Hacker News Reader

The last time the CIA picked up targets in Sweden it was a quick job with an unmarked private jet headed for Egypt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05...

Highly illegal, and had our foreign minister not been murdered, she would have been held accountable as there was a huge outrage over the whole debacle. To me this says two things: 1) "the law" didn't mean much last time, so Assange is right to be careful 2) his public profile together with the last incident in fresh memory means he is probably at very little risk to be treated illegally in Sweden, especially as elections are coming up in September.

My guess: he'll go to Sweden, he'll be questioned by police, then let go. Seeing as he spent a couple of years hiding to avoid this, he will probably find this surprising, and no one else will.

Off the top of my head, I would guess that out of UK, Sweden and Ecuador, the latter presents by far the most suitable venue for extraordinary rendition.

"...he can ONLY be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK"

Only during the investigation and any subsequent criminal proceeding in Sweden. After these are completed, or abandoned, he could be extradited from Sweden to the US. From the blog post linked in section two of the New Statesman article:

"After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government. But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’)." [1]

[1] http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seek...

>> "That's entirely impossible under EU law"

When has the law ever got in the way? Governments can no longer be trusted. Only within the last week it was revealed the the UK tried to have evidence that they allowed the US to torture people on a UK owned island redacted from reports.

I've always been for big government/welfare state etc. but recently I've been becoming more and more libertarian. Politicians are untrustworthy and arguably evil people. They don't give one shit about us unless they are running for election. In that case they will lie and promise and then break those promises when we elect them. I've come to the conclusion that although I want a government that helps it's citizens and I'm fine with paying high taxes for that it's no longer worth the risk to our freedom.

But then, why was he not extradited from the UK when they had him in custody? That totally makes no sense: Sweden would have no interest at all in such a scheme - they'd go against UK and the EU and their own population while the UK would loose the same in both scenarios. That leaves extrajudicial extradition, but if the US really wanted that, they'd just let Assange fly to Ecuador, nap him there and avoid illegal actions on EU soil.

Lots of things are impossible under EU law, yet Poland and other EU countries had CIA black sites on their territory, where kidnapped suspects were tortured.

> That's entirely impossible under EU law.

No it isn't. You have admitted yourself that it would be possible if the UK gave consent (which they would).

> The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try.

This is by no means obvious. There is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks. These typically take a long time, and it was likely not complete when the Swedish extradition request was made. It seems plausible that the US will wait until after the Swedish investigation has played out before serving their own warrant.

edit: The New Statesman article you referenced has a large inaccuracy. Details: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-sta...

That inaccuracy and your statement does nothing to prove that extradition to Sweden will lead to extradition to the US and somehow makes it easier.

The need for the UK's agreement to an extradition from Sweden to the USA only applies while the investigation in Sweden is active. After it is over, Assange can be extradited without the UK's approval. See [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8192145

Yes, but what specifically makes it more favourable for the US to extradite from Sweden than the UK?

I didn't say that it did. Simply pointing out that a scenario exists for his extradition from Sweden without the additional complication of UK government involvement.

I'm sure his case being appealed to the European Court of Justice would do him a lot of good if he was in a US jail at the time.