Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'
bbc.co.ukI had 4 live feeds of this event going for an hour or two prior to it. I felt Julian's speech itself was rather boring. The preceding speeches in front of the embassy by some of his supporters were a bit more interesting.
Here's a chronicle of some of the events: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assa...
The most interesting thing I took away from the whole spectacle was:
The Organisation of American States (OAS) has voted to hold a meeting next Friday following Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange, who is currently taking refuge in the country's embassy in London.
The permanent council of the OAS decided that a meeting would be held in Washington DC after members voted on the issue. The US, Canada and Trinidad and Tobago opposed the resolution, but 23 members voted in favour of the meeting. There were five abstentions and three members were absent.
The OAS secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, said the meeting would not be about Assange but the "the problem posed by the threat or warning made to Ecuador by the possibility of an intervention into its embassy in London. The issue that concerns us is the inviolability of diplomatic missions of all members of this organisation, something that is of interest to all of us."
I have a feeling Assange will be holed up in that embassy for some good time to come.
He looked like a bird with clipped wings. All those days cooped up in one place must have had their effect.
I know it's very contrarian to not be 100% pro Assange on this board but all I ever see are the pro Assange interpretation of the facts. Some things to consider:
- "Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation." This was the initial questioning by local authorities. So unless every police station in every part of Sweden had been told to get Assange no matter what at any opportunity it's unlikely this was some conspiracy. Perhaps the local police station over reacted - but no conspiracy
- "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?
- Can't avoid this piece of irony: "During the interview he expressed his fears that anything he said would end up in the tabloid newspaper Expressen. The interviewing police officer said: "I'm not going to leak anything." The interview was leaked."
- "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?
- JEFFREY L. BLEICH, US AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA (May 2012): "It's not something that the US cares about, it's not interested in it, it hasn't been involved in it - and frankly, if he's in Sweden, there's a less robust extradition relationship than there is between the US and the UK, so I think it's one of those narratives that has been made up - there's nothing to it."
If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage.
Anyway, just wanted to highlight some counter points that won't sit well with many people here but that's probably even more reason to point them out.
> "Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation." This was the initial questioning by local authorities. So unless every police station in every part of Sweden had been told to get Assange no matter what at any opportunity it's unlikely this was some conspiracy. Perhaps the local police station over reacted - but no conspiracy
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).
> 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.
The exact same type of about-face happened in the case of George Zimmerman's alleged murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida. In both cases, the Occam's Razor explanation is this: the public notoriety of the case led a senior prosecutor to pay closer attention and countermand the decision of junior prosecutors not to pursue it.
Except in this case it was senior prosecutor that dismissed the case initially, after having been in her own words extremely surprised at the unusual manner the police had treated the case in, including a number of irregularities in the interviewing (such as not recording them).
Yes, it is possible that it was "just" public scrutiny, but Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law of nature - less likely things with more convoluted explanations happens all the time.
It also runs into the question of why this has not happened more regularly, given that Swedish media regularly gives copious attention to outcry over rape cases that don't get pursued.
Sweden has an amazingly high frequency of reported rape cases. It would seem odd if this prosecutor does not have a long string of rape cases with much more serious allegations to look at, rather than stepping in to take over another senior prosecutors case and spend massive amounts of resources on a case that she herself has been conducting in a manner that virtually guarantees that she on her own accord will not be able to move the case forward anytime soon.
If we do accept that it was more public scrutiny that triggered this, how do we explain why she doggedly insists on not questioning Assange, while clinging to the outright lie that she can't question him abroad (as pointed out over and over again: Swedish authorities do this all the time)?
Thank you for a very thoughtful post. A politically radical prosecutor stepping in to push her own agenda in a case with exceptionally high media coverage sounds much more likely than a conspiracy involving the CIA.
> If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage
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.
On the other hand, assuming it is true because it's messy would be just as naive.
What Julian fears is that he will be extradited to the US from Sweden, because both countries have a special treaty. So the "conspiracy" is not about jailing him for rape, is about having him in a Swedish prison long enough so the US can formally charge him for espionage and request his extradition. Even if he is found innocent of the rape charges, that would take days, long enough for the US to request the extradition. But if this is done while Assange is in the UK, then he most probably would win the appeal against being extradited to Sweden in the first place.
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.
"If there was a conspiracy at this point"... If there was a conspiracy at that point, then why did Assange go to Sweden at all? Why does a (postulated) conspiracy have to be well organized and able to operate at the spur of the moment? How long does it take to get the jurisdictional pieces in play/place? How often do the (hypothetical) people involved get a chance to practice for this sort of event?
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.
Let me point out. There is at least _one_ conspiracy here.
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 don't think Julian jumping bail and fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy will do him any favours. Now the UK and Sweden are angry at him and Ecuador and Australia's embarrassed.
Sure, the US does want to question him. But they haven't issued an extradition request, and by the looks of things getting him out of Sweden would be just as difficult as getting him out of the UK, if not more so.
I highly suspect Assange is actually just trying to avoid jail time, if he's going to these lengths to avoid going to Sweden for questioning on unrelated accusations of sex crime.
Assange is very attention-seeking and seems to care a lot about his image, which I suspect he is going to great lengths to avoid damaging.
Edit: I hate to compare HN to reddit, but I worry that I'm being downvoted for having an unpopular opinion. (edit: this has changed.)
Edit 2: I'm reconsidering my stance on this, my father's (conservative) opinions have too much influence on me.
Assange have suggested that interviews could be held over video conference or in the UK, not an unreasonable request (and something that has been done in other cases so the only problem is this particular prosecutor). Even the defense lawyer for the women have suggested it.
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.
My understanding is they don't just want to question him, they're at the stage they want to charge him. You can't really do that over video conference.
[edited to change 'prosecute' to 'charge']
EDIT: I didn't understand how Swedish law work. See AndrewDuck's reply. But still, they could interrogate him by videoconference (what Assange offered) or charge him in absence.
He hasn't been formally charged of any crime. If they want to prosecute him, they should charge him of something.
That's not how Swedish law works.
From Wikipedia: "Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[35] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings, which would be equivalent to having been charged under English process.[36]"
There is nothing preventing a Swedish court from issuing charges in absentia, and there's nothing preventing them from carrying out questioning outside of Sweden. This is smoke and mirrors.
And it's something that has prompted a formal complaint against this prosecutor to the Swedish judicial ombudsman.
They can still interview him without laying any formal charges. As far as I know the interviews are generally held long before the formal charges are laid.
I'm extremely late to this thread and unsure where best to post this. That said, if I wanted to seriously question an individual, I would most want to control the environment. Would video conferencing allow that?
Sweden has given prisoners to the CIA to be tortured in Egypt. Sweden has illegally tried to shut down The Pirate Bay under the pressure of the US. Will Sweden give Assange to the US? It seems very likely.
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?
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.
Lots of people are trying to point out that Assange isn't being accused of rape, but some sort of "not-using-a-condom" silly rape law that is only the law is whacky Sweden, herp de derp feminists de derp political correctness gone mad.
However in order to be extradited from UK, he had to be accused of a crime that would have been illegal in the UK. I suggest you read the High Court extradition appeal case ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ). The courts quite clearly decided that it wasn't some weird 'sweden-only' law, but what he was accused of would be a crime in England & Wales.
In fact, he's 'charged' with 4 things:
• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex.
• "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW).
• "Sexual molestation" - "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body."
• "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.
Before you talk about what's going on, read up on the charges.
Again: There are no charges. There is an arrest warrant to question him on suspicion. Charges would be the next step if they decide to proceed.
The UK courts found that the Swedish prosecutors unilateral interpretation of the evidence as stated in the EAW would amount to rape under UK law.
But this description has not been used to file charges with a Swedish court, and the woman in question have previously claimed to the press that she refuses to sign the statements that the prosecutor has based this description on. So at this stage it is pure speculation whether or not the prosecutors even believe they have anything that amounts to sufficient basis for a rape charge.
This does not mean that it's not possible that they will file actual rape charges. It does mean that it is worth pointing out that the only clear cut accusation of rape so far comes from the prosecutor, and that only in a document she has every opportunity to ignore the contents off for the future should she so choose.
It would most certainly not be the first time a Scandinavian prosecutor have used claims in an arrest warrant only to end up with no charges at all or much reduced charges once they actually have to file documents backed up by the evidence in front of a court with the power to actually investigate the evidence.
"Again: There are no charges."
Yes and no. Yes has has not been charged, however the Swedish court system is different. In the High Court appeal to the extradition, the English judge ruled that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). So he it is the opinion of the English courts that has been the equivalent of "charged".
The opinion of the English courts is based on representations of the Swedish prosecutor on the express basis that the extradition does not need to concern itself with what evidence there is to support those representations.
In other words, it says nothing about whether or not there is a sufficient basis for charging him in Sweden, nor about whether the proseutors office will actually feel confident enough to actually go through with charges if they get hold of him.
It only says that if the Swedish prosecutor does indeed have sufficient evidence to get a Swedish court to charge him based on claims supporting the same allegations she has made in the EAW, then it would also be a crime in England and Wales.
Which raises the question of why Marianne Ny has doggedly insisted on carrying out this case in a manner that has prevented it from moving forward, nor tried to get him charged in absentia, which the Swedish system most most certainly allows her to do.
The extradition to the US of the guy who ran a site with links to pirated content comes to mind as a counter-example>he had to be accused of a crime that would have been illegal in the UK.e: his name was richard o'dwyer. The only related UK law is copyright infringement, links do not constitute that. He appears only as guilty under UK law (and perhaps even US law) as google, and less than Youtube. He complied with DCMA requests.
Counter-example of what? I'm sure profiting from copyright infringment is illegal in the UK aswell.
> Lots of people are trying to point out that Assange isn't being accused of rape, but some sort of "not-using-a-condom" silly rape law that is only the law is whacky Sweden, herp de derp feminists de derp political correctness gone mad.
I agree. Telling a woman you're going to use a condom so she'll sleep with you, then taking it off halfway into sex because it feels better and you don't care about the woman's choice isn't at all a violation of her sexual rights.
She doesn't get to pick how the penis goes into her, the man does! Fucking herp de derp feminists.
I think the OP was being sarcastic.
OP is referring to very real, disturbing sentiment that tops many discussions of Julian Assange's charges. Hop over to reddit sometime for real fun.
I did not think OP agreed with that sentiment. But he did brush right past it without addressing it.
Exactly, a lot of people are defending Assange by trying to portray this as some sort of extreme law that is "not like normal rape", "not a real crime". It's not just reddit, look at the comment I replied to ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4404277 )
• "the issue is about protected or unprotected sex" (er no, sex with someone asleep is one of the charges).
• "Rape has a different definition in the Swedish legal code than everywhere else in the world". laws are different yes, but the UK courts have looked at it, and decided that the charges would count as crimes if it was in UK. To re-iterate what the UK Judge said about UK law: *"in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003" (§86 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html )
What he is being investigated for would be considered rape pretty much anywhere in the western world. He is being investigated for having sex with a person that was asleep after she had expressed she did not want to have sex with him without a condom. That means no consent was given and would be rape pretty much anywhere.
No please don't think like that. Assange even said today he would agree to go to Sweden, if they promise to not send him to the U.S. He's terrible afraid of being send to the U.S, and rightly so. The U.S. repeatedly demonstrated, that when it comes to political prisoners they don't care much about human rights, the law, or habeas corpus. Look how Bradley Manning is being treated or may I just remind you of Guantanamo Bay? These things really happen.
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.
> Assange even said today he would agree to go to Sweden, if they promise to not send him to the U.S.
It's impossible to unconditionally promise something like that.
> The U.S. repeatedly demonstrated, that when it comes to political prisoners they don't care much about human rights, the law, or habeas corpus. Look how Bradley Manning is being treated
Bradley Manning's treatment might seem excessive to you, but it satisfies every legal and constitutional requirement for the detention and treatment of soldiers accused of violating the UCMJ.
> or may I just remind you of Guantanamo Bay?
If the US wanted Assange in Guantanamo Bay, he would have been in Guantanamo Bay for awhile now. There's absolutely no way a promise from the Swedish government would protect Assange from extraordinary rendition in the first place.
A red interpol warrant, no less. Qaddafi got an orange. My views have changed.
It's not a scale. Red isn't worse than orange, they just mean different things. Orange is issued to notice of an immediate threat to life. If anything, orange is more severe.
http://amiobjective.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/assange-case-comm...
[Edit: Added reference]
Ah, the documentary I saw quite poorly framed it, then.
> I highly suspect Assange is actually just trying to avoid jail time, if he's going to these lengths to avoid going to Sweden for questioning on unrelated accusations of sex crime.
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?
This is something to remember: Assange hasn't been charged of anything yet, and still Interpol issued a red notice against him (while not even Gaddafi had a red one). Something smells fishy here.
Where is this meme from? Most Interpol notices are red (3 out of 4). The color codes are not a ranking of severity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol_notice#Notice_types
http://www.interpol.int/fr/Expertise/Notices
(while not even Gaddafi had a red one)
Under what nation's police jurisdiction? Gaddafi was a head of state! (Although Interpol did issue a red notice at one point, at the request of the ICC...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/09/201199949503933...
But according to Swedish law Assange cannot be charged until after this second round of questioning. If you search this document [0] for 'charge' you'll see that Swedish law is very different from US and UK laws where being formally charged happens very early in the legal process. From what I've gather in Swedish law once you are charge formally you go very quickly to court.
0. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have two alternatives:
- They can interview him where he is now, and move things forward at least a little bit. - They can wait - possibly forever - to interview him, and not get justice for anyone.
What changes if they interview him now?
They claim there are legal issues with it, but this would not be the first time someone had been questioned on foreign soil, and it would not be the first time someone has been charged in absentia if they were to go down that route.
He won't magically gain superpowers and fly away from the Ecuadorian embassy if they charge him before they have him in custody. All that realistically changes is that they have to publicly make a decision whether to file charges or not.
So the question the is why is that a problem? The cynic in me tells me that the most likely reason is that they don't believe they have a strong case, and that his dogged insistence on not going to Sweden suits the prosecutor perfectly.
It is relevant, because people are implying the case is much much less further along than it actually is. It is the opinion of the English courts (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged". So the case is far enough along that he would be charged (were this England).
He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.
Oh, I didn't know about that. That could be suspicious, but I'd have to know more.
It isn't the first time. The offer to have him face interviews in the UK have been given regularly ever since they first wanted to talk to him after he'd arrived in the UK. Instead they went ahead with the EAW, and then refused several more offers while sending representatives to London for the extradition hearings instead.
That is, unless Assanges British barristers are lying in ways that'd risk them disbarment.
No, it's in accordance with Swedish bureaucracy.
Except it isn't really. They regularly interview suspects outside of Sweden. One of the most recent well known cases is a pair of Polish nationals interviewed in Poland on suspicion of carrying out a double homicide in Sweden. So apparently it's ok to interview alleged murderers outside Sweden, but not Assange.
Of course you might dismiss this link as pro-assange but I found it quite informing on the different extradition scenarios.
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.
He's spent more time struggling to avoid jail time than he would spend in jail in Sweden if convicted, in a relatively low security prison likely to have quite decent accommodation and amenities. This isn't like the US where he'd risk years in some horrible shithole.
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)
Obviously, he is not doing it just to avoid a Swedish prison sentence. He appears to think that if he goes to Sweden, he'll end up going to the US too and once there he'll be "vanished" or worse. I'd say that's not unreasonable given what we've heard from the US already, and the pressure they've been willing to bring to bear on Kim Dotcom (who they're a lot less personally annoyed with than Assange) or the Pirate Bay a few years back.
Exactly. So I think it is unfair to assume he isn't prepared to stand in front of a Swedish court. It doesn't even really matter whether this threat is real or not. What matters is that he appears to believe it, and that there are enough oddities to exacerbate his fears and raise questions for other people too.
So that leaves Sweden with two options: Trying to work around that and coming to a compromise that allows them to try him, or face a standoff that could very well last for years.
So far they seem to have gone to a curious amount of effort to avoid trying to make any accommodations at all to move the case forward. Maybe they are just being totally obtuse and irrational. Or maybe there really is more going behind the scenes.
I would like to see him stand trial. If he's guilty, he should serve the sentence. If he's not, we need explanations for why this case has been treated this way.
One would think that the Swedish prosecutors office would like to see him stand trial too, yet they seem to do everything they can to ensure it drags out.
please read this comment on a previous HN story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391500
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
I'm not sure Hnolable if you did the down vote on TazeTSchnitzel but either way it seems very inappropriate. You're taking a complicated situation and assuming you know all the facts and the motivations. That's presumptuous because it is impossible for you to know. There's nothing in the comments by OP that isn't a fair assumption.
I'm a new account. I have 13 pts. I can't downvote.
His comment was very uninformed. So I pasted 3 links which are a quick way for him to get up to speed on the things that most people are not made aware of by the media covering the whole fiasco.
Yet it's hard to dispute that Assange does a) want to avoid going to jail and b) is a very attention seeking person. At least that comment is no longer down-voted. That ABC/4Corners article you site really isn't credible either if you know Australian media well.
Yes, I can tell you have a very unbiased view on the matter.
I agree, and can't help but question the claims he will be extradited to the US from Sweden, since if he was going to be extradited from anywhere it would be the UK.
I'm surprised no-one's pointed out the irony of a man locked up in a building in order to stop him from being locked up in a building.
Seriously though, lets try to look at this objectively.
We have a man who is wanted for questioning relating to sexual offences and is actively trying to escape the charges. In any normal situation, we would all say that he should go and face the courts and if guilty do the time. Pro-Assange people claim that he should not face the courts on the grounds that this will be used to extradite him to the US. These same people are saying that someone who may be guilty of a crime in Sweden are saying that the law shouldn't apply to him.
Additionally, this same man has done an awful lot of work to expose corruption and wrongdoing at a high level. In the process of this however and through an exchange with a journalist, the raw cable information, all unredacted has been compromised, in the process potentially jeopardizing the lives of many people named in the unredacted cables. The US is understandably livid and take the disclosure of classified material seriously. 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.
Additionally we have the unprecedented act of the British government threatening the integrity of the Ecuadorian embassy (thanks for pointing this out Daishiman). This is indeed strange and unique. It's worth bearing in mind that the threat was made against the advice of legal counsel. It may be possible that the person responsible didn't understand the Vienna convention. The UK now has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden, as per their treaty with Sweden.
I find it interesting that people can suspend their views of justice based on the allegations of political meddling. The fact is that he is wanted by the Swedish government, and he's admitted that he had sex with the two ladies in question, yet the arguments against him facing the Swedish judicial system fail to offer up any reasons why he should be exempt from the law beyond claims of a conspiracy (which may or may not be real, we don't know for sure and probably never will).
Two points:
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.
You're right about the charges, thanks for pointing that out. The Swedish judicial system is very different to that of the UK and charges are not brought until the court date is near.
You're also correct about the threat on the embassy front, I should've put that in. Thanks again.
"Sweden has not charged Assange with anything."
Technically no, but that's more with how the Swedish system works. In the High Court appeal to the extradition, the judge ruled that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). So he it is the opinion of the English courts that has been the equivalent of "charged".
You say you want to look at it objectively and then right away you claim he is "actively trying to escape the charges." The Assange side has only ever claimed they were concerned with due process. I think most people would agree that without due process there is no proper justice.
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?
Playing Devil's advocate, Sweden has treaties with the U.S. about extradition; is it reasonable for a country to suspend them because a suspect demands so?
It would be reasonable for all parties to be transparent with respect to what they plan to do re:extradition.
Yes in theory Sweden could just suspend the treaties for a while. We're up there with "storming the embassy" levels of diplomatic fuck-up-ery there. They aren't going to suspend international treaties like that.
Apparently, the reason anyone in Sweden can't give any guarantee about an extradition is that any such extradition has to be tried in the courts, and the Swedish constitution doesn't grant anyone the power to decide the result without a trial.
We have a man who is wanted for questioning relating to sexual offences and is actively trying to escape the charges. In any normal situation, we would all say that he should go and face the courts and if guilty do the time. Pro-Assange people claim that he should not face the courts on the grounds that this will be used to extradite him to the US. These same people are saying that someone who may be guilty of a crime in Sweden are saying that the law shouldn't apply to him.
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.
Assange could probably fall out of a plane on his way to Sweden and there'd be people on here saying how they see no evidence that it was anything other than an accidental mechanical failure.
Please note that yesterday the USA went public saying they DO NOT recognize the concept of diplomatic asylum. Here my post on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4401902 Of course the story is huge, and of course it was immediately flagged to death, but I think that it says a lot about the intentions of the US government: they are willing to take that kind of embarrassing and dangerous step just to put pressure on UK and Assange.
You know what's more interesting? The fact that the Australian government is nowhere to be found when it comes to this - or at least, there's no mention of their involvement.
I still can't decide whether I like that or not - on the one hand, it's nice to see that citizens of a country who are passport holders (passports are gov. property and can be easily revoked) are free to do what they want around the world, on the other hand, it's kind of sad to see that your government doesn't do anything to help you...
Absolutely. After all the support they've given to their citizens acting very stupid in Indonesia, it's disappointing they are so quiet on this.
Well, at this stage Assange has become a pawn in the game of international relations. I wonder if he envisioned that, when he was dreaming of how "Wikileaks" would change the world.
Countries that generally get a raw deal in their dealings with the US, like many in South America, can use him as a bargaining chip. And that's exactly what's happening here. Reading between the lines, seeing beyond the silly headlines the papers are feeding us, does not require you to be a foreign policy expert.
As someone said in an earlier post, whether we like Assange as a person is less relevant than the fact his ill-considered actions have pushed the envelope and are forcing some issues about the internet to be addressed, the resolution of which hackers have been patiently waiting for many years.
It's interesting to think about all the cables that were never released, i.e. the vast majority of them. How did the newspapers decide which ones to let the public see? Those decisions are having real effects. They were in essence policy decisions. Someone at the news corporation had to say, let's release these cables about Ecuador.
And here we are.
Pass the popcorn.
UK say they have no choice but to do everything possible to get Assange because there is a deportation request.
Just one word to answer that and destroy any credibility that position could have: Pinochet.
A lot of the questions and opinions about Assange came up when Ecuador granted him asylum (eg [1]) as I'm sure they come up every time Wikileaks or Assange makes the news.
I just can't escape the opinion that something about Assange is just off. Don't get me wrong: something is very strange about the way Swedish prosecutors are acting. But think about this: if these charges were exactly what they appeared to be and there was no US involvement, claiming a US conspiracy sure could be an effective defence in the court of public opinion.
Some commenters point out that there's no evidence the US government put the two women up to this so there's no US involvement. This is a false dichotomy.
Personally I believe that the initial interview and prosecutorial involvement was innocent enough but probably what happened is that the US got wind of it and saw it as a way to get Assange to Sweden. I expect the reports are true that the US has a sealed indictment against Assange. I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing.
The question of why not extradite from the UK is also unresolved. It's clear that it is easier to extradite from the Sweden (ie "temporary surrender"). Perhaps the US doesn't want to give the UK the political headache of having to deal with this and having it drag out in the courts.
It also seems like the Swedish government does't have the legal authority to guarantee non-extradition to the US.
Overall it's very strange and very disturbing.
EDIT: another possibility: the Swedish police and duty prosecutor misinterpreted and/or overreacteed, a more senior prosecutor acted more rationally but then it went further up and may not been at the behest of the US at all but simply could've been the government or even some lackey just being eager to please.
If nothing else, Sweden really should have to come clean on who made the decisions regarding Assange's arrest warrant (after giving him clearance to leave) and the Interpol "Red Notice".
The one reason you know that something is weird is because courts/police/governments usually don't try to prosecute rapists this way. Usually rape victims are ignored. Seems the only way to get the state and police to really care, is if your rapist is an enemy of the state.
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.
I do not see the point in actively chasing a pawn. Assange was nothing more than a middle man for the crimes committed. Other than putting charges against him in the US as an administrative posture, I do not see the justification for the loss of any political currency in getting him extradited. He is simply not worth it. There is no public opinion win for the the US government in that play, except for maybe we got the guy there were charges against. He has no access to anything. He is no different to a person looking to leak information, than a non-US news agency. It would also make him a martyr which is worse than a publisher.
edit to remove thread hijack cause
Umm, what? Who was this attacker? I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government. As opposed to what you seem to try to imply that the leaks themselves put someone in danger.
The truth didn't kill anyone. Those who committed the acts and gave the orders that became the truth that had to be leaked did.
Interesting take: "I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government."
You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents with names of people who were working with the US to try and right wrongs in their own countries? People who were later targeted by their own governments who are known to "commit abuses.."
To be clear: the release was accidental. Assange did not intend to release the cables. They were stored in an encrypted zip file with a password which due to a series of unfortunate circumstances was made public.
It was a disaster for Wikileaks that the cables were released. It was like a nuclear first strike. Assange knew that, and that's of course why he didn't release them. It's truly a shame that they were accidentally made public. These secrets are going to be irrelevant 10 years from now, and came at the cost of dealing a serious blow to the infrastructure which made that information release possible in the first place.
I consider the following quote from Assange as contextual when examining how in the world an organization so well-versed in protecting secrets would fail so miserably at basic security...
"Well, they're informants, so if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
Of course, that bring to my mind as much conjecture as that which I would rally against.
Interesting. Could you source that quote? I don't disbelieve you, I'm just interested.
It was from the Leigh book which accidentally leaked the password. Purportedly, it was said in a meeting with people who were largely friendly towards him at the time.
Further, additional dumps were made unredacted after the fact, and some wikileaker's claimed that it was at Assange's sole bidding. [1] Furthermore, they also intimated that it was unlikely the original leak was anything but intentional, given the password which was used, hints that were given, and the fact that they had never done that sort of thing before. Remember 100,000 cables had accidentally released by the Guardian in Feb. '11, but another 250k were released unredacted in Sept. '11.
I'm not sure to trust anyone, but I'm not putting Assange on a pedestal in this case, and certainly I don't think such a statement would be outside of his character based on the many other interviews and writings of his. Of course, he does deny saying it[2], so take everything with a grain of salt.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publis...
[2] http://www.itproportal.com/2011/05/25/assange-denies-informa...
EDIT: Just to make a point, and not be revisionist, my statement is largely incorrect about timing and numbers. My brain was temporarily jumbled digging through the articles. Guardian leaked the password, Der Spiegel added info on the file locations (purported to be planted by wikileaks in the linked article), and then wikileaks dumped it all in the open.
You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents ONLY when The Guardian - by accident - had published the password to the archive in a book.
And the US government would not help in redacting most leaks :). Though Wikileaks continued to ask.
You do realize that our intelligence agencies have linked 0 deaths to these leaks... The very people who want Wikileaks shutdown can't provide accounts of harm done.
> I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing.
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.
There is no copyright on government documents. Once you know something it is no longer a secret by definition and you are free to discuss and report on it. It seems with Wikileaks that this is no longer the case, making this a stunning attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
If you want to get uptight about the security implications of the leaks, a better place to start is wondering who setup the system that allegedly allowed a mentally unbalanced soldier to carry evidence of war crimes and private diplomatic correspondence out of a military facility on a USB key. Assuming it was Manning who leaked the information AND it constituted any real security threat, it seems clear he should never have had access to that sort of material.
Now I'm uptight?
I raise a valid point -- journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations, they report. I have never seen a journalistic article from Wikileaks, much as I have never seen a journalist simply distribute a bunch of private conversations with no story.
Seems like a meaningless difference to me. You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism?
Wikileaks presented information, just because that information wasn't in a form that you are comfortable and familiar with doesn't make it not journalism.
No one had ever seen a journalist who published exclusively online until a few years ago and many people claimed that wasn't "journalism". Now bloggers are pretty well-recognized.
The volume of information is so large today that a new form of journalism is required. Wikileaks has provided that, or at least led the charge to provide it.
Wikileaks acted as a clearinghouse for raw information. Then others read it, interpreted it and wrote about it. I don't see the problem.
> You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism?
Um...yeah
But what's the difference? We're big kids, we can read the documents for ourselves. Or we can wait and let another news outlet read them and interpret them for us. I just don't see this as being a meaningful difference.
Sorry, you're wrong. Getting information to the public is journalism. It's usually better to go beyond raw information to do so, but making the information itself more accessible than it was before (because it was secret, for instance) is very valuable. I spent a couple of years doing that in a newsroom.
> journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations
Perhaps you have heard of the terms "public service" and "public sector"? Government documents are not private conversations and I am genuinely appalled you believe yourself entitled to speak on only those matters your government deems fit for public discourse.
> Government documents are not private conversations.
huh? if they weren't private, then why were they newsworthy?
And he is one more than 4 million who have such access, by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet
I would say yes.
Journalism is supposed to guide you to readily available and verifiable facts whenever possible. The journalist gives you insight into an event. One is then able to leapfrog the initial hurdle of that initial research and more easily educate yourself about the world you live in.
Without facts and sources, it's just storytime.
EDIT: More importantly, you can't divorce journalistic research from journalism itself.
I disagree that "facts" are "journalism" -- but can you even say that the text of a bunch of emails, dumped verbatim, are readily and verifiable facts? Or is it simply somebody else's conversation?
Is whatever you say in email a readily available and verifiable fact? is dumping your private emails "journalism"?
The "fact" is that "somebody said this in an email". Some of the most interesting things in the diplomatic cables were not of the form "X did Y" but rather "X said Y to Z". In that case, yes, an email is a fact.
Well in the era of Watergate it wasn't like dumping the information onto bit-torrent was a viable option for the investigative journalists. They had to write it up in article form just to communicate their findings.
Interesting point, however I am having a hard time coming up with another journalist in this era who reports their findings by dumping information onto bit-torrent.
> Your entire objection to Wikileaks seems to be that it is unconventional in a literal sense
I'm not objecting to Wikileaks, I'm objecting to Assange calling it journalism.
I've gotten downvoted simply because people are emotional over this -- as if I'm attacking them.
I was glad you raised the question, as I had the same thought as you at first. That just cutting and pasting some documents is not journalism.
I then read a tonne of definitions of the word "journalism" and to me. They pretty much all just say journalism is getting the facts out there, in any form. There's no requirement for a journalist to make a "report", for it to be journalism.
I would be interested to see more examples of journalism where no report was written.
So what? Seriously, why does it matter even one iota if there are others doing the same thing? Your entire objection to Wikileaks seems to be that it is unconventional in a literal sense, it doesn't follow the conventions of journalism that you are comfortable with. But that's just how new things work, they're different because they're new and innovative.
Unless you have a better reason than "it's different and weird", your objections are just like those of a grumpy old man complaining about the music the youngsters listen to these days.
Extra public attention alone will sometimes move prosecutors from ignoring a case to pursuing it, if only because of the spotlight. Consider the case of George Zimmerman, for example.
This is partisan politics, not Hacker News. Flagged.
Julian Assange, love him or hate him, is certainly a hacker, and Wikileaks is potentially, depending on what turns out to be true, one of the most important technology stories this decade. It is a story about the Internet being told on the Internet, and has major implications for the future of the Internet.
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.
Quoth the guidelines:
"Off-topic: Most stories about politics, or crime...unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This is indeed off-topic.
The video is part of an ongoing story: the wide-ranging political and diplomatic implications of decentralized leaks that can't be kept from the public once they're out. This story is certainly evidence of an entirely new, technology-centric phenomenon that I personally find highly interesting.
Wikileaks is interesting. Julian Assange's personal affairs are not.
This is not his personal affairs; this is a public speech he's giving about Wikileaks, and an alleged international conspiracy to destroy the organization. Maybe it's trumped up, I'm agnostic on that point. But it's highly contentious whether or not this is about Assange's personal affairs, or if his personal affairs are being used as a weapon against Wikileaks.
Well, yours is the first comment I've seen in this thread that actually discusses the speech or Wikileaks, rather than rehashing that tired old argument about whether the Swedish actually want to try Assange for rape or whether it's some kind of CIA conspiracy.
OK— last post on this. If you think it's a CIA conspiracy trying to undermine Wikileaks, this rape charge is part of that story. Obviously that's in question, which is why it's not possible to think of this as obviously inappropriate.
You can manufacture whatever loophole you want to get around the guidelines. The front page still gets full of crap that doesn't engage the intellectual curiosity.