Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by youngtaff 5049 days ago
About time we started applying the pressure...

Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?

As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'

The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?

Ship Assange out, if not Sweden then Australia, he's taking the piss (to use an UK colloquialism) and lots of people are falling for his conspiracy theory rubbish.

6 comments

If he IS guilty, and knows that this isn't politically motivated, then why doesn't he go back to Sweden?

The worst possible sentence he is likely to get under Swedish law is so short that he'd likely have been out by now, after serving in a low security prison of a standard better than many British hotel rooms.

If he ISN'T guilty, then he has every reason to be concerned over the bizarre situations surrounding this case, such as why one prosecutor dismissed the case as obviously nothing criminal, only for another prosecutor with a known history for being aggressive about these types of cases to jump in an pick it up in a pretty unheard of move, and with the long list of other irregularities in the case, combined with Marianne Ny (the prosecutor)'s long standing refusal to consider interviewing him in London - a move that is pretty shocking given how they continue to expend resources in this case and insist it is so serious.

It is quite possible that the US has nothing to do with it, but something is fishy in the way the Swedish prosecution is handling this. Maybe it's not a US desire to extradite him, but "just" a prosecutor out to make her name with a politically motivated case where the target is Swedish rape law, not Assange - if it is he'd surely be a perfect target. But if I was him and I was innocent, I'd resist extradition too.

Of course, it is possible he's guilty but at the same time paranoid about the US - just pointing out that it is not a given that staying away from Sweden in these circumstances imply guilt. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons for someone to be more wary about going back if not guilty in this case.

> As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'

Law enforcement frequently opt to interview suspects in situations less than ideal when the choice is to not be able to interview them at all, or to have the interviews delayed.

Consider that if there is a case to answer - something that is not clear, as no charges have been filed (Assange is wanted for arrest for questioning on suspicion, not charged; the distinction keeps confusing British media, who is not used to the Scandinavian justice systems) -, then every day that goes makes any testimony that is collected less likely to be considered reliable by the court, and it is also clearly not in the interest of the alleged victims either to have the situation drag on without knowing whether or not the case will move forward.

This is also, despite the protestations of the Swedish prosecutor, commonly the case in Sweden. As many has pointed out, Sweden recently sent people to Poland to interview two people arrested on suspicion of a brutal double homicide, prior to an extradition hearing in Poland under an EAW.

Yet somehow they keep claiming they couldn't possibly do this in the Assange case, even going so far as to claim that Swedish law and court procedures won't allow it. This is another one of those things that makes the Assange case stink a long way, whether the US is involved in any way or not.

> The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?

How easy is it? McKinnon has been able to avoid extradition for 10 years now, despite a pretty clear cut case of hacking that is clearly illegal in both countries. As it turns out, while UK judges will honour UK obligations, they are also highly scrupulous about ensuring all arguments are heard, and the UK government seems unwilling to try an end-run around the legal process.

Meanwhile, Sweden has been censured by the UN for participating in rendition of at least two people in blatant violation of not only internatonal obligatons, but also of Swedish law.

Yeh, but McKinnon may well be mentally ill. Look at the Natwest Bankers, the guys with the battery for other cases where it happened fairly quickly
>> if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?

If he's not guilty, AND this isn't politically motivated, why not just go back? If this is actually politically motivated, then your question is fundamentally no different from "if you're not a terrorist, why don't you just submit to wiretaps / TSA body scans / etc..."

If I was him and I was innocent, I would probably not expect to face fair questions if I went back. The being said, I know almost nothing about the Swedish government so maybe I am being too much of a conspiracy theorist.

Sweden is part of the EU and any extradition from Sweden to the US would have to permissible under EU Human Rights laws, which specifically deny extradition if the extradited person could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of the accusations they're being extradited for.

Given that the US has filled no charges against him, made no extradition requests to Sweden or the UK, and that there seems to be a fair degree of legal consensus that the European Court of Human Rights would deny extradition for the sort of charges that the US could plausibly file against him it seems to me that to believe that Assange has credible reasons to try and avoid obeying the request that he attend questioning in Sweden for what would be considered fairly serious accusations in most western countries is to buy into a conspiracy theory.

Sweden has participated in illegal rendition with the US (and admitted as much). It is naive to assume that if they were prepared to violate their own laws in order to bend over for US interests, that they will somehow worry all that much about following extradition procedures for Assange.

It also means the lack of public charges (the repeated claims is that there might be a secret grand jury indictment), nor a lack of a public extradition request is pretty much irrelevant.

It's not like Sweden or the US announced in advance they planned to illegally take a couple of Egyptians from Sweden and hand them over to Egyptian authorities for torture. But they did.

Incidentally, this is a good reason for Assange to prefer to be in the UK vs. Sweden - the UK seems less inclined to violate their own laws in this manner.

I'm not sure I believe this is part of a plot to get him to the US either, but I also think that given the weakness of the actual accusations from the female "plaintiffs" (perhaps not the best word) it seems unusual how bold some parties are being in trying to apprehend Assange. Calling him the "scum of earth" also doesn't help anybody seem impartial.
Given the way the US government has behaved over the past ten years, the fear is not irrational. Also, we're talking about the possibility of extradition to the US from Sweden, not from the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...

Yes but if the US want him they can get a US judge to decide he has a case to answer and then seek his extradition from the UK, they don't need to go through Sweden.
Maybe the clue is in the BBC story?

"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said."

Perhaps Sweden has fewer safeguards built into its extradition laws?

What happens if the US has already secretly convicted and sentenced Assange in his absence? Maybe even the death sentence? It might be the case that the UK's extradition laws with "extensive human rights safeguards" would prevent extradition to the US, but Sweden's laws wouldn't. Extradition to Sweden is a way for the UK to step around their own human rights laws.

For one reason the definition of rape in Sweden is rather interesting. There is no concept of consent rather the accusation is apparently based on the amount of violence. All a woman has to do is resist for there to be a rape case and prove so. The result is that generally it seems to be all the court needs to do is believe the woman. Hence you could have the case of there being what happens a lot in other countries, a boozy night out, consensual sex, followed by remorse the next day. However you can then charge the man with rape. It's this fuzzy line that usually throws out rape cases (In Australia at least, and this is not necessarily a good thing) where alcohol was shown to be involved.

I am not a lawyer, and not that familiar with Swedish law, but I would be Assange or his lawyer is, and is also aware that if the women are really working on behalf of some other agency there is a high likely hood of Swedish law working against him. If that's the case he is unlikely to get a fair hearing.

NB if someone more familiar with Swedish law could speak up about this that would be excellent. I would love some corrections about the above with supported documentation.

BTW as an Aussie I am horrified that our PM Julia Gillard condemned him without any proof, and even more furious over their lack of involvement to help an Australian national. Convicted Drug Traffickers seem to get more help from the Australian government then people only accused of a crime.

Yes, I don't know if he's guilty of rape or not (there seems to be a whiff of women scorned about it) but the Swedish justice system has as good a reputation as any.
Not when it comes to politics or copyright.

Two known events:

CIA extraordinary rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

The Pirate Bay

Pirate Bay Judge Exposed as Member of Pro-Copyright Groups http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/

Aftermath of The Pirate Bay Trial: Peter Sunde’s Plea http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-...

Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro-co...

If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US?

Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.

Why not guarantee they won't extradite him to the US?

Well first of all, either an arrest warrant is valid or it is not. If valid, why do they need to bribe someone to obey the law? Sure, I sometimes give my kids snacks to bribe them into doing something they don't want to do, but I'm not the law.

Second, they cannot promise what their reaction would be. Suppose something impossibly-unlikely like the US has a video-tape of Assange killing someone in the US. The Swedes would then look pretty stupid at having given Assange a no-extradite promise. Now of course Assange isn't a murderer; the point is that the Swedes can't give blanket promises about extradition without actually seeing the facts of the extradition request first.

That's a nice abstract argument. The facts are otherwise.

If the US shows up with a video of Assange killing someone it will have been made on a Hollywood renderfarm.

We know that because we know that the US is bent on hunting Assange down for political reasons and have set up a secret Grand Jury for this purpose.

When the law says one thing and justice says another, the customary thing to do is to push the law towards justice, not the victim of injustice towards the law.

> "If the US shows up with a video of Assange killing someone it will have been made on a Hollywood renderfarm."

I remember when that idea was just the plot of a mediocre Michael Crighton book. That it doesn't strike me as absurd anymore is either amazing or frightening. How would you even begin to fight that kind of evidence in front of a jury?