This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of.
He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system of arrest warrants across Europe. Let's get on with it.
"Technical grounds", in this case, means "the extradition request was never written by anyone the UK considers to be a valid authority". In denying his appeal, the Supreme Court based its ruling on treaties that neither party had argued over or been informed would be germane. Thus, there'll likely be another appeal before anything happens.
The law is finicky for a reason: it spells out exactly what rights the respective parties have. Were it not so explicit, and were the courts not so strict in enforcing it, the validity of the entire system would be called into question and judicial impartiality / defendants' rights would fly out the window.
People throw a tizzy when a murderer gets let off because they weren't read their rights, but if that didn't happen no one would have their rights read. It's just how the system keeps police and prosecutors in line. It's necessary.
It is worth pointing out that there is a warrant out for his arrest to question him on suspicion.
He has not been charged with an offense.
This distinction is mostly left out in the news coverage.
And the arrest warrant was as far as I know was made at the behest of the police and prosecutor without a formal complaint from either of the women. At least the accounts I've seen indicate that the women came to the police jointly to ask for advice on whether or not they could demand and AIDS test of him, and described the situation in such terms that the police decided to get him in for questioning based on their own suspicions despite the fact that another prosecutor had closed the case because she believed there was no indication a crime had been committed.
Based on that he faces a substantial risk of jail without bail possibly for months on end because they have preferred to spend a year and a half on a lengthy legal process instead of taking up past offers of interviewing him about the case in London.
Conspiracy or not, there seems to be more big egos and agendas involved than Assanges, and in those circumstances anyone should be wary about going back voluntarily.
Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he's a horrible person. But guilty or not, if the situation is the way I've seen it described, I'd fight tooth and nail to stay out of Sweden too.
> It's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there.
But he already did. He stayed, he was questioned, and then he asked if he could leave Sweden, they said yes, and he left. Then another prosecutor unrelated to the original case wants him back for further questioning.
To be honest, I don't think it's an unpopular opinion and it was my opinion until I looked into things further. However, once you know all the facts, it seems very suspicious or, at least, unnecessary.
Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans.
The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK.
As there is no rule of law in America (secret trials, secret laws, solitary confinement without trial, etc etc etc), this is the worst possible outcome.
I still don't understand this, though. Under the US-UK extradition treaty (signed into law in the UK in 2003, in the US in 2006, I think), all the US has to do is provide the UK with reasonable suspicion that Assange committed a crime within the US, and the British would hand him over. Is the Swedish extradition treaty vastly different?
I don't think this has anything to do with the treaty texts.
UK judges are known to stand up to the political establishment when parliament doesn't get their ducks in a row and very, very carefully make sure they are consistent with UK constitutional law, which does in fact provide fairly strong protections, and even more so coupled with the Human Rights Act. This to the ongoing exasperation of UK politicians. Swedish judges does not have a similar reputation.
I could very well see a UK judge deciding that extradition would not be compatible with rights guaranteed to him under UK or EU law, regardless of the treaty, due to the state of the US legal system, but I really can't imagine a Swedish judge thinking twice about it...
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but personally I would not take my chances if Sweden if I didn't really have to if I was in his shoes.
That isn't how extradition works. This is an extradition hearing on a EU arrest warrant, the UK (as the arresting country) would not be able to extradite to anywhere BUT Sweden, despite any agreements with the US.
The other factors you must take into consideration is that in the UK, the judicial system is separated from the political one (not so in Sweden) and you would have to deal with English CommonLaw. Compare this with Sweden where the prime minister has already asserted Assange's guilt in parliament for an on-going case (in the CommonWealth countries or the US, this would be grounds for a mistrial).
Although it is tempting to think that because the UK must certainly be one of the US' closest ally that it would bow to the US pressure, there is a lot of legal red tape to go through but in the last 7 years the US has had significant influence over Sweden in legal terms. For instance Sweden once had a strong stance on matters of privacy but now all call records and IP records are stored in the Titan Traffic Database and warrant-less wiretaps are now possible through the FRA law but because of the vast amounts of data with both systems, the data is handed over to the US directly for signal processing (which may be a violation of EU privacy laws and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
If Assange's appeal succeeds, doesn't it just mean they can still try to convince a Swedish judge to make a new extradition request? Is that too much to ask for?
I agree with you. It's very hard to defend Assange's actions without appealing to paranoia. If he didn't commit the crimes, he ought to behave as though he has nothing to be afraid of. His flight from law is becoming a bigger story than the actual accusations--it's hard to look innocent while fleeing the authorities. If he really did nothing wrong, the appropriate place to prove it is in court, not on HN.
Fleeing authorities? He's under house arrest with a monitoring anklet and has to sign in at a police station every day. The authorities know where he is every second.
Should Dalai Lama turn himself in to the Chinese authorities, too?
Even if Assange was completely innocent, that wouldn't stop the US Government from trying to put him in a cell next to Bradley Manning for 2 years, if they were really pissed off at him. These days when you piss of the top hierarchy of the US Government, you're guilty until proven innocent.
> But Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said she could challenge the Supreme Court's decision because it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties - such as those concerning extradition - should be implemented, and this had not been discussed during the hearing.
Watch and see. Now his lawyer will put into question the very meaning of implementing an international treaty. All in order to prevent a possible rapist, who just happens to be just a little less famous than Polanski, from being charged. Only the Chewbacca defense could make this sillier.
You do know the circumstances around the "accusation" right? I mean, it seems to me some people here are willfully ignorant. I despise willful ignorance. Assange hasn't been charged with any crime. If you looked at the actual circumstances, you would find the comparison to Polanski who indeed raped a 13 year old girl, is highly unfair, if not for a lack of word, stupid. Oh, and the sex was consensual according to the women... though because of Swedish legal definitions, it can still technically be called rape.
The tweets of the two women in question expressed ulterior motives for going to the police. They also made tweets that contradict the "rape". Not only that, but the Swedish prosecutor named Assange publicly before having stood trial (and if you're not aware of it, the accused of rape cases is to be anonymous until he has been found guilty... if not, defamation becomes all too easy).
It all smells so fishy, and I have no idea why people on HN don't think highly of him. That they would fall for such an obvious smear campaign, well.. I'm disappointed. WikiLeaks is probably one of the very few journalistic entities that fulfill the important role journalism was intended to have in a democracy. The majority of other news are regurgitated and preprocessed opinions on unimportant events. The bread an circus for the masses, if you will.
---
Now that said, the thing I don't understand is why he doesn't willingly go to Sweden to get rid of the bullshit trials (note that it was already called such by the Swedish prosecutor who threw away the case). Perhaps it is based on principle? That the whole extradition is based on no real reason? That the reason provided for the extradition (questioning regarding the case), does not engender confidence, since alternative ways of doing an interview (webcam, etc) were suggested and rejected by the Swedish authorities.
I don't think highly of Assange. I can't precisely tell you why, but despite the fact that I admire his dedication to Wikileaks, my impression is that he is pretty full of himself. I might very well be wrong and he might be a fantastic person, but that's my impression. And if even 1/10th of the description of him related to this case is right, he seems to be at least pretty stupid.
But I still think these "accusations" are fishy to the extreme. There might not be a conspiracy, but that doesn't mean that there might not be two scorned women out for revenge coupled with a lawyer and prosecutor who see a combination of a career move and pursuit of a political agenda.
And that in itself is good reason to stay out if at all possible.
Assange has not been charged with a crime because Swedish law requires him to be present in Sweden before they do so. This is one of 22 comment on this very article--if you're going to charge people with willful ignorance you probably need a more credible position to do so. :)
As I understand it both women claim he had sex non-consensually with them - with one he had sex with her while she was asleep, in the other case she insisted he used a condom and he refused, while holding her down with his weight. Both of those sound like rape to me (and that's how the Swedish name for the offense, olaga tvång, is usually translated as I understand it).
Assange, by his own words and actions, comes across as quite an unpleasant man. It's not hard to see him fighting his extradition to Sweden as being motivated by him feeling that his conduct in bed with these women was reasonable. It wasn't, and I'm sad (but I guess not surprised) at the misogyny some people defending him display.
From what I remember of the case when it transpired. Both women had no problems with having slept with Assange (as expressed through texts and tweets that were removed). It was only when they became aware of each other that they went to the police. And not to a station near the women, but to one where the women knew a friend (though I'm not sure how unreasonable this is, if she had been raped). Also, when someone expresses ulterior motives (revenge, defamation) with regards to a rape accusation (where it often becomes word against word), and also when also having expressed consent to the sex... to later change their minds. You bet I'm suspicious.
Also, I was not aware one had to be in Sweden to be charged with a crime. I find that a bit surprising, but I'll take your word for it for now and look into it later.
> Assange has not been charged with a crime because Swedish law requires him to be present in Sweden before they do so.
He is wanted for arrest to be questioned on suspicion. He has not been interviewed. It would be absolutely shockingly unprecedented even for Sweden if they intend to charge him based on testimony that one prosecutor didn't even believe indicated a crime had taken place, without a formal complaint (see below), without physical evidence and without having conducted an interview to get his side of the story.
You seem to try to make it out as if this is just a formality and he's "practically charged", just not technically because they need to wait until he'se there first.
If this is just a technicality, then this case stinks to high heaven based on the information that's been disclosed about this case so far.
The problem is, if it isn't just a technicality, and they seriously want to do an interview before making a reasoned decision about whether to charge him, they've had several opportunities to do so a long time ago, and refused, in order to spend a year and a half trying to get him into a Swedish jail.
In either case something is up. Possibly just the career goals of the prosecutor. But this is not how this plays out for less high profile cases in Scandinavia. Not even in Sweden.
> As I understand it both women claim he had sex non-consensually with them
As I understand it, both women described something that the police decided to interpret as non-consensual sex without a formal complaint from either of them - an interpretation one of the prosecutors who reviewed the case thought was nonsense.
> It wasn't,
His behavior has not been proven to be anywhere near the media portrayal of the complaint, nor has the testimony of the women in question been under any kind of serious scrutiny. Maybe it was just like that. Maybe it was worse. Or nothing criminal might have happened.
After all the case only still exists because it was in a pretty much unprecedented manner picked up by a second prosecutor known for her hardline views and desire to significantly tighten up Swedish rape laws well beyond anywhere else in Europe after one prosecutor dismissed it on the belief that there had not been any crime.
At the same time, one of the women tried to remove tweets that described how she'd had a great time with Assange after the alleged rape, and a blog post describing exactly how to use a similar method of going to the police to describe a situation as a legal method of taking revenge on someone.
Assange might very well be guilty, but there are enough bizarre things about this case that if he is innocent, he has every reason to fight this extradition, particularly given his background, out of a concern for the motivations of the prosecution. As such, using his decision to fight extradition as an indicator of what he thinks or doesn't think about what behavior is reasonable or whether or not he is guilty of a crime is flawed.
He has been interviewed, about these events, on the 30th August, by Sthlm police[0]. Swedish law demands that he can only be charged after a second round of questioning after extradition (as I understand it).
How many "less high profile" alleged rapists leave the country and then fight extradition? It seems to me obvious that he's being treated unusually because he has behaved unusually.
It is not uncommon, especially in cases of this kind, for prosecutions to be brought even in the absence of formal complaints (and sometimes against the express wishes of the victim). That's the nature of criminal actions - you offend against the state, and the state brings the prosecution. It's sometimes absurd but, again, it's not out of the ordinary.
Everything I've heard from Assange about his behaviour has been deflective - "the charges are without basis" is the closest he's got to denying it and that sounds like it came from his lawyer. "This has been a very successful smear campaign", "I'm the only victim in this", "it's deeply disturbing that the charges are raised at this time", and that the extradition proceedings to Sweden are "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US".
If the often-raised last point is true, why the hell did he APPLY FOR RESIDENCE in Sweden three months before the warrant was issued? [1]
The whole thing really seems to me like he knows he did the things he is accused of but he just doesn't think they're crimes or problematic. You're welcome to draw an alternative conclusion, but I don't think there is anything murky in the judicial process.
You are right, I didn't remember the first interview. He was, though, subsequently told he was free to leave, after the first prosecutor decided there was no case. When he's a new prosecutor well known for her aggressive activism in expanding the scope of rape law then decides to override, there's every reason to be worried, whatever you've done or not done.
For being "well-known for her aggressive activism in expanding the scope of rape law" it's surprising I can't find anything about it on the first 3 pages of Google that pre-dates the Assange trial.
... who might just be innocent, in which case he has every reason to be paranoid about why they are pursuing him in this manner and why they are so concerned about getting him into a Swedish jail immediately instead of taking up the offer of questioning him in London.
He has plenty of reason to fight extradition whether or not he's innocent.
And FWIW, in my opinion the comparison to Polanski, given the different nature of the cases, borders on defamation.
My sense is that while people across the world are polarised in their opinions of Assange himself, there's still a lot of disquiet about the question of his (potential/likely?) deportation to the U.S. only to face a Grand Jury, as opposed to due process, the rule of law, and a properly constituted court.
As a non-American, it makes me wonder whether this isn't the time for a serious conversation about amending our extradition laws and treaties to exclude any jurisdictions that don't meet the basic standards of justice expected of a modern democracy.
If you mean social position/power as well as being state sanctioned and run then yes, the mighty BBC is more authoritative but if you are looking for the accurate up to date unbiased details then I would choose the Guardian any day.
I have no opinion on what is happening to Assange. I don't know enough facts. I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.
I find it somewhat ridiculous the number of appeals you can have. Assange lost on the original verdict, then the appeal. He can then appeal again. I assume if that fails he can appeal to some EU court?
Its like the deportation of Abu Qatada. One has so many appeals at their disposal I am surprised anyone can get deported nowadays.
> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.
Because there is absolutely no recent history of the US conspiring with friendly governments to circumvent the rule of law and illegally transporting, imprisoning and even torturing people that were considered a threat to the US, right?
And surely there is also absolutely no documented recent history of the US pressuring European authorities, especially the Swedish, to prosecuted people for crimes against US interests... cough piracy cough.
You're right about one thing, if the US were behind it, it would be no "big conspiracy". It would be business as usual.
> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.
You find it unlikely because you are clearly ignorant of the facts.
You really need to widen your reading with an opinion like that. I suggest books like "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll or "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker.
Note I'm not saying there IS an American conspiracy. I'm saying the fact that you find it UNLIKELY that there is a conspiracy is naive and ignorant of how American power actually works (as opposed to how it advertises it works).
I've posted about this before in previous HN stories, but it's actually not that dodgy: because EU borders are open (you can move between EU countries freely) it's important to have a process for arrest warrants that are valid throughout the EU.
That's what's happened here: Sweden wants to question Assange, with a view to potentially bringing charges. They have issued an arrest warrant to arrest him - his guilt is irrelevant.
As many people have mentioned, the UK actually has a strong record of extraditing people to the US: if anything, Sweden is less co-operative (for example, Roman Polanski will never set foot in the UK for fear of being arrested and extradited, but he was happy to enter Sweden).
Polanski is also a different kettle of fish compared to Assange. Polanski has various friends in high places. Assange has few.
Also, Assange managed to piss off almost every single branch of the US government. Rather than merely shooting himself in the foot, he blew his entire leg off with a shotgun.
Not to say what he was trying to achieve wasn't noble. In my personal opinion state corruption still needs to be exposed, even if that state is the United States. However, the line he walks is a very very fine one. The US was quite happy with him exposing corruption in other nations, regardless of the human cost, but not their own it appears.
At the end of the day, although the backyard he shat in wasn't his own, it just happened to belong to a damn big nasty rottweiler.
I am, however, confused at how the US can charge him for espionage, given that he's not a US citizen.
It makes sense that he would be extradited to Sweden -- he's accused of committing a crime(well, 2) while he was present in the country. I don't see the same applying to what he's accused of in the US.
I'm not sure whether you have to be physically present in the US to be guilty of espionage. The game has changed somewhat. It used to be that you had send someone to sneak inside buildings in the middle of the night, taking photos of secret documents on James bond mini-cameras hidden in fake fountain pens.
These days, you just hack the computer network remotely, or write a computer worm that monitors the 'good stuff' and sends it home to 'mama' in Fort Meade.
I am not sure you have to be found guilty of anything by anyone. The game has changed somewhat. All it takes is for someone to decide that you deserve a spot on president's kill list [1] and one predator strike later you are no more.
"Swedish law requires a person to be physically present before charges can be laid, so this can only happen once Mr Assange is on Swedish territory."
http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf
That's just how their justice system works. He is accused of committing the crimes in Sweden, so in Sweden shall he be questioned.
They don't need to charge him. They can just extradite to USA for questioning at which point on USA soil they can do what they want with him even if it's not questioning.
He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system of arrest warrants across Europe. Let's get on with it.