Hacker News Reader

Comment by Numberwang | Hacker News Reader

No it does not prove any such thing.

It was blindingly obvious that it was. Sweden's reputation took a huge hit because of this incident, and rightly so. They should have resolved the matter within 6 months. But it became such a hot potato that they were willing to sacrifice a man's live, and demonstrated to the world that principles and truth is inconsequential when the bully is sitting on your chest. The stench of this shit will cling to Sweden for generations.

Whether Swedens's reputation took a hit is a matter of opinion.

If he was innocent why didn't he go back to Sweden and face the charges?

All the stuff about the risk of US extraditing him in nonsense, they'd find it easier to do from the UK.

All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault.

"All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault."

All they did was use sexual assault charges in order to force him into political asylum.

He was quite happy to use the judicial system until it ruled against his case…

At the time, Sweden was a better candidate for extradition because it has less limitations on extradition than UK in Assange's case (because he is a Commonwealth citizen).

As for the 'if he was innocent', I see this argument quite often, and I have only this to say: his self-imposed punishment of being locked up in a closet for 5 years is worse than any possible punishment he would have received for the crime he was accused of. So tell me, if he was only looking to avoid punishment for the crime he commited, why did he impose an even worse punishment on himself?

Because he's a narcissist and martyrdom suits his ego

(and perhaps he figured it would come to exile in an embassy, or for so long)

So, for negative conclusions about Assange we need to apply Occam's razor (if he's innocent why didn't he turn himself in), but for positive conclusions about him we need to avoid that and invent more and more complex, evasive answers?

Thank you for your help in getting president Donald Trump elected.

Sincerely,

A Russian Bot

Gitmo was and is still full of innocent people. Just sayin.

Of course it does. Not wanting to interview him, not having any valid evidence, dubious victims, etc.

It really doesn't. They wanted to question him, he fled and locked himself up in an embassy. You don't know what evidence they have but rape cases such as this rarely have any physical evidence but they should still be investigated.

And Assange kept offering to let them interview him in the UK. They refused for four years before finally agreeing last year. Why could they not have interviewed him for those four years?

Should the Swedish authorities chase after everyone they want to interview and do it where it pleases that person? If someone is wanted for rape and travels to Thailand, should Swedish prosecutor and police fly to Thailand to question them? What if the interview leads to them wanting to arrest that person, should they arrest them while in another country?

That depends. Should the Swedish authority care more about convenience than about seeking justice?

If they care about justice, and they are unable to get the person to Sweden, then it would seem the prudent recourse is to interview that person wherever they are.

You'll note that they finally did end up interviewing Assange in London, so they have conceded that it is possible and acceptable to do so. So the question is not whether or not Swedish authorities can or should do so - they've answered that question.

The question is what was served by waiting four years to do so. Certainly not justice.

So Assange should get special treatment? On what grounds? He was accused of rape, what if they decided after the interview to arrest him, should they ask nicely that he come along with them?

> So Assange should get special treatment

He is not the only person Swedish prosecutors or police will have interviewed in another country. During the extradition case, Swedish police sent investigators to Poland to interview two suspected murderers.

> On what grounds?

On the grounds that the alternative was to not be able interview him. On the grounds that it serves justice to attempt to investigate the case as far as possible even if you're not on your home turf where you have the advantage of being able to use force.

> He was accused of rape, what if they decided after the interview to arrest him, should they ask nicely that he come along with them?

What exactly was their alternative? What did waiting achieve?

>During the extradition case, Swedish police sent investigators to Poland to interview two suspected murderers.

I'd like to read more about that, do you have a link?

Why even have European arrest orders when prosecutors and police are expected to travel to wherever the suspect are? It makes no sense at all, Assange was wanted for questioning, the British courts asked the British police to extradite him to Sweden, but he fled to Ecuador. Where's the justice for the alleged victims in that? Why wasn't Assange afraid of being extradited from Britain to the US while the extradition case was ongoing? Because it's a made up excuse to avoid being prosecuted for rape.

They had five years to question him before they finally did. The Swedish prosecutor's bluff was called by the prosecutor refusing to question him without extraditing him first.

Edit: not normally one to complain about downvotes on HN but Assange inviting Nyberg to the embassy repeatedly over the last 5 years is factually provable and not in dispute by anyone pro or anti Wikileaks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com