Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bohahahaha | Hacker News Reader

"Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden."

If you think of Sweden as ABBA, think again:

"In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US."

"The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation"

http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-a...

View on HN

From that link: "the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington."

Weeeell, maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings.

Also, note that Assange was obviously in Sweden when the rape allegedly happened, and only became conveniently afraid of extraditiom to US after those allegations surfaced.

"maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings."

An extradition is not a legal proceeding, it's a diplomatic one and being a democracy they can very well agree not to engage in a diplomatic exchange beforehand.

Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is sought for charges not covered by the treaty.

Treaties are not laws.

> Treaties are not laws.

Well, I don't know what treaties are to the United Kingdom and Sweden, so I can't speak to the relevant matter, but there is a general sense (insofar as "international law" can be thought of as an actual concrete thing) that treaties are laws. To the United States, for example, treaties are explicitly treated as laws (see http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-...). Most other countries take their treaty obligations very seriously, although the actual mechanics depend on each country's legal/political system.

In Sweden, it looks like these treaties at least are very similar to laws: extradiction would be handled by their judicial system and the decision would be ultimately up to their supreme court.

Source: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art...

>Also, note that Assange was obviously in Sweden when the rape allegedly happened, and only became conveniently afraid of extraditiom to US after those allegations surfaced.

The allegations surfaced in August 2010, four months after Collateral Murder and one month after the Afghan War Diary was released. Also earlier that year the diplomatic cable releases began, and while most hadn't been released yet by August, some had, and they were a recently-known quantity by then.

The timing of the allegations was awfully convenient. Far more "convenient" than Assange's paranoia.

No, the charges are that the crimes were committed in August 2010. See the UK High Court appeal to the extradition[1].

[1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

I'm not sure what your point is. The crimes were allegedly committed that August, the two women went to the authorities to ask about a compulsory STD test in August, and the investigation by the Swedish authorities of suspected rape began in August.

Because you made a claim that the "allegations surfaced in August" and that it was related to things that happened before and was "awfully convenient". But there appears to be no sinster motives to the timings.

It's like asking Obama to ensure the Supreme Court finds in a certain way.

If Sweden was such a terrible place for Assange to be why did apply for a work permit there? Why did he leave and go the UK, after all a nation with far closer ties to the US?

Onward extradition would have been far more complicated via Sweden as the UK would have had to approve it as well. Why not just have the US extradite Assange from the UK to the USA directly? If the CIA was going to concoct a rape claim why not make it a little more than "she was asleep"? If the USA is ruthless in the pursuit of its enemies (except of course Snowdon is a US citizen who, rightly or wrongly, very much did break US law) then why has it been so decidedly non ruthless in the pursuit of Assange?

Because the UK has a fine human rights record (look at Northern Ireland) and always stands up the the USA (look at Iraq)

He's not relying on the UK, but on Ecuador (which doesn't have such a great track record either). Then again, Snowden is relying on Russia.

Enemy of my enemy, and all that.

There is a reason Snowden didn't dump all the data he had into a public file like some meglomaniacle clown.

All this does is just keep information from the general public, and enable the present asymmetry we see at play between the State (might as well throw in corporate contractors and NGO's) and the public.

The "Chinese" certainly don't have too hard of time getting good info (OPM hack, etc), at least going by the way you hear the cries of fire in the crowded theatre of what passes for journalism and news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com