This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of.
He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system of arrest warrants across Europe. Let's get on with it.
"Technical grounds", in this case, means "the extradition request was never written by anyone the UK considers to be a valid authority". In denying his appeal, the Supreme Court based its ruling on treaties that neither party had argued over or been informed would be germane. Thus, there'll likely be another appeal before anything happens.
The law is finicky for a reason: it spells out exactly what rights the respective parties have. Were it not so explicit, and were the courts not so strict in enforcing it, the validity of the entire system would be called into question and judicial impartiality / defendants' rights would fly out the window.
People throw a tizzy when a murderer gets let off because they weren't read their rights, but if that didn't happen no one would have their rights read. It's just how the system keeps police and prosecutors in line. It's necessary.
It is worth pointing out that there is a warrant out for his arrest to question him on suspicion.
He has not been charged with an offense.
This distinction is mostly left out in the news coverage.
And the arrest warrant was as far as I know was made at the behest of the police and prosecutor without a formal complaint from either of the women. At least the accounts I've seen indicate that the women came to the police jointly to ask for advice on whether or not they could demand and AIDS test of him, and described the situation in such terms that the police decided to get him in for questioning based on their own suspicions despite the fact that another prosecutor had closed the case because she believed there was no indication a crime had been committed.
Based on that he faces a substantial risk of jail without bail possibly for months on end because they have preferred to spend a year and a half on a lengthy legal process instead of taking up past offers of interviewing him about the case in London.
Conspiracy or not, there seems to be more big egos and agendas involved than Assanges, and in those circumstances anyone should be wary about going back voluntarily.
Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he's a horrible person. But guilty or not, if the situation is the way I've seen it described, I'd fight tooth and nail to stay out of Sweden too.
> It's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there.
But he already did. He stayed, he was questioned, and then he asked if he could leave Sweden, they said yes, and he left. Then another prosecutor unrelated to the original case wants him back for further questioning.
To be honest, I don't think it's an unpopular opinion and it was my opinion until I looked into things further. However, once you know all the facts, it seems very suspicious or, at least, unnecessary.
Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans.
The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK.
As there is no rule of law in America (secret trials, secret laws, solitary confinement without trial, etc etc etc), this is the worst possible outcome.
If Assange's appeal succeeds, doesn't it just mean they can still try to convince a Swedish judge to make a new extradition request? Is that too much to ask for?
I agree with you. It's very hard to defend Assange's actions without appealing to paranoia. If he didn't commit the crimes, he ought to behave as though he has nothing to be afraid of. His flight from law is becoming a bigger story than the actual accusations--it's hard to look innocent while fleeing the authorities. If he really did nothing wrong, the appropriate place to prove it is in court, not on HN.
> But Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said she could challenge the Supreme Court's decision because it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties - such as those concerning extradition - should be implemented, and this had not been discussed during the hearing.
Watch and see. Now his lawyer will put into question the very meaning of implementing an international treaty. All in order to prevent a possible rapist, who just happens to be just a little less famous than Polanski, from being charged. Only the Chewbacca defense could make this sillier.
My sense is that while people across the world are polarised in their opinions of Assange himself, there's still a lot of disquiet about the question of his (potential/likely?) deportation to the U.S. only to face a Grand Jury, as opposed to due process, the rule of law, and a properly constituted court.
As a non-American, it makes me wonder whether this isn't the time for a serious conversation about amending our extradition laws and treaties to exclude any jurisdictions that don't meet the basic standards of justice expected of a modern democracy.
If you mean social position/power as well as being state sanctioned and run then yes, the mighty BBC is more authoritative but if you are looking for the accurate up to date unbiased details then I would choose the Guardian any day.
I have no opinion on what is happening to Assange. I don't know enough facts. I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.
I find it somewhat ridiculous the number of appeals you can have. Assange lost on the original verdict, then the appeal. He can then appeal again. I assume if that fails he can appeal to some EU court?
Its like the deportation of Abu Qatada. One has so many appeals at their disposal I am surprised anyone can get deported nowadays.
> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.
Because there is absolutely no recent history of the US conspiring with friendly governments to circumvent the rule of law and illegally transporting, imprisoning and even torturing people that were considered a threat to the US, right?
And surely there is also absolutely no documented recent history of the US pressuring European authorities, especially the Swedish, to prosecuted people for crimes against US interests... cough piracy cough.
You're right about one thing, if the US were behind it, it would be no "big conspiracy". It would be business as usual.
> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.
You find it unlikely because you are clearly ignorant of the facts.
You really need to widen your reading with an opinion like that. I suggest books like "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll or "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker.
Note I'm not saying there IS an American conspiracy. I'm saying the fact that you find it UNLIKELY that there is a conspiracy is naive and ignorant of how American power actually works (as opposed to how it advertises it works).
I've posted about this before in previous HN stories, but it's actually not that dodgy: because EU borders are open (you can move between EU countries freely) it's important to have a process for arrest warrants that are valid throughout the EU.
That's what's happened here: Sweden wants to question Assange, with a view to potentially bringing charges. They have issued an arrest warrant to arrest him - his guilt is irrelevant.
As many people have mentioned, the UK actually has a strong record of extraditing people to the US: if anything, Sweden is less co-operative (for example, Roman Polanski will never set foot in the UK for fear of being arrested and extradited, but he was happy to enter Sweden).
[+] [-] jgrahamc|13 years ago|reply
He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system of arrest warrants across Europe. Let's get on with it.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|13 years ago|reply
The law is finicky for a reason: it spells out exactly what rights the respective parties have. Were it not so explicit, and were the courts not so strict in enforcing it, the validity of the entire system would be called into question and judicial impartiality / defendants' rights would fly out the window.
People throw a tizzy when a murderer gets let off because they weren't read their rights, but if that didn't happen no one would have their rights read. It's just how the system keeps police and prosecutors in line. It's necessary.
[+] [-] vidarh|13 years ago|reply
He has not been charged with an offense.
This distinction is mostly left out in the news coverage.
And the arrest warrant was as far as I know was made at the behest of the police and prosecutor without a formal complaint from either of the women. At least the accounts I've seen indicate that the women came to the police jointly to ask for advice on whether or not they could demand and AIDS test of him, and described the situation in such terms that the police decided to get him in for questioning based on their own suspicions despite the fact that another prosecutor had closed the case because she believed there was no indication a crime had been committed.
Based on that he faces a substantial risk of jail without bail possibly for months on end because they have preferred to spend a year and a half on a lengthy legal process instead of taking up past offers of interviewing him about the case in London.
Conspiracy or not, there seems to be more big egos and agendas involved than Assanges, and in those circumstances anyone should be wary about going back voluntarily.
Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he's a horrible person. But guilty or not, if the situation is the way I've seen it described, I'd fight tooth and nail to stay out of Sweden too.
[+] [-] wvenable|13 years ago|reply
But he already did. He stayed, he was questioned, and then he asked if he could leave Sweden, they said yes, and he left. Then another prosecutor unrelated to the original case wants him back for further questioning.
To be honest, I don't think it's an unpopular opinion and it was my opinion until I looked into things further. However, once you know all the facts, it seems very suspicious or, at least, unnecessary.
[+] [-] sneak|13 years ago|reply
The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/...
As there is no rule of law in America (secret trials, secret laws, solitary confinement without trial, etc etc etc), this is the worst possible outcome.
[+] [-] dlitz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morsch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fusiongyro|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lolcraft|13 years ago|reply
> But Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said she could challenge the Supreme Court's decision because it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties - such as those concerning extradition - should be implemented, and this had not been discussed during the hearing.
Watch and see. Now his lawyer will put into question the very meaning of implementing an international treaty. All in order to prevent a possible rapist, who just happens to be just a little less famous than Polanski, from being charged. Only the Chewbacca defense could make this sillier.
[+] [-] token78|13 years ago|reply
As a non-American, it makes me wonder whether this isn't the time for a serious conversation about amending our extradition laws and treaties to exclude any jurisdictions that don't meet the basic standards of justice expected of a modern democracy.
[+] [-] morsch|13 years ago|reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assa...
[+] [-] metatronscube|13 years ago|reply
Thanks for the link.
[+] [-] bobsy|13 years ago|reply
I find it somewhat ridiculous the number of appeals you can have. Assange lost on the original verdict, then the appeal. He can then appeal again. I assume if that fails he can appeal to some EU court?
Its like the deportation of Abu Qatada. One has so many appeals at their disposal I am surprised anyone can get deported nowadays.
[+] [-] rickmb|13 years ago|reply
Because there is absolutely no recent history of the US conspiring with friendly governments to circumvent the rule of law and illegally transporting, imprisoning and even torturing people that were considered a threat to the US, right?
And surely there is also absolutely no documented recent history of the US pressuring European authorities, especially the Swedish, to prosecuted people for crimes against US interests... cough piracy cough.
You're right about one thing, if the US were behind it, it would be no "big conspiracy". It would be business as usual.
[+] [-] gouranga|13 years ago|reply
It doesn't always happen.
Look at all the cases of extraordinary rendition over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
[+] [-] retrogradeorbit|13 years ago|reply
You find it unlikely because you are clearly ignorant of the facts.
You really need to widen your reading with an opinion like that. I suggest books like "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll or "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker.
Note I'm not saying there IS an American conspiracy. I'm saying the fact that you find it UNLIKELY that there is a conspiracy is naive and ignorant of how American power actually works (as opposed to how it advertises it works).
[+] [-] chris123|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] objclxt|13 years ago|reply
That's what's happened here: Sweden wants to question Assange, with a view to potentially bringing charges. They have issued an arrest warrant to arrest him - his guilt is irrelevant.
As many people have mentioned, the UK actually has a strong record of extraditing people to the US: if anything, Sweden is less co-operative (for example, Roman Polanski will never set foot in the UK for fear of being arrested and extradited, but he was happy to enter Sweden).
[+] [-] aaronsw|13 years ago|reply
http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf