
Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013 - DyslexicAtheist
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show?CMP=soc_568
======
randcraw
The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the
militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no
personal stake in Wikileaks / Assange. But because America badly wanted to
suppress Wikileaks and its ilk from future revelations, Britain has persisted
in its surrogate prosecution of Assange.

I wonder, is there no blowback among Brits for the Crown so baldly adopting
the role of America's attack dog? Or is that de rigueur now?

~~~
untog
That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest
in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid
that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future
alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions.

(EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)

~~~
randcraw
Crime? I'm aware only that a charge was made against Assange by an individual
for an infraction that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. This is strikingly
convenient since it bypasses the introduction of any Wikileak-related evidence
in Assange's prosecution, and thus prohibits it.

In light of Assange's political activity, and now the _astonishing_ level of
CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him appears: 1)
awfully convenient, 2) increasingly implausible (i.e. politically trumped up),
and of course, 3) not a crime until his guilt is proven.

~~~
untog
He was charged with rape and molestation. Those are crimes. But if you want to
call them "infractions" I suppose that is up to you.

To look at your logic in the reverse direction, you are basically implying
that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of
any crime, because it will be a false accusation trumped up by state actors.

That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. Just because it could be the
case doesn't mean that it is. It doesn't mean it _isn 't_ either, but you
can't just assume it is because it is "strikingly convenient".

~~~
AnonymousPlanet
Maybe you're not clear about the actual background. There are no charges
against him in Sweden. He was ordered to be questioned related to his vile
cheating trick that isn't even recognized as rape outside of Sweden.

I think the guy could be called one of the biggest assholes. But let's not add
to be pile of rubbish and defamation that deliberatley has been amassed
regarding this case.

~~~
rbobby
> isn't even recognized as rape outside of Sweden.

Having sex with an unconscious person, even someone asleep, is against the law
in some jurisdictions. Really depends on how they define consent (in England's
case sleep is "black-letter" lack of consent).

Specific to England: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-
offenc...](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-
chapter-3-consent)

~~~
bonesss
> Having sex with an unconscious person, even someone asleep, is against the
> law

The allegation is not that he had intercourse with someone unconscious.

The allegation is that he re-initiated sexual relations with a coitus partner
who was initially asleep and _who then woke up_ , asked about a condom, then
later regretted not stopping because of the lack of a condom.

There is a distinct legal difference between non-consensual intercourse with
someone drugged or passed out and engaging in petting of a naked person who
did the naked-nasty with you a few hours ago to see if they're keen on round
2...

~~~
rbobby
> who was initially asleep

And that right there makes it non-consensual. The law (in England and other
jursidictions) specifically mention asleep (amongst other conditions) that
render a person unable to consent to sex.

Once Assange stuck his penis into a sleeping woman's vagina means he's guilty.

------
gaius
The Lauri Love case proves there’s zero probability of Assange being
extradited to the US. He’s wanted here for skipping bail. The government can’t
let the precedent be set that you can get away with it, or everyone would do
it.

~~~
toyg
“Everyone” is not going to have an embassy aiding and abetting you; and any
diplomat or spy worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country.

The principle is a fig leaf on top of a political issue. This situation will
not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of
the UK’s relationship with their traditional military allies.

~~~
gaius
_This situation will not change until a different party gets in power,
carrying a different view of the UK’s relationship with their traditional
military allies._

I’m not sure the PM actually has the power to do that. Assange is wanted right
now for skipping bail. No government is going to pass an Act declaring that
not-a-crime.

~~~
leereeves
What's the penalty for that crime? If extradition to the US was absolutely
impossible, Assange might be willing to turn himself in and suffer the penalty
in order to regain his freedom.

~~~
gaius
_What 's the penalty for that crime_

Max 12 months in prison.

The ONLY way Assange’s actions make sense is if he expects to be found guilty
in Sweden.

~~~
guitarbill
Given the eagerness of the CPS to prosecute, seems like paranoia was a good
strategy, no? There's some hidden agenda here, and it's hard to believe it's
something as mundane as CPS bloke doesn't want a new case before he retires
when emails conveniently get "deleted". I think you can expect better from
lawyers. But it's especially galling for a lawyer who works for the
government, they should have procedures to retain this information.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is fleeing to the UK, who's
government isn't known for it's integrity.

~~~
toyg
I don't think he was "fleeing". When he left Sweden, the issue seemed closed,
and he was just going on about his life - had tons of contacts in the UK so he
went there to continue his work. He was constantly jumping from country to
country before this; it just happened that he was in the UK when Ms. Ny
escalated proceedings.

But yeah, we've seen over and over in the last decade that the UK is one of
the last countries you want to be in, if you have anything to do with
cybersecurity and digital rights. Assange, the Guardian computers after
Snowden, the Snoopers' Charter, DNS censorship...

~~~
FireBeyond
How did he feel the issue had been closed? He'd not even been interviewed in
any way, shape or form. Someone makes an accusation against him, they don't
interview him, and just close the issue and he wanders on his life, and only
then do they trick him into having to seek refuge?

That's more than a little whitewashed, to me.

~~~
toyg
_> He'd not even been interviewed in any way, shape or form._

He had been contacted already, as part of the process under which charges were
initially dropped. The case was subsequently resurrected by Ms. Ny, and it's
the interview under this second process that was outstanding when he made
arrangements to move on. The warrant was issued _two months later_.

------
belorn
> The CPS lawyer also told Ny that year: “It is simply amazing how much work
> this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. Please do not
> think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”

Pure government corruption and waste. If those lawyers was speaking of an
official policy decision of the CPS, how many laws would they be breaking?

------
callesgg
I don't like when things that are clearly not nation state issues is written
about as if it was nation state issues.

~~~
acct1771
Who would you put the blame on?

~~~
notahacker
Judicial systems consist of individual people attempting to interpret sets of
rules, sometimes with conflicting opinions over interpretations and priorities
that change over time.

It's reasonably evident even from the limited number of emails quoted that
this was not "Sweden wanting to do X, but the UK prevented them because
$politicalagendaofUK" but prosecutor Marianne Ny notifying her UK counterpart
that Swedish procedure may require her to drop the case and the counterpart
expressing exasperation given the amount of resources the UK had dedicated to
fulfilling their own obligations to honour European Arrest Warrants...

------
barking
I'd like the press to shine a light on the lawyer who was so keen to get
Sweden to pursue the case. I'm sure he prefers being nameless.

~~~
jacquesm
It wasn't a lawyer, it was the Swedish prosecutor that did this, and it wasn't
a 'he' but a 'she' (Marianne Ny).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority)

~~~
barrkel
That's not who the parent is talking about - who was on the UK side, the
person who retired and caused their email archives to get deleted.

~~~
jacquesm
Right, my bad. Weirdest thing though, you'd think that they would at least
preserve any and all emails related to a case that is so strongly in the
public eye.

And for the longest time the UK was if not outright promoting the idea that
the Swedes wanted the case to be continued definitely not denying that and
claiming that instead the UK was pushing things forward.

------
RuggeroAltair
I am just sad for all the victims of rape in the UK that haven't probably
seen, even remotely, the same police efforts made for this accusation. It
happened in a different country, and parts of the accusation wouldn't even be
a crime in the UK, and obviously there are political goals behind, given the
strange sequence of police work.

I'm thinking about what would happen if instead of Assange we were dealing
with a person from a country where religion and government are intertwined,
and that person was asking for asylum to the UK for accusations that are not
crimes in the UK.

------
Tomte
My prediction is the same that it has been for the last years: At some point,
Assange will leave the embassy, possibly for medical reasons, be arrested and
extradited to Sweden

In Sweden he will be interrogated and set free without any conditions. Not
"illegally rendered" to America, but "you're free, go wherever you want".

At that point Assange will be able to ponder his need for drama and attention
on the one hand. And all those lost years on the other hand. But hey, he got
Pamela Anderson!

I would find that ending almost poetic.

~~~
tmalsburg2
The article says (paragraph 4) that Sweden dropped the arrest warrant last
year. So I'm afraid that your preferred ending of the story is unlikely.

------
singularity2001
Separately, Pompeo described WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence
service”. ... as opposed to a certain state-hostile intelligence service

------
jvehent
This is much more complex than a lone hacker being persecuted by an oppressive
US government. There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian
propaganda, and while I do not know if this is true or not, it does turn the
entire Assange story into an intricate mess of international politics and
power plays.

~~~
jacquesm
> There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian propaganda

You can sufficiently explain all WL actions by simply assuming that they will
do whatever it takes to hurt US interests.

~~~
wernercd
As a US Veteran and a US Citizen... if exposing truth hurts US interests -
maybe US interests deserve to be hurt?

All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn
and expose truth...

~~~
jacquesm
> All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn
> and expose truth...

Agreed, but selectively exposing the truth requires that if the net effect is
a positive one that enough parties are exposing truths to ensure some kind of
balance. If not then it becomes a political force in its own right rather than
there is an overall gain in transparency.

I'm pretty conflicted about this, on the one hand I applaud WL for the degree
to which they have exposed various wrongs, on the other I am disappointed in
how they decided to become a political player rather than to just be a
conduit.

~~~
Shivetya
selectively should be stated as, protecting your own ass. Releasing negative
information about the US is far less likely for you to end up dead that
releasing about countries who have little interest in human rights other than
lip service.

not saying the information should not be out there, just saying that there are
far too many nations who would as soon kill the messenger

~~~
jacquesm
No, 'selectively' can just be to help one side rather than to expose all you
have on a country.

So it is about selective releasing information about parties in the US rather
than about differences in approach from one country to another.

~~~
lolc
You're implying that Wikileaks did not release everything they have. Is this
an assumption or is there evidence of this?

~~~
jacquesm
[https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-
mora...](https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-
ground/)

Stating that Assange hoped that the leaks of the DNC emails would hurt the
Clinton campaign clearly shifts WL from being 'just a conduit' for leaked
material to being a political operator in its own right.

An organization devoted to transparency should not have an agenda of its own,
this in contrast to Assange's previous claims that he did not have a favorite
side.

~~~
lolc
The Wired article makes Wikileaks look bad in other regards but does not
contain evidence that material was not published. You implied that Wikileaks
has a selective publication policy. I still don't see any evidence of that.

Of course it's hard to prove existence of what they didn't publish. And it is
plausible their personal opinions would influence their publication decisions.
But that's simply an allegation, not evidence of it happening.

~~~
jacquesm
Short of leak from within Wikileaks (or what's left of it) that will be a hard
(or even impossible) one to prove. In the meantime, Assange taking sides in an
election battle does not help to promote the independence of WL. There is
other evidence of WL heavily editing their output so witholding stuff that
does not suit their agenda would seem to be a reasonable assumption, absent
hard proof to the contrary (which they could easily provide!).

~~~
lolc
You're saying it is easy for Wikileaks to provide hard proof they're not
withholding stuff not suiting their agenda. How could they do it?

~~~
jacquesm
3rd party audit of materials received and materials leaked to the public. Not
that they'll ever agree to that, but if they really valued transparency they
could do that. Choosing the auditor would be an interesting exercise. Glenn
Greenwald would be an interesting choice, Edward Snowden another.

~~~
lolc
What you suggest is actually a way.

How would the auditor verify having received the complete dump though? It's
not like there is a verifiable index of the material available to Wikileaks.
Also I think it would be hard to satisfy the critics; next to the
impossibility of securing funding for such an undertaking. On top of
everything else Wikileaks would risk exposing their sources.

So please don't say it's easy for Wikileaks to get an audit.

Looking at it from another angle: If leakers are unhappy how Wikileaks is
publishing, they may well decide to leak somewhere else too. That happening
would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for
political reasons.

~~~
jacquesm
I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is _very_ hard to
fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly.

I thought I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable
with my two suggestions for who could do this.

> That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is
> redacting for political reasons.

Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.

~~~
lolc
> I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is very hard to
> fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly.

I assume it would be hard to pre-redact documents to hide your omissions.
Outright omission of documents from a dump would be harder to detect in my
view. But I must admit I'm ignorant of the techniques available.

> I though I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable
> with my two suggestions for who could do this.

Partly. In my view it's up to the sources to decide who gets to see the
original dump. They chose Wikileaks. Maybe they did so for reasons we'd judge
nefarious but we are not free to assume they'd agree with sharing the
originals more widely.

> Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.

Did they get dumps Wikileaks had published before? Where the version published
by Wikileaks turned out to have been selectively redacted for political
reasons?

------
felipelemos
This whole situation is a laugh at the "democratic freedom" situation that we
live today. At least in some countries ruled by a dictatorship there is no
such hypocrisy.

~~~
IntronExon
Oh yeah, dictatorships are famously irony-free.

 _cough_ Democratic People’s Republic of Korea _cough_

~~~
FireBeyond
"Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation
this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess
they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors
Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur
when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters."

\-- Lord of War

------
slivym
Everyone is owed due process to some extent. But in this case, are we really
bothered about a guy who isn't in the UK, has broken UK bail conditions, and
is quite likely to have actively participated in attacks against some of the
UK's closest allies.

I think he should go round to his local lawyer and ask about taking the UK
police to court. He deserves to see stand in that court room and hear them
answer for why this happened.

He doesn't seem to want to though... He just seems to want to moan on twitter
without leaving his home...

~~~
sschueller
Stop spreading FUD. Wikileaks has not actively participated in any attacks.

Wikileaks has exposed some of the most horrific crimes committed by the Unites
States and others yet we are still trying to kill the messenger.

~~~
openasocket
Serious question, what crimes has Wikileaks exposed? I'm sure there are some,
but off the top of my head the most serious crimes the US has committed in
recent history have been exposed by Snowden or Congressional investigations.

~~~
zanny
They leaked the Baghdad airstrike video that got people mad for a few days
before not doing anything about it.

They also released tons of military files relating to the Iraq / Afghan war
and Gitmo that confirmed a lot of popular theory about the goings on over
there - torture, Geneva violations, etc.

~~~
openasocket
Sure, but torture in Guantanamo Bay was also the subject of a lot of coverage,
including the results of an extremely detailed and exhaustingly documented
Congressional inquiry, that I found to be of much greater value. I consider
that inquiry to be much more valuable because, not only did it go into great
detail when and why torture took place, but also demonstrated that torture
resulted in no useful intelligence data.

