Hacker News Reader

Comment by legulere | Hacker News Reader

How has any of this to do with the US? If the US wanted Assange extradited, they would have simply asked the UK, which is a closer ally to the US than Sweden.

Why would Sweden help the US when the UK wouldn't?

Edit: To clarify, Assange has been for years in the UK before he went into the embassy.

View on HN

They have asked the UK. But by being in the Embassy, Assange is on sovereign soil, and it would be (politically) akin to the UK invading Ecuador.

Now, grain-of-salt all that. I've read several things that a) say it's not exactly sovereign, but the political fallout of the U.K. entering the embassy could collapse the entire house of cards that is the Embassy system worldwide, b) states have been kidnapping and assassinating people on foreign soil for ages (see: United States, Russia, Israel, etc).

I'm sure being stuck in the Embassy is seen, at least a little, as being contained. But if he ever stepped foot outside, that'd be the end of that.

But they could have extradited him before he ever went into the embassy. They didn't. Only Sweden is currently attempting to extradite him.

"attempting"?

Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.

> Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.

Not weeks, years. He left Sweden in 27 September 2010, and it wasn't until 14 June 2012 that he had exhausted his rights of appeal in the UK (short of any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). He was on bail for pretty much the entire period (he spend nine days in police custody prior to being granted bail, but I don't believe he was ever in custody after that).

I thought the reason why he couldn't be extradited directly from UK was because he was a high-profile UK citizen, which meant that it would be far simpler if they could get him to Sweden first?

(Disclaimer: I don't know nothing, I just think I heard.)

There's a lot of misconceptions and straight out lies flying around regarding this case, you shouldn't believe the conspiracy theorists. He's not charged for having sex without a condom either.

If he were to be extradited to Sweden from the UK, and if the US wants him extradited from Sweden, the UK would have to give their permission to do so. Sweden would simply be an extra complication and wouldn't help any extradition claim the US might have.

http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...

So if the US wanted him, they could file the appropriate charges and just ask the UK to extradite him here instead of Sweden? Then what? He leaves the embassy and how does the UK decide where to send him first?

I think it's reasonable to assume he wouldn't leave the embassy, given his entire stated reason to be there is to avoid extradition to the US.

Which place he gets sent comes down to the decision of someone, likely the Home Secretary, but my memory of this is fuzzy and it could be down to the judiciary.

Assange isn't a UK citizen: he is Australian.

The political fallout of the UK collapsing the embassy system would be collosal, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is one of the most widely adopted treaties.

There would be a lot of other countries very pissed at us for smashing it to bits in such a public way.

So in some sense he's safer in the embassy than he would be living in Ecuador proper. Because the US is willing to illegally kidnap people but won't dare to mess up the embassy system.

They don't seem to do much of that kind of kidnapping to put people on public trial, do they? The only case I know of was Eichmann's extraction to Israel. I assumed (but I'm not sure) that those kinds of operations were kept secret.

All that to say, I doubt they'd secretly kidnap Assange to put him on trial in the US for... publishing documents given to him by other leakers? It's not exactly a clear cut case, I don't think. It'd be more politically agreeable to kidnap some terrorist for that kind of thing.

No, we don't do so much kidnapping (unless it leads to trial-less imprisonment at a CIA black site) as assassinations (the most public being Osama Bin Laden, of course).

If he went missing in Ecuador it could be spun as "local gangs" or something. If he were to go missing or end up dead in the embassy there would be a lot of fallout.

First, no: embassies are not "sovereign soil" of the countries they represent. The Ecuadorian embassy in the UK is UK soil.

Second: do you have evidence that the US sought Assange's extradition prior to him taking up residence in the embassy? What would he have been extradited for? He's not a US citizen and has no duty of care for confidential information from the US that was never vouchsafed with him to begin with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com