Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

Also, this is very time-consuming and Wikileaks is hardly publishing as much as it used to. So in some way, the "conspiracy" is working out.

Either some combination of the US/UK/Sweden is conspiring to bring Assange to the US. OR. Ecuador is granting Assange's asylum not because in their best judgement they believed it was warranted but for some more nefarious, maybe political, reason like spiting Sweden or the UK.

Or maybe there is no conspiracy and Ecuador is just as stupid as most HN commenters.

I mostly agree with your conclusion, but keep in mind that Wilen and Ardin went to a specific police station out of their way where they knew someone. So if there was a conspiracy that involved them, then that would be the likely means - a co-conspirator at this specific police station. That said, I think it's more likely they were "just" trying to cause inconveniences for Assange based on Ardin's infamous "revenge" blog post (commentary on using vague statements to the police to trigger an investigation as a means of "legal revenge")

> - "Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement." Ok so the further up the chain it goes the initial charge is reduced. If there was a conspiracy at this point wouldn't it work the other way?

You miss the point afterwards where the prosecutor changed.

The senior prosecutor that dismissed most of the allegations is NOT Marianne Ny - the current prosecutor. Marianne Ny took the extremely unusual step of stepping in to take over the case after this other senior prosecutor had all but closed it after finding that no crime had occurred.

So indeed, if there is a conspiracy, the conspirators stepped in at this point, and the very fact a prosecutor stepped in like this is strange. It is not a common occurrence, and certainly not to have a prosecutor so publicly pretty much totally reversing the decision of another.

> "On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden." More than two weeks after the initial report he's still allowed to leave Sweden. Surely if the US government wanted to use this case to trump up charges and have him arrested and deported via a proxy state (as is so often stated) wouldn't they have gotten the ball rolling within those two weeks?

Personally I think it is more likely that this is Marianne Ny and the advocate for the alleged victims deciding they have a chance of trying to push for even stricter interpretations of Swedish rape law. They are both known to be extremely radical in their opinions on the subject, and that fits better with both of them swooping in.

IF the US wants to use this as an opportunity, I believe it would be just that: An opportunity that might open up. That the whole case is a premeditated conspiracy does seem like far too big a stretch.

But if they want to get hold of him, Sweden is a convenient place to have him holed up, as the CIA has repeatedly shown they are willing to risk diplomatic incidents with Sweden (and/or obtain assistance from Swedish authorities).

> if he's in Sweden, there's a less robust extradition relationship than there is between the US and the UK

That's just pure comedy gold. There are several high profile extradition cases between the US and UK that have gone on for years. E.g. McKinnon who is still in the UK 10 years after his initial arrest. Meanwhile, Sweden tends to rubberstamp extraditions, and Swedish police have handed people over to CIA goons without due process. If I was at risk of extradition to the US, I'd much rather be in the UK than Sweden.

> If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage.

I agree. It is probably not a conspiracy, at least not to extradite him. Though of course it is working wonderfully if it is an intentional attempt to ruin his credibility.

But assuming it's not, that doesn't mean it might not be convenient, and it also doesn't mean that there's not reason to believe that there's politics involved in this case, though I'd be more inclined to believe that would be due to Marianne Ny (the prosecutor).

I have very little experience with such matters. In reading various historical events (I'm reading about the founding of Panama now), it seems that a lot of luck is an important factor.

Which should be a giant red flag that it is indeed true and not a random made up rumor. You sound like those who claim the Osama raid was fake because it was messy. When the fact that it was messy should give you a smell of reality in it. Real life is messy. The conspiracy to get Kim Dotcom to the USA was just as messy, and real. The fake weapons of mass destruction on Iraq were absurdly messy from day 1. And it was a real conspiracy. You can tell that those "911 was an inside job" conspiracies are made up because 1000's of human beings would need to be perfectly orchestrated for it to work.

Something of the size of trying to get Assange to the US on fake rape charges, would obviously have its own screw ups. Implying there's nothing to see here because it's not perfectly orchestrated like a Hollywood movie, would be rather naive.

or this short post: http://www.ianwelsh.net/assange-and-wikileaks-the-basics/

or this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu4WCskniEc

inform yourself

He offered to be interviewed from the embassy. Isn't it suspicious that Sweden won't accept that, given that this man hasn't been charged with anything?

I believe Assange has reasons to be afraid and even if an extradition to the US might be unlikely it is his life that is gambled with.

As a Swede I am quite embarrassed for our part in this.

Many people have pointed out in HN that the sex was consensual according to the 2 women, but the issue is about protected or unprotected sex. Rape has a different definition in the Swedish legal code than everywhere else in the world. EDIT: I didn't understand how Swedish law work. See AndrewDuck's reply above. But still, they could interrogate him by videoconference (what Assange offered) or charge him in absence.

About avoiding jail time, why shouldn't he try to avoid it?

I'd be surprised if he got more than 6 months if convincted - there's been people convicted for violent rapes in substantially worse circumstances that have gotten less than two years.

Maybe his ego won't allow him to face a possible conviction or something, or maybe he genuinely is afraid - whether justified or not - of being handed over to the US.

But it just doesn't make sense to go to this level of effort "just" to avoid a Swedish prison sentence given the relatively low level of the alleged crimes.

(EDIT: quiet => quite)

Now Assange believes, that the extradition to Sweden, for whatever reason, is just a false pretence to send him to the U.S. What makes the whole case dubious is the timing the case came up, which was right after WikiLeaks's diplomatic cables release, and also that Sweden immediately issued an InterPol warrant, which is kinda unusual for the alleged charges. So I'd be highly suspicious, too.

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

I personally will be glad to see Assange in Swede to face his accusations but I'm also concerned by the risks of extraditing him to the US.

For instance this week the Ecuador said they asked Britain and Swede for assurances of not extraditing him to the US and they said No. Even if their argument is that their justice is independent and therefore cannot make such promise I find it very convenient for them to use this argument.

So am I deluded in conspiracy theories? I don't think so, the best proof is to see the treatment Pvt. Manning received at Quantico, I therefore think there are big powers behind the scene trying to shut down this new whistleblower movement by making examples. I'm not approving all of their actions but I really think they are not criminals and it should be easy to find bigger fish to fry.

Sweden has not charged Assange with anything. They want him for interrogation. There is nothing impeding the Swedish government from questioning Assange in the UK. The whole extradition is a farce as long as other alternatives remain, which do not affect the investigation in any way.

It should be noted that the flagrant threats the UK has made to Ecuador's diplomatic integrity is something basically unheard of. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War no government has made a similar case for people of both much higher profile and admittedly far more dangerous to the public.

Second, no one has proved or bothered to show to any degree that anyone has had their safety compromised.

Lots of talking about Assange from the embarrassed governments in question, very little action towards showing that he was any danger to anyone.

Sweden won't guarantee that it will not extradite Assange to the U.S. If this is about justice for the rape charges, then why can't they make that guarantee?

The law is not an end, it's a means to achieve Justice. If we fear that justice is more threatened by his extradition, it makes perfect sense to support the decision not to extradite him.

As John Adams wrote, "It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."

* Again, pro-Assange people claim that the law should not apply to him, that he was doing a good thing by exposing the redacted information, but are strangely silent on the fact that he posted the whole thing online and put these lives in potential danger.*

Assange is not an US citizen nor was he in the US. Exactly what law prohibited him from publishing that information?

I find it interesting that people can suspend their views of justice based on the allegations of political meddling.

Or maybe they just disagree with you on what is actually justice, or how it can be better protected.

Also the UK will not extradite murderous dictators if they don't want to. (e.g. Augusto Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August... ).

It's very fishy, but that doesn't mean Assange has immunity.

Is it journalism? I never saw a story when I read the leaks; it seems that their purpose has been to disclose private (stolen) conversations that are obviously state secrets.

Update: I'm backing away from this; my only intention was to ask whether it would make anybody a "journalist" to simply release the verbatim private conversations of others. I have no intention of debating the right or wrong of Wikileaks or what they've done.

edit to remove thread hijack cause

The fact that a technology story is also political, also has global ramifications, matters in other realms and daily life, makes it more important as a technology story.