I don't want to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and make unsubstantiated claims here, so I'm a bit hesitant to voice these thoughts.
But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would lead to an international manhunt through Interpol. It makes me angry when the newspapers keep parroting that "Assange is wanted in Sweden for rape". Obviously this isn't the heart of the issue. Assange is wanted by the most powerful country in the world for revealing military secrets. This is what is really going on, but not many newspapers are as willing to spell this out explicitly.
This is what the "Assange supporters" in this case are saying. Assange is completely justified in fearing extradition to the US, especially since such a small criminal allegation (I'm sorry, but the word "rape" in this case doesn't imply a grave violent offence) has turned into an international manhunt against Assange. I have huge problems believing that the rape charges are anything but a pretext. In the interest of gauging people's opinions, does anyone disagree with this particular point?
Additionally, regardless of what lawyers are saying about the specifics of this case, extraditions are largely politically motivated. There is no central international body or law system governing cases like these, so the choices are usually left to politicians. And really, Sweden has a pretty bad track record with regards to looking after US interests. The case against The Pirate Bay is another good contemporary example of this. The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. So clearly they won't.
The Swedish government cannot guarantee Assange won't be extradited; it falls on the Swedish judicial system to do that.
Your comment again puts forward the idea that the political forces aligned against Assange are so great that no amount of critical thinking, due process, or countervailing concern for the rights of victims can apply: it is, to use your word, "obvious" that the case isn't about "rape", but about an undocumented (and undisclosed) but nevertheless clear and immediate effort to haul Assange to the US and try him with espionage. No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way.
Regardless, that concern has very little to do with this particular article, which catalogs and rebuts specific "misconceptions" about the legal issues faced by Assange. Those rebuttals are either compelling or they're not. What do you think about them?
A couple of things, one of the tenants for democracy was that a government elected by the people is more trustworthy than a self selecting government. There are lots of discussions on why this may (or may not) be true, but historically it comes down to whether or not you believe the people are willing (and able) to replace an ill-behaving government.
The point about Assange being 'easier' to extradite from the UK than from Sweden is pretty key here. The US is on much better terms with the UK government and any extradition that would be possible in Sweden would be even easier to do in the UK. So I agree with the OP that its unlikely he is ever going to be extradited here, or perhaps even charged here.
A much simpler explanation however is that Assange uses his situation to both keep himself in the spotlight (attention on him and by reflection his cause) and to promulgate a message. The way he currently positions himself is as a persecuted rebel fighting the good fight, its a much better and engaging narrative than narcissistic dilettante with poor impulse control. Not being inside his head we cannot know which characterization is closer to the truth of course but we do know what he would like us to believe.
> This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would lead to an international manhunt through Interpol.
This is not a "normal" crime situation, as a commenter put it yesterday: no embassy would normally grant a third party protection when there is an arrest warrant for rape involved, nor would this situation "normally" have so much media attention. Replace Assange with someone else equally as politically relevant (say G .W. Bush) and the situation would be identical.
> In the interest of gauging people's opinions, does anyone disagree with this particular point?
This article explicitly states that Assange is just as safe in Sweden from America (if not more so) as he is in England. He chose to stay in England until an arrest warrant was issued; if he believed his life was in danger why was he happy to stay in England until the arrest warrant? Why didn't he flee before? If Sweden is willing to disregard all their laws to extradite him why didn't England?
His behaviour seems like the behaviour of someone that wants to avoid being taken to the place that he is wanted for arrest and that the wikileaks involvement is one big cover, the reasons relating to Wikileaks have been shown in articles like this to be irrelevant, articles like this have shown that the supposed concerns are not legitimate, so the only conclusion I can come to is either Assange believes he is going to be found guilty of his supposed crime, or that he thinks Sweden is willing to break lots of laws that England aren't willing to break, yet this article again shows that is very unlikely.
His behaviour is inconsistent, therefore I am not 100% sure that this is all one big play to get him to America to be murdered. I think it's just as likely that his "fame" is the problem.
> The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. So clearly they won't.
The article explains that they can't make that promise and it also explains why such concerns are of little relevance.
Now, if you wanted to argue that the rape charges look strange, because those charges were dismissed at first, both victims do not want to prosecute further, the accussed is kind of a target, so on... well, OK.
But your argument here amazes me. Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on. And it should. I would be surprised and enraged if the Interpol had an arbitrary threshold of violence by which it would decide to act or not, as if they were nobles graciously granting the plebs the gift of international justice.
Now, I don't buy that this rape accussations are pretexts. If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pressure the U.K. to extradite him? Sweden is now full of U.S.'s lackeys, but the U.K. isn't? Or, shit, just send a CIA agent there and get him on a plane. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.
What if he really did commit rape, and Sweden really does just want to arrest him for that, and has no plans to extradite him? How would this situation look different to you?
> The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others.
And here's where you reveal that you did not read the article.
My question is: If Sweden wants Assange, why is Britain the one saying they'll invade the embassy? Shouldn't it be Sweden who is invading the Ecuadoran Embassy instead of Britain? I really don't see Britain bending over backwards to break the diplomatic status quo for Sweden, but I do see them doing that for the U.S. or themselves and that's why I think this is about more than a rape case in Sweden.
Ok, I'm from sweden, and I'm a supporter of wiki-leaks, this is my perspective on this:
Why do everyone seem to become a tin-foil hat when it comes to Assange?
Prosecuting Assange for rape in Sweden has nothing to do with prosecuting him for espionage in America.
Sure, there are people trying to boost their careers by this case, being the one to convict Assange for a crime like this might be a great way to speed up your career, and the effort put down to do it is in no way proportional to the alleged crime.
But to take it from there to that this is some CIA conspiracy to just bounce him in Sweden on his way to guantanamo or whatever is just silly.
Also, why do everyone who supports wiki-leaks seem to assume that he didn't commit the crime? I'm not saying that he did, I have no idea if he did or not, but the way to find out is through a legal court. If he would go to trial, there would be so many people following it and examining every piece of evidence to check if it holds, he wouldn't just get convicted by default...
The Swedish legal system isn't THAT bad.
Doing great things in one area of life doesn't mean that you can't do bad things in others, and to me his actions seems like someone who is just trying to use his rock-star status to get away with acting like an asshole. But I have no Idea, the only thing I know is that he is trying really hard to prevent me from finding out.
And if he did or did not doesn't change the value of the idea that we the people should have the transparency to be able to know what our governments are doing on our behalf, or the impact of the organization that he is a part of.
The problem is that it's just a little too convenient. He's suddenly wanted in the US for the Wikileaks piece, and right afterwards he's wanted in Sweden. The prosecutor drops the case, but then it's picked back up with an arrest warrant. Suddenly Interpol is brought into the mix for what really isn't typically an Interpol matter. That's a lot of money and time spent across international borders for an allegation with no evidence. It's too convenient to not raise questions about ulterior motives.
He might be guilty, I don't see anyone credible saying he's not. What I hear people saying is "why is this suddenly an international incident?"
Personally I think it is more likely that intelligence services had a hand in either a) setting the stage for the rape (ie: one or both the girls were intelligence assets), or b) pushing for prosecution (IMNHO more likely).
Motives for both a) and b) would probably be to discredit Assange, as well as (with arrest, the strain of a trial, and the presumed following incarceration in a perfectly normal Swedish prison) making Assange unable to contribute effectively to Wikileaks.
Damage to the reputation of Assange, as well as limiting his ability to move around would presumably also hurt fund raising campaigns.
There have been documented cases of similar (and much, much worse) by eg. the CIA and the FBI[1,2] -- I don't think exploring the possibility is crazy.
Saying it absolutely is so, without any proof, is crazy, however.
Look at what we know about the case. Look at the girls hanging out with him _after_ the supposed rape. Does that sound like the actions of a rape victim to you?
Add to that the case has already been dropped by the first prosecutor _and_ the girls didn't want to prosecute him for rape (they merely wanted to know if they could force him to take an STD test).
Oh and supposedly the new prosecutor is friends with one of the girls!
"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition in the United States in such circumstances."
Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assange supporters while continuing to spread myths by the Assange opponents.
The article does not make the point that, having been delivered to Sweden, Assange would be protected by an impregnable shield against extradition to the US. Rather, the article simply points out that the protections Assange has against extradition in Sweden are comparable to the ones he has in the UK --- perhaps better, in fact, given the ease with which the US has extradited people from the UK.
More importantly, since both the UK and Sweden are already enjoined formally from extraditing Assange to face the death penalty, what does it mean for Assange to extract a further promise from Sweden's executive not be extradited? If the ECHR --- the very law governing extradition from Sweden --- can't be trusted, why is Assange demanding an even less meaningful promise from Sweden's government?
That's not extradition, that's extraordinary rendition, an extrajudicial process. It's always illegal. And while it's a worrying thing, it would be very odd if that was an option on the table for Assange, if only because they could have done it before, and can still do it just as easily from the UK, or actual Ecuadorian soil for that matter, than from Sweden. Assange is too much of a high profile target for renditioning to do anything but backfire.
I really thought the HackerNews readership was better than this, but a great majority of the comments here have people getting into full-on conspiracy mode in ignorance of basic facts that have been presented. I know these folks don't necessarily represent HN as a whole, but doesn't the HN community pride itself on valuing measured factually based responses over uninformed emotional ones?
I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but I had to get it off my chest.
If people care deeply about something, they will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to maintain their worldview. I'd say it's a root cause of a whole lot of problems in developed societies. Nobody is immune, even (especially?) those who extoll reason and logic like it's the drive of existence.
No, I agree with you. There are an awful lot of people failing to engage with reality, stubbornly insisting what this article just debunked. I like the OP's name for these — "zombie facts" — you shoot them down and they just keep getting repeated.
We all have strong feelings on this issue. My original pro-Assange feelings are getting weaker, however. Sure, the accusation is terribly convenient for UK and Swedish governments, whose responses still seem suspicious in their vigor. But Assange should face those sexual assault allegations, if that's really all that's going to happen. If they are true, then what he did was reprehensible. Ultimately, we can't know what's going on behind the scenes here, if anything.
Moreover, why is this article here at all? I appreciated it, but I've also flagged the submission. It has nothing to do with hacking or startups or technology. There are many other, more appropriate sites for discussing politics, crime, and current events.
It's touching that the author of this article thinks the only relevant points are the legal small print of the UK and Sweden. But if you think about it some more, you might realise that Assange chose the UK as his destination because he felt the public and the press would exert enough pressure on the government to shield him from any political manoeuvrings.
I propose a new metric for situations like this. Rate the likelihood that the suspect would commit this act (quite low in this case as it would be incredibly stupid given his circumstances and also not something he has a history of); the convenience the situation represents to his enemies (very high in this case, as it buys the US time to prepare their extradition case, or execute whatever agreement they have already with the Swedish government); and the ease with which his enemies could indeed set him up (easy in this case - word of two women and one co-operative prosecutor, no evidence required and no risk of alibi or counter-evidence). Now multiply these factors together and you have the Conspiracy Index of the situation.
We could invent a "new metric for situations like this" involving estimates of the "likelihood" that suspects would "commit the act" and estimates of "the convenience of the situation to the enemies of those suspects" and the "ease with which the suspect's enemies could set them up".
This article isn't laying out a coherent argument for Assange's extradition; that's not its point. The point of the article is to catalog common misconceptions about the legal issues arising from the Assange drama. The "courage" of Ecuador in offering asylum to Assange is one of those misconceptions.
The article fails to point out that there is substantial precedent for the UK to ignore extradition requests by other EU members. Augusto Pinochet is perhaps an obvious example.
Although I am loathe to rank vile behavior in general, crimes against humanity would seem to demand more careful consideration during extradition proceedings than the allegations against Mr. Assange.
This seems to be an allusion to the popular principal of "The Law Of Travesty", which asserts that if someone has benefited from a legal travesty (such as Spain's inability to extradite Pinochet from the UK), justice demands that everyone else benefit from the same travesty.
In fact, justice demands the opposite. Pinochet was protected from extradition because he, unlike Assange, was a head of state and enjoyed a supposed immunity from prosecution as a result. The hesitation to force Pinochet to face due process for his (very compellingly) alleged crimes is a travesty. In recognizing that a travesty occurred, we don't just award points to one state and accord demerits to another: we also seek to avoid the recurrence of that travesty in the future.
I'm assuming the article is accurate, in which case there's pretty much no reason for Assange not to go to Sweden and clear all this up, unless of course he's guilty.
Certainly as things stand he gives a lot of people -- myself included -- the impression that he's guilty, and if the only reason he has for not wanting to face the music in Sweden is that he's afraid of extradition to the US then, assuming the article is accurate, he's damaging his cause by fighting extradition.
I'm not saying he is innocent, but if he is, he has every reason to believe this is a politically-motivated frame-up. So, if he is innocent, why go to Sweden? Probably, even as an innocent person, the frame-up would succeed.
As such, his unwillingness to go hardly says anything about his guilt or non-guilt.
Would any one really trust the due course of law argument after the Kim Dotcom incident. Basically it can now be argued that the US can get who ever it wants from where ever they are for what ever their crimes are.
That being the case, what does it matter what country Assange is in? If it's all the same be he in New Zealand, Sweden, or the UK, shouldn't he be required to face charges in Sweden?
Kim Dotcom's situation isn't that unusual. To whatever extent law enforcement overstepped their bounds, due process will eventually prevail. He's still in New Zealand after all.
Now that we know Karl Rove is advising the Swedish government in the prosecution of Assange, I think it is completely reasonable to assume the worst with regard to Sweden's intentions about extraditing.
First: your very first sentence does not appear to arrive at its conclusion via logic. Because [KARL ROVE], it asserts, we can assume [INTENT TO EXTRADITE TO US]. That's not even wrong.
Second: it is very much not known that Rove is advising Sweden on the prosecution. The only thing that is known is that Rove, a phenomenally well-known political consultant, was at some point advising the governing party in Sweden. It is not remotely uncommon for US political consultants to work overseas. They aren't advancing US interests when they do that (how could Rove be? He's not an agent of the US government); they're advancing their own wallets.
Your claim is identically as strong as virtually every conspiracy theory ever. Syllogisms with an identical structure are behind the claim that "9/11 was an inside job" and that "Obama is part of a communist conspiracy".
The RSF full press freedom index isn't color coded. There are 57 countries --- 1/3rd of the entire survey --- in between the US and Ecuador, including several liberal European countries. This is a flimsy argument.
Where do those color codes come from? The Reporters Without Borders map puts the US and Ecuador in different colors. http://en.rsf.org/IMG/jpg/carte2012.jpg
Obviously this is "biased" -- but I've not been able to spot any "overt" errors here. I've been looking at Norwegian and Swedish media in addition to the (pretty fact starved) international media coverage -- and I was also under the impression that Assange wasn't considered a suspect -- he is.
I have no idea why apparently no media source has managed to get this right -- as presented it has appeared that Assange has been wanted extradited to testify -- which makes absolutely no (legal) sense. It would appear that's not what has happened.
My (personal, IANAL etc) interpretation of the events is that a complaint was filed against Assange -- the prosecutor that handled the case found no reason to prosecute. Then (probably due to political pressure -- although I have no evidence of this) -- the head prosecutor picks up the case again, and an arrest warrant is issued.
The whole affair dovetails a little to nicely with CIA procedure for discrediting inconvenient persons, eg:
That being said, it's not inconceivable that Assange is a misogynistic pig -- he certainly appear to have a bit of an ego -- and I don't think anyone would be against him being sentenced in a fair trial.
However, the political pressure involved in this case seems rather extreme -- I do think there's a real danger of Assange disappearing into a black bag at some point -- after all if the US wants him, it would be for espionage -- and kidnapping a single individual is nothing compared to drone strike assassinations.
It is of course inconvenient that this dissident is white, articulate and currently in a country that has a working government.
A Swedish English language media source I discovered recently might also be of interest:
Additionally, I came across this old piece by Virginia Wolf that also highlights some of the political pressure that seems to be involved in this case:
On the I.Q.Org website, wasn't it Assange who said that he is someone who moves in spy circles? I wonder what happens to spies who are either doing their jobs correctly or become rogue? Manning/ Lamo chat logs also refer to Assange as having a level in the intelligence field. But legal case never mentions it.
This is actually a great point. How many of the people behind/in wikileaks are intelligence assets/agents? Certainly some of them are - or at least they will be monitored. Not doing so would pretty much amount to negligence on part of the intelligence services.
Personally I (somewhat naively perhaps) put more trust in cryptome.org than in wikileaks -- either way cryptome.org also have a few points on this whole thing:
Note, typically for cryptome.org, these are somewhat exhaustive posts, and leave all digestion very much up-front and in-the-readers-face -- to the point were every reasonable person should start to wonder which part is information, and which is misinformation.
This is AFAIK on purpose - and different from traditional reporting where the journalist will just pretend that whatever is written is the one and only gospel truth -- even though most of what is found in newspapers are riddled with (sometimes minor) factual errors and has an obvious slant ("edtiorial line").
[+] [-] marvin|13 years ago|reply
But legal issues or not: You need to have blind trust in the well-meaning efforts of national governments to believe that there aren't larger forces at work here than Swedish prosecutors wanting to charge Assange with rape. This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would lead to an international manhunt through Interpol. It makes me angry when the newspapers keep parroting that "Assange is wanted in Sweden for rape". Obviously this isn't the heart of the issue. Assange is wanted by the most powerful country in the world for revealing military secrets. This is what is really going on, but not many newspapers are as willing to spell this out explicitly.
This is what the "Assange supporters" in this case are saying. Assange is completely justified in fearing extradition to the US, especially since such a small criminal allegation (I'm sorry, but the word "rape" in this case doesn't imply a grave violent offence) has turned into an international manhunt against Assange. I have huge problems believing that the rape charges are anything but a pretext. In the interest of gauging people's opinions, does anyone disagree with this particular point?
Additionally, regardless of what lawyers are saying about the specifics of this case, extraditions are largely politically motivated. There is no central international body or law system governing cases like these, so the choices are usually left to politicians. And really, Sweden has a pretty bad track record with regards to looking after US interests. The case against The Pirate Bay is another good contemporary example of this. The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. So clearly they won't.
[Edit: Spelling]
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
Your comment again puts forward the idea that the political forces aligned against Assange are so great that no amount of critical thinking, due process, or countervailing concern for the rights of victims can apply: it is, to use your word, "obvious" that the case isn't about "rape", but about an undocumented (and undisclosed) but nevertheless clear and immediate effort to haul Assange to the US and try him with espionage. No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way.
Regardless, that concern has very little to do with this particular article, which catalogs and rebuts specific "misconceptions" about the legal issues faced by Assange. Those rebuttals are either compelling or they're not. What do you think about them?
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
The point about Assange being 'easier' to extradite from the UK than from Sweden is pretty key here. The US is on much better terms with the UK government and any extradition that would be possible in Sweden would be even easier to do in the UK. So I agree with the OP that its unlikely he is ever going to be extradited here, or perhaps even charged here.
A much simpler explanation however is that Assange uses his situation to both keep himself in the spotlight (attention on him and by reflection his cause) and to promulgate a message. The way he currently positions himself is as a persecuted rebel fighting the good fight, its a much better and engaging narrative than narcissistic dilettante with poor impulse control. Not being inside his head we cannot know which characterization is closer to the truth of course but we do know what he would like us to believe.
[+] [-] citricsquid|13 years ago|reply
This is not a "normal" crime situation, as a commenter put it yesterday: no embassy would normally grant a third party protection when there is an arrest warrant for rape involved, nor would this situation "normally" have so much media attention. Replace Assange with someone else equally as politically relevant (say G .W. Bush) and the situation would be identical.
> In the interest of gauging people's opinions, does anyone disagree with this particular point?
This article explicitly states that Assange is just as safe in Sweden from America (if not more so) as he is in England. He chose to stay in England until an arrest warrant was issued; if he believed his life was in danger why was he happy to stay in England until the arrest warrant? Why didn't he flee before? If Sweden is willing to disregard all their laws to extradite him why didn't England?
His behaviour seems like the behaviour of someone that wants to avoid being taken to the place that he is wanted for arrest and that the wikileaks involvement is one big cover, the reasons relating to Wikileaks have been shown in articles like this to be irrelevant, articles like this have shown that the supposed concerns are not legitimate, so the only conclusion I can come to is either Assange believes he is going to be found guilty of his supposed crime, or that he thinks Sweden is willing to break lots of laws that England aren't willing to break, yet this article again shows that is very unlikely.
His behaviour is inconsistent, therefore I am not 100% sure that this is all one big play to get him to America to be murdered. I think it's just as likely that his "fame" is the problem.
> The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others. So clearly they won't.
The article explains that they can't make that promise and it also explains why such concerns are of little relevance.
[+] [-] lolcraft|13 years ago|reply
But your argument here amazes me. Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on. And it should. I would be surprised and enraged if the Interpol had an arbitrary threshold of violence by which it would decide to act or not, as if they were nobles graciously granting the plebs the gift of international justice.
Now, I don't buy that this rape accussations are pretexts. If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pressure the U.K. to extradite him? Sweden is now full of U.S.'s lackeys, but the U.K. isn't? Or, shit, just send a CIA agent there and get him on a plane. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.
[+] [-] nollidge|13 years ago|reply
> The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others.
And here's where you reveal that you did not read the article.
[+] [-] chimi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thom|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tepotenk|13 years ago|reply
Why do everyone seem to become a tin-foil hat when it comes to Assange?
Prosecuting Assange for rape in Sweden has nothing to do with prosecuting him for espionage in America.
Sure, there are people trying to boost their careers by this case, being the one to convict Assange for a crime like this might be a great way to speed up your career, and the effort put down to do it is in no way proportional to the alleged crime.
But to take it from there to that this is some CIA conspiracy to just bounce him in Sweden on his way to guantanamo or whatever is just silly.
Also, why do everyone who supports wiki-leaks seem to assume that he didn't commit the crime? I'm not saying that he did, I have no idea if he did or not, but the way to find out is through a legal court. If he would go to trial, there would be so many people following it and examining every piece of evidence to check if it holds, he wouldn't just get convicted by default...
The Swedish legal system isn't THAT bad.
Doing great things in one area of life doesn't mean that you can't do bad things in others, and to me his actions seems like someone who is just trying to use his rock-star status to get away with acting like an asshole. But I have no Idea, the only thing I know is that he is trying really hard to prevent me from finding out.
And if he did or did not doesn't change the value of the idea that we the people should have the transparency to be able to know what our governments are doing on our behalf, or the impact of the organization that he is a part of.
[+] [-] freehunter|13 years ago|reply
He might be guilty, I don't see anyone credible saying he's not. What I hear people saying is "why is this suddenly an international incident?"
[+] [-] e12e|13 years ago|reply
Motives for both a) and b) would probably be to discredit Assange, as well as (with arrest, the strain of a trial, and the presumed following incarceration in a perfectly normal Swedish prison) making Assange unable to contribute effectively to Wikileaks.
Damage to the reputation of Assange, as well as limiting his ability to move around would presumably also hurt fund raising campaigns.
There have been documented cases of similar (and much, much worse) by eg. the CIA and the FBI[1,2] -- I don't think exploring the possibility is crazy.
Saying it absolutely is so, without any proof, is crazy, however.
[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/18/opinion/oe-schou18 (Extra irony points for link to LA Times story on Webb?) [2] http://cironline.org/reports/man-who-armed-black-panthers-wa...
[+] [-] tomjen3|13 years ago|reply
Add to that the case has already been dropped by the first prosecutor _and_ the girls didn't want to prosecute him for rape (they merely wanted to know if they could force him to take an STD test).
Oh and supposedly the new prosecutor is friends with one of the girls!
Sorry, but this case stinks.
[+] [-] jeltz|13 years ago|reply
Except that law has been violated before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Ze...
Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assange supporters while continuing to spread myths by the Assange opponents.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
More importantly, since both the UK and Sweden are already enjoined formally from extraditing Assange to face the death penalty, what does it mean for Assange to extract a further promise from Sweden's executive not be extradited? If the ECHR --- the very law governing extradition from Sweden --- can't be trusted, why is Assange demanding an even less meaningful promise from Sweden's government?
[+] [-] philwelch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjsamson|13 years ago|reply
I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but I had to get it off my chest.
[+] [-] ahelwer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graue|13 years ago|reply
We all have strong feelings on this issue. My original pro-Assange feelings are getting weaker, however. Sure, the accusation is terribly convenient for UK and Swedish governments, whose responses still seem suspicious in their vigor. But Assange should face those sexual assault allegations, if that's really all that's going to happen. If they are true, then what he did was reprehensible. Ultimately, we can't know what's going on behind the scenes here, if anything.
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|13 years ago|reply
I propose a new metric for situations like this. Rate the likelihood that the suspect would commit this act (quite low in this case as it would be incredibly stupid given his circumstances and also not something he has a history of); the convenience the situation represents to his enemies (very high in this case, as it buys the US time to prepare their extradition case, or execute whatever agreement they have already with the Swedish government); and the ease with which his enemies could indeed set him up (easy in this case - word of two women and one co-operative prosecutor, no evidence required and no risk of alibi or counter-evidence). Now multiply these factors together and you have the Conspiracy Index of the situation.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
Or we could just have the rule of law.
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply
This is perhaps the strangest proposition. / Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press.
The proposition doesn't actually say that protecting the freedom of the press is their motivation. Good things can arise from bad motives.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August...
Although I am loathe to rank vile behavior in general, crimes against humanity would seem to demand more careful consideration during extradition proceedings than the allegations against Mr. Assange.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
In fact, justice demands the opposite. Pinochet was protected from extradition because he, unlike Assange, was a head of state and enjoyed a supposed immunity from prosecution as a result. The hesitation to force Pinochet to face due process for his (very compellingly) alleged crimes is a travesty. In recognizing that a travesty occurred, we don't just award points to one state and accord demerits to another: we also seek to avoid the recurrence of that travesty in the future.
[+] [-] podperson|13 years ago|reply
Certainly as things stand he gives a lot of people -- myself included -- the impression that he's guilty, and if the only reason he has for not wanting to face the music in Sweden is that he's afraid of extradition to the US then, assuming the article is accurate, he's damaging his cause by fighting extradition.
[+] [-] wes-exp|13 years ago|reply
As such, his unwillingness to go hardly says anything about his guilt or non-guilt.
[+] [-] option_greek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mattvanhorn|13 years ago|reply
I think this article makes a much more convincing argument about what is going on than the one in the post: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with...
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
First: your very first sentence does not appear to arrive at its conclusion via logic. Because [KARL ROVE], it asserts, we can assume [INTENT TO EXTRADITE TO US]. That's not even wrong.
Second: it is very much not known that Rove is advising Sweden on the prosecution. The only thing that is known is that Rove, a phenomenally well-known political consultant, was at some point advising the governing party in Sweden. It is not remotely uncommon for US political consultants to work overseas. They aren't advancing US interests when they do that (how could Rove be? He's not an agent of the US government); they're advancing their own wallets.
Your claim is identically as strong as virtually every conspiracy theory ever. Syllogisms with an identical structure are behind the claim that "9/11 was an inside job" and that "Obama is part of a communist conspiracy".
[+] [-] wes-exp|13 years ago|reply
US is ranked 47th. This effectively puts Ecuador in the same category as the US. Look at the color codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index.
Just because Ecuador isn't perfect hardly precludes it from trying to do the right thing in this instance.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedunangst|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lttlrck|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CJefferson|13 years ago|reply
However, this article mainly helps formalise my previous beliefs, so I wonder if I found it interesting just because it agrees with my point of view?
[+] [-] dfxm12|13 years ago|reply
I like this article because it seems to be more informative than persuasive.
[+] [-] streptomycin|13 years ago|reply
Both articles are fact-based, and neither contradicts the other as far as I can tell. But it's very easy to put a bias on fuzzy political issues.
[+] [-] e12e|13 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4404549
I think it contains some information that is relevant for those trying to make sense of this:
I found this overview from the Swedish prosecutor to be very helpful:
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/T...
Obviously this is "biased" -- but I've not been able to spot any "overt" errors here. I've been looking at Norwegian and Swedish media in addition to the (pretty fact starved) international media coverage -- and I was also under the impression that Assange wasn't considered a suspect -- he is.
I have no idea why apparently no media source has managed to get this right -- as presented it has appeared that Assange has been wanted extradited to testify -- which makes absolutely no (legal) sense. It would appear that's not what has happened.
My (personal, IANAL etc) interpretation of the events is that a complaint was filed against Assange -- the prosecutor that handled the case found no reason to prosecute. Then (probably due to political pressure -- although I have no evidence of this) -- the head prosecutor picks up the case again, and an arrest warrant is issued.
The whole affair dovetails a little to nicely with CIA procedure for discrediting inconvenient persons, eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
That being said, it's not inconceivable that Assange is a misogynistic pig -- he certainly appear to have a bit of an ego -- and I don't think anyone would be against him being sentenced in a fair trial.
However, the political pressure involved in this case seems rather extreme -- I do think there's a real danger of Assange disappearing into a black bag at some point -- after all if the US wants him, it would be for espionage -- and kidnapping a single individual is nothing compared to drone strike assassinations.
It is of course inconvenient that this dissident is white, articulate and currently in a country that has a working government.
A Swedish English language media source I discovered recently might also be of interest:
http://www.thelocal.se/42424/20120804/
Additionally, I came across this old piece by Virginia Wolf that also highlights some of the political pressure that seems to be involved in this case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1435_b_797188....
[+] [-] mattvanhorn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkrivndys456|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|13 years ago|reply
Personally I (somewhat naively perhaps) put more trust in cryptome.org than in wikileaks -- either way cryptome.org also have a few points on this whole thing:
http://cryptome.org/0002/assange-abuse.htm
And related to Assange and wikileaks, see eg: http://cryptome.org/0001/assange-cpunks.htm http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm
Note, typically for cryptome.org, these are somewhat exhaustive posts, and leave all digestion very much up-front and in-the-readers-face -- to the point were every reasonable person should start to wonder which part is information, and which is misinformation.
This is AFAIK on purpose - and different from traditional reporting where the journalist will just pretend that whatever is written is the one and only gospel truth -- even though most of what is found in newspapers are riddled with (sometimes minor) factual errors and has an obvious slant ("edtiorial line").
Edit: punctuation.
[+] [-] Uchikoma|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pera|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]