Seems to me Assange isn't so much afraid of being extradited to US (there is a truckload of ways to fight that if it ever comes to that) but of actually being convicted in Sweden.
The Piratebay trials have shown how corrupted the Swedish justice system can be, with both police, prosecution and judges having proven private connections with the copyright industry (which in itself is not only organized and financed by the US, but also actively backed up by the US government).
Being extradited to the US would make him a martyr, but being convicted for rape in Sweden would damage his reputation beyond repair. I doubt if the US even wants to deal with the whole circus of getting Assange extradited if there's an easier way to take him out of play.
It depresses me that people are trying to make comparisons between a copyright infringement case and a rape accusation. Copyright infringement and rape are rather different. This should be obvious. I really don't know where to begin there - I know this community is male dominated, but rape is a incredibly serious crime. Piracy may well be a 'victimless crime'. Rape is not.
Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts.
Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt. Assange knows this. His lawyers know this. If Assange thought he wouldn't get a fair trial he would have argued this point in the English courts. Many people have avoided extradition from the UK to various unpleasant places on the basis they wouldn't get a fair trial.
His legal argument was flimsy at best. Assange tried to argue Sweden lacked the authority to issue the arrest warrant in the first place, an argument that was basically laughed out of court. However, the English courts have had a lot of patience for Assange, and have offered him several avenues of appeal on the basis it's an important and high profile case. The Supreme Court even allowed an additional submission after their judgement (this is very unusual).
This is a criminal case involving two parties. Both parties have guaranteed rights. Think about the women involved for a second. They have accused Assange of rape. Perhaps they are lying: Assange is after all innocent until proven guilty. But is it out of the question they are telling the truth? No, it's not.
And that is why Assange should really willingly return to Sweden to face his accusers. He isn't willing, and his arguments about fearing the US really aren't that convincing given the UK is more than happy to extradite people to the states.
That might be a concern, but I doubt it. He was very forthcoming while he was in Sweden. He showed up for questioning and was given permission to leave. He's asked to be questioned remotely, and Sweden refuses to charge him or question him. If you've read anything about the incidents, it's a very weak case for something that shouldn't be a crime to begin with.
None of us know what the US is doing, if anything. We do know, by their own admission, that they began an aggressive investigation into whether or not Assange could be charged. We also know that everyone known associated with Wikileaks had their twitter and other social accounts subpoenaed. Manning's lawyer also indicated that the DoJ discussed the possibility of a plea bargain. As recently as a few weeks ago, US officials said they are waiting to see how the UK case plays out before charging him.
It is more probable than not that after such statements and aggressive investigations, that the US will charge him. It is more probable than not that the reason they have not yet done so, is because it's better for them to let this case finish, as they said.
Assange is not under the impression that he is immune to these inevitable charges and extradition in any of the countries involved. He has resigned to the fact that he is likely to face the US DoJ, and an extradition request, one way or another.
Assange believes that he has a tactical advantage in this case if this does not happen in Sweden. I don't know all of the reasons for this, but this is not surprising, and he has obviously been advised to exhaust this route by his legal counsel. It's safe to assume that this has been their decision, not his.
This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just how court cases work. Even in the US, it is common to fight for the most favorable jurisdiction. The presence of an extradition treaty in both countries does not mean that an extradition request is equally difficult to fight in both countries. This could change depending on laws in a specific country, or even be influenced by public perception or even corruption.
When is the last time someone was held for a year and a half in an international dispute to be questioned about a broken or missing condom incident? That makes the least sense.
Edit: It's worth noting that according to the hacked stratfor emails, the US already has a sealed indictment for him:
It wouldn't have anything to do with him having admitted all matters of fact, would it? He's basically arguing, "yeah, I broke the law, but it's a stupid law." That always works out great.
Why Ecuador, in particular? I just learned that they've adopted the US dollar as their currency, following devaluation of their old currency in 1999.
Edit: I checked, and Ecuador does have extradition treaties with both the UK and the US. I don't know about Sweden though.
Edit2: according to http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks... Ecuador has a treaty with the EU as well. But moving to Ecuador puts the decision in Ecuadorian hands instead of UK, so maybe he thinks they will stand up for him better.
Maybe Assange thought it was worth trying a known "friendly" country first. Also the Ecuador government claimed it had nothing to lose from wikileaks' leaks, so if they really didn't maybe they'll be less likely to try to screw him.
"Populist" is generally either neutral or positive in American politics. But most often I hear it used to describe a political strategy, going directly for the masses instead of the upper echelons of power.
I live in the U.S., and I've never heard "populist" used pejoratively. Where are you from and what does it connote when used pejoratively in your country?
How dire is Assange's situation? Is it really possible that the US will try to imprison or even execute him?
Edit: I know were not talking directly about the US here, but the reason I made the jump is that I see Sweden as a lot more likely to allow the US to bully it into giving up Assange
US imprisonment has very little to do with this. The man faces rape and sexual assault charges, one of the most serious offenses a person can commit.
Though I back his politics 100% and consider him a hero to be remembered, he has every responsibility to face his accusers in a fair trial. Shame on Sweden if they hand him over to the Americans after his trial has concluded.
I thought the UK decided to extradite him to Sweden for rape charges?
While Wikileaks is certainly a motivating factor, and I'm sure it's why this story gets as much press as it does, I don't think it's where his legal problems stem from. As far as I know, the US has nothing to do with it.
He is accused of sexual misconduct, some of which does carry possible jail times similar to, say, shoplifting. His continued refusal to stand trial is unlikely to play well to the court, but had he simply faced trial he would probably be out already even if he had been convicted.
The US has a long history of doing things like going to full fledged war over dropping a few bombs or planes on our soil. If I had run Wikileaks, I wouldn't want to be extradited to the US either. However, the statement on the page references the UK and Sweden, not the US. So that may not really be a factor.
If he were to ever enter US custody, he's not likely to come away from that for a long time. The question is how interested is the US in getting him into custody and how easy is it for them. I imagine it's not terribly difficult but the US also hasn't done much so far.
But if I were him, I'm not sure I'd be willing to take any chances. The consequences are just too great.
Female Catholic President. Bit of a risk that she doesn't like people who have (admitted in court in the UK) some pretty dubious sexual acts. Acts which the UK court have said would constitute offences in the UK.
Julian's situation seems very weird to me, given the stories about how secretive he was, how he kept in hiding, etc. At the same time, he was very clearly and publicly the face of wikileaks.
Why did he not simply remain anonymous? All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right?
Being public seems to have been the tactical error. (or was he trying to be anonymous, but got outed at some point and then given that he couldn't be anonymous anymore he decided to embrace it?)
My recollection was that Assange chose to be a figurehead to allow the other wikileaks members to remain anonymous. If that's true then it's been a superbly successful strategy.
At one point people fearing for their life have to make the decision if they want to become protected either by anonymity or by celebrity. While his high profile makes him an easy media target, it reduces the probability of unfortunate "accidents". Plus his public image should give him certain securities - such as raising money or awareness - that he would not have otherwise.
Because fame and ego. Assange is a weird-looking socially awkward epsilon-male, but make him the figurehead of anti-Americanism and apparently a bunch of Swedish leftist chicks want to bang him. At least once. As long as he puts on a condom.
In all seriousness, if you find yourself asking "Why did this man choose fame, glory and groupies over the good of the cause he claims to espouse" then you don't know much about human psychology.
[+] [-] rickmb|13 years ago|reply
The Piratebay trials have shown how corrupted the Swedish justice system can be, with both police, prosecution and judges having proven private connections with the copyright industry (which in itself is not only organized and financed by the US, but also actively backed up by the US government).
Being extradited to the US would make him a martyr, but being convicted for rape in Sweden would damage his reputation beyond repair. I doubt if the US even wants to deal with the whole circus of getting Assange extradited if there's an easier way to take him out of play.
[+] [-] objclxt|13 years ago|reply
Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts.
Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt. Assange knows this. His lawyers know this. If Assange thought he wouldn't get a fair trial he would have argued this point in the English courts. Many people have avoided extradition from the UK to various unpleasant places on the basis they wouldn't get a fair trial.
His legal argument was flimsy at best. Assange tried to argue Sweden lacked the authority to issue the arrest warrant in the first place, an argument that was basically laughed out of court. However, the English courts have had a lot of patience for Assange, and have offered him several avenues of appeal on the basis it's an important and high profile case. The Supreme Court even allowed an additional submission after their judgement (this is very unusual).
This is a criminal case involving two parties. Both parties have guaranteed rights. Think about the women involved for a second. They have accused Assange of rape. Perhaps they are lying: Assange is after all innocent until proven guilty. But is it out of the question they are telling the truth? No, it's not.
And that is why Assange should really willingly return to Sweden to face his accusers. He isn't willing, and his arguments about fearing the US really aren't that convincing given the UK is more than happy to extradite people to the states.
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|13 years ago|reply
None of us know what the US is doing, if anything. We do know, by their own admission, that they began an aggressive investigation into whether or not Assange could be charged. We also know that everyone known associated with Wikileaks had their twitter and other social accounts subpoenaed. Manning's lawyer also indicated that the DoJ discussed the possibility of a plea bargain. As recently as a few weeks ago, US officials said they are waiting to see how the UK case plays out before charging him.
It is more probable than not that after such statements and aggressive investigations, that the US will charge him. It is more probable than not that the reason they have not yet done so, is because it's better for them to let this case finish, as they said.
Assange is not under the impression that he is immune to these inevitable charges and extradition in any of the countries involved. He has resigned to the fact that he is likely to face the US DoJ, and an extradition request, one way or another.
Assange believes that he has a tactical advantage in this case if this does not happen in Sweden. I don't know all of the reasons for this, but this is not surprising, and he has obviously been advised to exhaust this route by his legal counsel. It's safe to assume that this has been their decision, not his.
This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just how court cases work. Even in the US, it is common to fight for the most favorable jurisdiction. The presence of an extradition treaty in both countries does not mean that an extradition request is equally difficult to fight in both countries. This could change depending on laws in a specific country, or even be influenced by public perception or even corruption.
When is the last time someone was held for a year and a half in an international dispute to be questioned about a broken or missing condom incident? That makes the least sense.
Edit: It's worth noting that according to the hacked stratfor emails, the US already has a sealed indictment for him:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/28/1069018/-Leaked-Str...
[+] [-] roguecoder|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|13 years ago|reply
Edit: I checked, and Ecuador does have extradition treaties with both the UK and the US. I don't know about Sweden though.
Edit2: according to http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks... Ecuador has a treaty with the EU as well. But moving to Ecuador puts the decision in Ecuadorian hands instead of UK, so maybe he thinks they will stand up for him better.
[+] [-] xefer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meric|13 years ago|reply
Maybe Assange thought it was worth trying a known "friendly" country first. Also the Ecuador government claimed it had nothing to lose from wikileaks' leaks, so if they really didn't maybe they'll be less likely to try to screw him.
[+] [-] iand|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opminion|13 years ago|reply
The Ecuatorian president is introduced as "populist", yet the interview is non-critical. I thought "populist" was globally pejorative?
Edit: the president himself uses the term in a negative context
[+] [-] ForrestN|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsrguru|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Estragon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pvnick|13 years ago|reply
Edit: I know were not talking directly about the US here, but the reason I made the jump is that I see Sweden as a lot more likely to allow the US to bully it into giving up Assange
[+] [-] hack_edu|13 years ago|reply
Though I back his politics 100% and consider him a hero to be remembered, he has every responsibility to face his accusers in a fair trial. Shame on Sweden if they hand him over to the Americans after his trial has concluded.
[+] [-] drcube|13 years ago|reply
While Wikileaks is certainly a motivating factor, and I'm sure it's why this story gets as much press as it does, I don't think it's where his legal problems stem from. As far as I know, the US has nothing to do with it.
[+] [-] roguecoder|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamdave|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wilfra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wvenable|13 years ago|reply
But if I were him, I'm not sure I'd be willing to take any chances. The consequences are just too great.
[+] [-] mc32|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmdkeen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] objclxt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kakaroto_BR|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nirvana|13 years ago|reply
Why did he not simply remain anonymous? All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right?
Being public seems to have been the tactical error. (or was he trying to be anonymous, but got outed at some point and then given that he couldn't be anonymous anymore he decided to embrace it?)
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.htm... goes into their history. I'm tempted to quote a few paragraphs but it wouldn't be fair since there is a very large picture being painted.
[+] [-] iand|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stfu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OzzyB|13 years ago|reply
I say no.
Taking a feather from Rock 'n Roll, you need a front-man.
[+] [-] planetguy|13 years ago|reply
In all seriousness, if you find yourself asking "Why did this man choose fame, glory and groupies over the good of the cause he claims to espouse" then you don't know much about human psychology.