
Legal myths about the Assange extradition - gadders
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
======
marvin
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.

[Edit: Spelling]

~~~
tptacek
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?

~~~
doe88
> 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.

This is naive, I've seen terrorists harshly condemned in France with few
direct proofs, just because the judicial body knows that it's in the common
interest to do it. And nobody complained about, not even me.

Moreover on the US front I think the case is definitively tainted due to the
abusive treatment of Pvt. Manning. When states have great confidence in their
system and laws are above all, things like Manning's treatment don't happen in
the first place. So imo you cannot overrule the argument of "political forces
aligned against Assange" just because you say so, or because EU, US are the
"biggest" democracies. They have flaws too.

~~~
tptacek
The logic here is, Because [THE US MISTREATED BRADLEY MANNING], therefore
[SWEDEN WILL NOT FOLLOW EUROPEAN LAW WITH REGARDS TO EXTRADITION]. Non
sequitur.

~~~
jseliger
Actually—as shocked as I am to write this sentence—a comment on Reddit
explains some of the bizarre legal wrangling behind the Assange case:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_government_extradie_julian/c5vn3ue?context=1)
.

I'm looking for a way to excerpt the comment, but it's sufficiently cohesive
that there's no good way to do so.

~~~
tptacek
I got this far:

 _Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for
questioning and has not been formally charged._

... and stopped reading. Assange is wanted for arrest --- it's an EAW we're
discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him until they have done
so.

There are lots of great comments on Reddit, for whatever it's worth.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
> it's an EAW we're discussing, after all --- and can't normally charge him
> until they have done so.

You keep repeating this, and people keep demonstrating that it is untrue.

Edit: And just to be clear, you believe you know more about this than a
constitutional law prof from the EU (the author of the reddit comment),
correct?

~~~
Kell
Huh ? Where ? I've seen one intent to show it's untrue (in this thread) and
honestly the arguments where bogus.

I don't know Swedish law at all. But actually in French law (my domain of
study) in a criminal case assigned to a "Juge d'instruction" (who acts more or
less like a prosecutor), no indictment ("mise en examen") is possible without
a physical presentation to the "Juge d'Instruction".

So I know of at least One other set of laws where the idea that someone cannot
be charged without a formal presentation to the "prosecutor" is a fact, so
it's not unthinkable that the Swedish law can be similar in that matter. And
you will need more than : "No it's not true" to convince me that three
consecutives Courts including a High Court made a mistake on this point.

Edit about your edit : I think that your argument of authority is invalidated
by the presence of three decisions by UK courts that took their decisions
after hearing counsels and legal experts on both sides of the question.

~~~
toyg
Yes, and the EU court determined that such a requirement does not waive the
right to appeal a sentence. Which means somebody can actually be charged _in
absentia_ without legal repercussions, so it doesn't really matter whether
they're present or not. From what I've heard, France is currently changing its
system to reflect these rulings.

Btw, your own appeal to authority is pointless: I'm sure the courts of China
are also always right in their decisions.

We're all human, we all make mistakes, we all suffer from external pressures.
The UK High Court is as highly politicised as any similar body around the
world, and has quite an appalling record on civil liberties in general (from
libel laws to Pinochet). It's not unthinkable that they might have ruled as
they did because the UK establishment is aligned to US interests -- they are
even adopting _names_ from the US system! We now have a Supreme Court and a
number of Secretaires who used to be Ministers...

~~~
Kell
I'm not sure about what you're saying... but if you're saying that the fact
that ECHR considers judgments in absentia to be of no legal repercussions...
means that a State can pursue charges in absentia even more easily... well...
I think, in my understanding of Law, that you are wrong. It means that
pursuing charges in absentia... is of no legal repercussions (duh). So the
accused is entitled a right to a full fresh re-trial... not an appeal. Because
it's like if nothing was done. That's why States try to avoid this... It's
waste of ressources, because a sentence is of no use... Anyway there is going
to be a full retrial of the first instance.

And there is a lot of things changing in French procedural law... but this is
not changing. Judges of Instructions are not considered against ECHR and the
rule that make it a requiremnt to present a suspect before the judge before
any indictment... is actually more respectful of ECHR law than otherwise (see.
5.3 of the European convention on Human Rights).

And btw you know, China is not the UK or Sweden...

Oh and please ? Are you serious about the " _adopting names from the US
System_ " isn't that a proof of submission !" No it's not...

~~~
toyg
_Charging_ or accusing is one thing, _passing judgement_ another. From
[http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_government_extradie_julian/c5vn3ue)
:

> The French penal procedure used to demand similarly that a suspect should
> surrender and go to prison on the eve of his criminal trial. The European
> Court consistently found this a violation of 6§1 in a string of cases (Omar,
> Guerin, Khalfoui, Goth, Papon, Coste, Morel, Walser, etc.) that eventually
> managed to have the French law amended. There is not much wiggle room here:
> Assange has a fundamental right to be questioned by the prosecutors without
> having to surrender to Swedish police.

And of course UK and Sweden are not China, but please point me to the law that
says they will never become like China; in the UK, there isn't even a codified
right to freedom of speech as it is, as witnessed by the horrendous libel
laws. In any case, the US-led program of "extraordinary renditions", which was
carried out by UK and Sweden in earnest, is not very different from what a
Chinese government would enact; nor are the kangaroo courts that will judge
(maybe, one day, if they ever feel like) Pvt. Manning, or the "legal acts"
that put people in Guantanamo indefinitely and without due process. There are
no "good governments" or "bad governments", they're all different shades of
grey and they change with the times.

(Btw, I'm sorry that you fail to appreciate the extent of the current state of
the "special relationship", but I can ensure you that it's really troubling.
In the last 15 years, US foreign policy has been enacted without fail by
successive UK governments, and the encroachment of US-born ethos and culture
on British public discourse has been relentless. We joke of becoming "Air-
Strip One", when in fact we're basically already there.)

~~~
Kell
Well. You actually cast some doubts on my knowledge of French procedural
law... so since, France is a civil law country I went to the Code de Procédure
Pénale. So small class about what happen when a Judge d'Instruction (which in
France is an independent judge who is charged of preparing the case to be
judged in a formal court. But only on serious crimes affairs, or when it's a
complex affair. So it's like an "expert" prosecutor for serious cases which
job is not to actually prosecute... but to really gather the evidence for a
fair trial (he has the mission of searching evidences for and against the
suspect) I will use JI to refer to this judge) want to speak to someone.

3 cases :

1 - The person is not seriously suspected of being the perpetrator of the
crime investigated. He can be forced to present itself to the JI if the JI
wants it. Then he will be considered a _witness_. This is Art. 101 of the CPP
(Code of Penal Procedure) In the case of an external impossibility (meaning
that it's not just the guy not wanting to come) the JI can actually go to the
witness or hear the witness by any mean (Art. 109 CPP). So even if you are a
just a witness you can be forced to come.

2 - An assisted witness Art.113-1 CPP (that's when there is some possibility
that you are going to be indicted because you are a suspect), the difference
is that an assisted witness has the right to have a lawyer, more rights etc.
If you have been identified at least by name by the victim, then you must at
least be this. So at least. Assange would have been an assisted witness. It's
true that an assisted witness has the right to ask is own indictment, and the
JI must comply (Art. 113-6 CPP). BUT, to have the assisted witness status you
must have been heard at least once by the JI. Force can still be used to
present to assisted witness to the JI, and in case of impossibility etc. etc.

3 - Indicted (Mise en examen). A lot of rights, but also much much much more
power to the JI investigating the case. And well, the indictment defined at
the 80-1 and 80-2 CPP is quite clearly possible after a face to face interview
between the JI and the suspect : Translation by myself "The indictment can
only happen after the first _interview_ of the person in front of the JI"...

I could go on explaining the fine details of this law... but I think you got
the picture.

Oh, and about your "string of cases"... I'm really sorry to say it... but you
totally misinterpreting them. I mean... radically.

See Walser v. France => The problem was that the plaintiff in this case was
arrested to be presented to a JI, she (the plaintiff) was then held in custody
of the police for more than the legal 48h (58:30 actually) and the only had
her first meeting with the JI and was then indicted, benefiting of all rights
and protections of the indicted (a lawyer, access to the role of events and
her own file etc.). The ECHR says it right away, the problem was the lack of
due diligence by the police, not the arrest in itself. The European Judges
said that the maximum time to be detained before a presentation to a
prosecutor is 48h outside of extraordinary situation (Like the case I cited of
Medvedyev v. France, where since it was an extraordinary situation (Medvedyev
and all where caught in the middle of the ocean 10 days away from the nearest
French coast, so they said that since they where presented right away to a
judge after landing, it was legal).

So clearly the Good Court of Strasbourg is not objecting the fact that the
suspect was forced to surrender to French police to be then questioned by the
Judges and Prosecutors. The Wise Court is saying that police waited too long
and thus abused authority. And French law was modified accordingly, creating
the articles 803-2 803-3 in the CPP saying that the suspect must be presented
in the legal time and quicker possible.

Oh... but maybe you're referring something happening at a totally different
moment in the procedure. Yeah... you know, the act of surrender as a
prisoner... _just before a supreme court trial if, and only if he had been
judged guilty by the appellate court_. Nothing to do with the indictment, the
investigation and everything. It's only that French law required that if an
appellate court said you were guilty and sentenced you to a prison sentence,
then you had to first go beyond bars to be able to require an appeal in front
of the supreme court. This element of law has been deleted of French law in
2000, yes. But has nothing at all to do with the present case. And as I show,
the Court is perfectly fine with authorizing the police to arrest people so
they can be presented to a judge to be indicted and then investigated, which
is exactly what is going on here with Assange... This cases are filled in the
Access to a Tribunal Rights at the ECHR books, not the rights of persons being
investigated.

TL;DR: Omar and etc. are cases concerning the fact that in France before 2000
if you where sentenced to prison by an appellate court, you had to surrender
yourself to the police in order to be able to appeal to the Supreme Court. If
you were on the run, your lawyer couldn't file an appeal to the Supreme. But
this has nothing to do with the present case. Since Assange already filed
complaints in Sweden about decisions by the prosecutors and etc. And the ECHR
is perfectly fine with an arrest in investigations, provided it is to present
the suspect to a prosecutor or judge (and some other cases also).

Finally : Assange has a fundamental right to file appeal even if he is on the
run. But the prosecutors have the right to ask police to bring Assange by
force if he denies coming willingly.

\---- Now speaking of the other comments you made : \----

On the subject of respect of the rule of law by Sweden and UK, you are right.
Nothing impedes UK and Sweden than become worse than China on that matter.
BUT, frankly... that kind of thing does not happen out of the blue. Guantanomo
and Pvt Manning is out of scope, that's US, and we both agree that Justice in
the US is quite needing in everything that concerns _""""National
Security""""_. We are speaking of Sweden and UK here.

Oh and... about the special relationship... sooo if this relationship is so
special... and since, I pretty sure Sweden's relationship with US is not at
allll that special, why the hell would he be afraid of going to Sweden to be
extradicted to the US ?

------
tepotenk
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.

~~~
freehunter
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?"

~~~
e12e
Except for the first prosecutor that handled the case (bearing in mind that
Sweden has a remarkably poor record when it comes to prosecuting sexual
violence).

------
jeltz
"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."

Except that law has been violated before.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-
Ze...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery)

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
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?

~~~
jeltz
No, that was under the section called “Sweden should guarantee that there be
no extradition to USA”. If it had been under the previous section it would
have meant what you state.

~~~
tptacek
I think it's hard to miss the comparison that's actually being made in the
article between the protections Assange has in the UK versus those he'd have
in Sweden, as those comparisons are made explicitly _in each sentence_ in
which the ECHR protections are mentioned.

In fact, the article points out the additional protection Assange has in
Sweden: should the US seek to extradite, both Sweden _and_ the UK would need
to agree.

~~~
at-fates-hands
I agree. It would seem his best odds for justice are to go to Sweden and face
the music. If he's acquitted, then he should start to look for political
asylum in other countries.

The only glitch is if the Swedish authorities can detain him while the
extradition process to the US is being processed.

------
rjsamson
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.

~~~
eli
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.

~~~
e12e
I wouldn't say it has _nothing_ to do with technology. I think (and the amount
of comments on this story seems to support that) - many HN readers are
interested in information transparency and possible clandestine agendas to
against openness.

 _If_ there turns out that (any number of) intelligence services have a hand
in this -- I should think that _would_ have implications for hackers
everywhere.

Even if most of HN is about legitimate start-ups and projects that in the end
are not very disruptive -- I'd say that many readers would be interested in
what it takes to come under the very real thumb of the various arms of eg. the
US government.

But I agree that if this was about someone like Sklyarov[1] it would be a
_better_ fit.

[1] <http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-270082.html>

~~~
eli
I think we should try to stick to the guidelines [1] even if there are off-
topic stories that may get lots of comments and votes. My reasoning is there
are many good sites on the Internet dedicated to politics and current events,
but surprisingly few good discussion forums for tech startups.

This story is really only tangentially related to information transparency;
the text is entirely about international politics and the law. It has nothing
to do with technology.

[1] <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
e12e
Well, my understanding is that:

"If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that
gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

should be weighted more than:

"Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of
some interesting new phenomenon."

Is that a radical interpretation of the guidelines?

------
Tycho
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.

~~~
tptacek
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".

Or we could just have the rule of law.

~~~
Tycho
I really want to revisit this post in a few months when Assange has either
been jailed on extremely flimsy evidence or handed over to America using an
extradition treaty, to see how you rationalise that sequence of events.

~~~
Kell
And if he's actually found innocent or guilty with serious evidences ? Will
you also come back and say that you are sorry ?

~~~
tptacek
Nobody is apologizing to anybody for discussing an issue on HN. This subthread
is silly.

~~~
Kell
Yeah, that's my point. But as I always forget, irony without smileys is
difficult to convey over the wire.

(Well... maybe I'm just not good at it... )

------
icebraining
_“By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press”_

 _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.

~~~
danso
I guess I hadn't wondered about this yet...why IS Ecuador granting him asylum?
Is there any quid pro quo?

~~~
tptacek
The Correa government in Ecuador is part of an informal political bloc with
Raul Castro's Cuban administration and Hugo Chavez' Venezuelan administration.
That bloc is not particularly friendly towards the US.

------
brudgers
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.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet)

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
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_.

~~~
tomjen3
I believe the English law system is based on common law, meaning that cases
stack and can use precedents from earlier cases.

~~~
tptacek
The precedent that you are referring to here is what? That Assange, as a
foreign head of state, is immune to extradition?

~~~
brudgers
I believe the precedent being cited is that the general welfare may be more
important than black letter law.

~~~
tptacek
I'm pretty sure that's _not_ a precedent set by the failure to extradite
Pinochet, who was a genocidal tyrant.

------
podperson
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.

~~~
wes-exp
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.

~~~
podperson
> I'm not saying he is innocent, but if he is, he has every reason to believe
> this is a politically-motivated frame-up

If he is in fact guilty then it would be rather odd for him to regard this as
a politically-motivated frame-up, so I guess you _are_ saying he's innocent.

I think it is implausible that politics have not played some kind of role in
proceedings (e.g. the linked article does not explain the use of an Interpol
"red notice"). But if it were a frame-up you'd think the accusations would be
more serious and consistent. If he were to go to Sweden and then suddenly be
extradited to the US to face serious criminal charges it seems to me that this
would make his case.

So, I think it makes him look guilty.

------
option_greek
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.

~~~
tptacek
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?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
One possible explanation is it would be harder to fight US extradition if he's
under arrest in Sweden or jailed.

~~~
tptacek
See rest of thread. The whole article is about refuting that idea
(/"misconception").

------
mattvanhorn
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.

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...](http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-
with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/)

~~~
tptacek
Wow.

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".

~~~
readymade
Please re-render your response in predicate calculus

------
wes-exp
"Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index
of world press freedom"

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
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.

~~~
wes-exp
Well, it is color coded on wikipedia. Further, a gap of 1/3 might not be very
significant if the scores are closely packed.

Also regardless, stack ranking is known to be bullshit. Ask any current or
former Microsoft employee :)

~~~
tptacek
The scores are not closely packed. Not only that: the US was _#20_ on the
World Press Freedom Index in the survey immediately prior to this one, and
lost places due to municipal arrests of journalists covering Occupy.

The idea that the press freedom situation in the US is comparable to the press
freedom of a country in which the ruling party seizes television stations,
jails the owners of newspapers for allowing the publication of unfavorable
columns, and levies $2MM fines against book authors is far past ludicrous.

~~~
wes-exp
I'm not saying the press freedom situation is comparable... Reporters Without
Borders is. Maybe their index is total nonsense. I would readily believe that.
However, in the absence of better data, I'll take the word of an organization
dedicated to the issue, over your opinion.

~~~
tptacek
RSF is not saying that. Your argument is innumerate and, in suggesting that
"I'm not saying the US and Ecuador are comparable, RSF is, and I'll take their
word over yours", illogical.

------
CJefferson
I found this a very interesting article, particularly the first 4 points (the
last is a little more vague).

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
It is totally possible: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias>

I like this article because it seems to be more informative than persuasive.

~~~
Osiris
I agree. I don't hold a strong opinion one way or the other in case.

One thing I found interesting was the author's suggestion that the rule of law
will result in the appropriate outcome. However, that assessment assumes that
the legal system will basically always get it right.

I think that a lot of people are upset specifically because they don't trust
the 'rule of law' cannot be subverted for political gain. In this case, it at
least seems plausible that the rules of the courts could be influenced by
political forces in some way; thus, people lack faith that the legal system in
the UK or Sweden will provide what they believe is an appropriate response.

------
e12e
I'll be a little impolite and reuse my comment on a previous, somewhat similar
story:

<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...](http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-
Assange-Matter/)

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....](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-
wolf/post_1435_b_797188.html)

~~~
mattvanhorn
Virginia Woolf died in 1941, so either the piece must be _really_ old, or you
must mean Naomi Wolf. ;-)

~~~
e12e
Ouch, good catch.

I did of course mean Naomi. Apologies to both Wolves.

You'd think I'd actually look at the byline while I checked the link was the
correct one -- oh well.

------
dkrivndys456
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.

~~~
e12e
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:

<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
The difference between Mr. Green and Mr. Assange is: Mr. Green may say "Oh, I
was wrong", Mr. Assange might not say anything anymore.

