Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The ease by which the US can extradite him from the UK is precisely why I thought poorly of the claim that he felt his life was endangered by going to Sweden.





The UK makes the US go through the legal extradition process, whereas Sweden has been happy to just let the CIA fly in and kidnap people completely outside the legal process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...


So why didn't they just do that while he was in Sweden? Having him under arrest in Sweden would make it more difficult, not easier.

Because as of leaving Sweden, they had only released the Collateral Murder video. The Iraq War documents and Cablegate happened while he was in the UK.

But then (according to the conspiracy theory) they could have engineered false rape accusations in any country that Assange had previously visited -- and that's a long list. It seems unlikely that Sweden would be at the top of the list. It seems far more likely that he just so happens to have raped a woman in Sweden while visiting.

On top of that, it would have been impossible to abduct him while he was in Police custody in Sweden without causing a major international incident.

Frankly, I'm losing track of all the different conspiracy theories. Some people are saying that the rape allegations were necessary to discredit him prior to extradition, because the US was super sensitive to public opinion. Others (like you) are saying that the US was so insensitive to public opinion that they planned to have him abducted and/or murdered extrajudicially. All of this crap is completely made up.


Other countries didn't have recently closed cases to reopen that also allow extraordinary rendition.

But the rape allegations were manufactured, right? There was no particular reason to manufacture them in Sweden just because that was the country Assange was in immediately before he went to the UK.

Extraordinary rendition would be pretty much impossible once he was in Police custody in Sweden anyway, so I don't know why you keep referring to it.

Like I said, it's hard to keep track of all the different conspiracy theories.


> But the rape allegations were manufactured, right?

Not likely. To keep it hypothetical, if an opportunity arises, you take it. Similarly, the CIA didn't start vaccination programs in the third world to later use them as a cover to look for Bin Laden, but they did take the opportunity of those program's known existence as cover for their intelligence operations in Pakistan.

> Extraordinary rendition would be pretty much impossible once he was in Police custody in Sweden anyway, so I don't know why you keep referring to it.

Not really. You can release him from custody so he's on the street again. Afterwards, just kidnap him, drive him to the airport, fly him out to the US. That's standard operating procedure for US intelligence services in Europe with multiple documented cases.


>Not likely.

I know that it’s not likely. But a lot of people do think that the allegations were manufactured by the CIA. As I said, it is really difficult, with so many people commenting, to figure out exactly which conspiracy theory is under discussion at any given point.

>Not really.

I don’t mean that it’s physically impossible. I mean that it would have created an enormous international incident if the CIA abducted Assange without the cooperation of the Swedish Police, or if the Swedish Police had collaborated with the CIA to disappear a suspect in an ongoing criminal investigation. Take a look at the case of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery in 2006. The rendition of two Egyptians that no-one has heard of caused enough of a diplomatic incident that Sweden stopped CIA rendition flights.


> I don’t mean that it’s physically impossible. I mean that it would have created an enormous international incident if the CIA abducted Assange without the cooperation of the Swedish Police, or if the Swedish Police had collaborated with the CIA to disappear a suspect in an ongoing criminal investigation. Take a look at the case of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery in 2006. The rendition of two Egyptians that no-one has heard of caused enough of a diplomatic incident that Sweden stopped CIA rendition flights.

I mean... it wasn't all that bad in the Agiza and al-Zery case for Sweden. No heads rolled in the Swedish government over the matter. And there were literally Swedish personnel assisting.

Do you have any evidence that Sweden has stopped allowing rendition flights?



That says that the Swedish military stopped _a_ rendition flight, because their rules weren't being followed.

Nowhere does it say that rendition flights are off the table in Sweden anymore.


>An acute diplomatic crisis broke out between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights [...]

> Steven V. Noble wrote in cables reveled by WkiLeaks that the Swedish government reacted strongly because rules had not been followed.

> A spokesperson from Säpo, Swedish police Intelligence Service, confirmed parts the newspaper report, adding that there have been no more extraordinary rendition flights landing in Sweden since.

I have not found any references to subsequent rendition flights involving Sweden, and it's been a good while since that article was published.

Apart from that, I don't really know what kind of confirmation you can be asking for. One cannot conclusively rule out the possibility that Sweden is still involved in extraordinary rendition, but one also cannot rule out that possibility for the UK, or for many other countries that Assange has spent time in.


The scenario was that he would get extradited to Sweden, the case finds him not guilty, and then get extradited to the US. Assange tried to get the Swedish government to openly declare that this would not occur, and the Government replied that they could not make such statement. The argument generally comes that once existing legal proceeding are done, the agreement between Sweden and the US allow for extradition.

This exact same chain of events will now likely happen with the UK case. Once the case of the bail jump is finished and eventual punishment served, he will be shipped to the US.


Sweden has a history of bending over backwards for the US. Such as the illegal arrests monocasa references, the raids on the pirate bay, and changing their laws on US recommendation.

From my perspective, the UK also has such a history.

It’s a bit like avoiding jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, but neglecting that the frying pan is full of oil until the oil catches fire and then being surprised that you’re on fire.

And then saying “see, I told you about the fire”.


The UK previously didn't allow extraditions with the death penalty as an option, or extraordinary renditions, whereas Sweden allowed extraordinary renditions.

However the UK has recently changed it's stance on allowing death penalty extraditions. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/23/uk-will-not-...


I might be mis-reading the article, but it doesn't indicate that the policy on requiring pre-extradition guarantees against the death penalty since the people in question were never extradited from the UK in the first place.

As they're no longer British citizens, were arrested in Syria, and are already in the US awaiting trial, it doesn't seem the UK would have much basis to argue against prosecutors seeking the death penalty.


You're missing the point. Sweden would have been unable to protect him. Intelligence agencies do not just follow one plan, they have a whole bundle of contingencies ready for execution in case a politician wants to hear some options.

Of course, his life would have been endangered if he had been extradited to Sweden. People in the US administration were openly calling for his assassination in public TV interviews.


How does that differ from the current situation in the UK?



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: