that the investigation needed to be reopened, and was then allowed to leave the country. Even if she couldn't have intervened in earlier decisions that went the other way, this doesn't seem like the course of action that a prosecutor motivated by the desire to restrict Assange's freedom of movement would take...
    - vidarh 11y ago
      If she was willing to, and had the political backing to e.g. hand him over to the CIA, then it doesn't make sense, yes. If she was merely told it would be beneficial to her career if she helpfully found a way to get him locked up, and others behind the scenes prepared to smooth the road towards getting him to the US, then it's not so strange. She could have rattled a lot of cages and brought him in right away, but then they'd also need to be prepared to handle much more fallout. Note that I'm not saying the US is behind this. I don't think it's the most likely motivation between Ny's strange behaviour in this case. But I also think that the two prosecutors different opinions about the case is the easy explanation for why he was allowed to walk free to the extent that he got the opportunity to leave before they were ready to arrest him.
- 11y ago

mseebach 11y ago

The biggest cognitive dissonance of all is the fact that the UK is orders of magnitude better friends with the US than Sweden. They're not even a NATO member. For the purposes of avoiding extradition to the US, few places would be better than Sweden.

danieltillett 11y ago
The UK might be a better "friend" than Sweden, but they have this pesky problem of an independent judiciary. Why does nobody stop and think why has Julian self-incarcerated for longer than he would have faced if he was actually convicted of the crimes he has been accused of?
- Nemcue 11y ago
  What are you saying? Sweden doesn't have an independent judiciary?
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I am not saying anything about the Swedish judiciary since I am not in a position to judge, but others far more informed than me (such as the GCHQ) seem to think that it will be easier to get Julian to the USA out of Sweden than the UK.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    The Scandinavian judiciaries in general are far less aggressive about being independent than UK judges are. There's very much an attitude that authorities are more trustworthy that ordinary people in the Scandinavian judiciaries, and a reluctance of the courts to seriously question the police or political decisions. It's a paradox that the Scandinavian penal systems are far more gentle than the British system (after reforms in the last half a century - they used to be atrocious), and sentences tend to be far shorter, but the police and especially court system are in many respects far more authoritarian, and far more elitist (e.g. Norway is experimenting with more "normal" juries now but is still dominated by a system of "lay judges" picked from a jury pool - I really like the overall system however the jury pool is not regular people as most places, but picked from a pool of candidates nominated by the political parties) And unlike the UK, which have repeatedly frustrated US authorities by allowing lengthy court proceedings over extraditions, Sweden has kidnapped and black bagged political asylum seekers to illegally hand them over to the CIA, knowing they'd be handed over to the regime they were seeking asylum from. I'm Norwegian, living in the UK, and I'd be worried about Norwegian courts in a situation like this, but I'd be terrified of Swedish courts if I believed there was a chance of extradition to the US, because in part I'd see it as far less likely I'd get a fair hearing than in the UK, and I'd see it as far more likely that I'd simply get black bagged without the involvement of a court at all. The big question to me is whether or not Assange genuinely fears that, or if that's been an excuse to avoid going to Sweden. The longer he's staid in the embassy, the more genuine his fear seems to me - he'd likely have been out if he went to Sweden and was convicted. Unless he'd get extradited. Of course that doesn't need to mean his fear is rational.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>I'm so fucking sick of seeing people spout this, like it's something that would 100% happen. People like GCHQ employees: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-gchq-messages-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-... What do you know that they don't?

Nemcue 11y ago
There was nothing in that article providing any substantial evidence that Sweden would extradite him. The GCHQ employees were speculating. As am I, of course.
- Sir_Substance 11y ago
  The difference is they work for involved intelligence agencies, and you're a pseudo-anonymous punter on an internet board. Their speculation is relevant, yours is not.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    GCHQ employs thousands of people. Why is the idle speculation of a translator or mathematician relevant? Don't forget that they only handed over the non-classified communication. I suspect that the GCHQ employees who know anything would have either not commented or have had their comments classified.

vidarh 11y ago

It was a big deal when the illegal kidnapping and black bagging of political asylum seekers (your "extradition of suspected terrorists") was first revealed in Sweden, but that didn't stop the CIA from continuing to operate extradition flights through Swedish airports for years.