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

The US government is not a monolith, it consists of many competing factions.

It's not at all obvious which faction initiated the extradition request, or for what purpose.

It's possible this is to pressure Assange to provide evidence in the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election.

It's also possible this is an attempt to sequester him to prevent disclosure of information about those events.

A third possibility is that this is an attack on the press.

Even without a conviction, it will have a chilling effect on journalists publishing classified information, which is not currently a crime.

With a conviction, it will establish a dark new precedent that criminalizes much of the most consequential reporting.

And that would not be irony, it would be tragedy.




The fourth possibility - and this one never ceases to be true in all cases when it comes to the Feds - is that the people seeking his prosecution are spiteful as hell. They are not used to not getting their way. It's extremely fearsome to go up against the US Government when it wants your neck, because they have so many ways to destroy your life all around the world. They have infinite resources for all practical purposes and can just keep coming at you.

One of the few consistencies I've seen in my lifetime across all major US Government agencies is that they seem to hold grudges forever. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, DOJ, IRS or SEC. Assange, out there, is a persistent waving defiance of their perceived power and reach (and worse, right in the US sphere of influence).


Supporting your point are people like Poitras getting extra, random screening after publishing documentaries about US wars. They've often been vindictive given it's power-loving, egotistical, image-conscious politicians running them.


Not sure why you're getting grayed down, but what you say is right on the money.


+1. When I was a Boy Scout, I had confirmation direct from an FBI agent that once somebody is wanted, the Agency has a long memory and a long reach.

The anecdote he shared was a fugitive fled to Saudi Arabia. Over a decade and a half, the fugitive grew a small business empire and was well-connected. In tandem with allies in Saudi Arabia, the FBI arranged a lavish party on a yacht to which their target was invited. The yacht sailed out to international waters and FBI agents apprehended him and put him on a Navy cruiser out at sea.


What I wonder is how those same people in the US would feel if countries like China or Russia did the same thing openly.


I've been involved in enough government stuff to know that resources like that don't get spent unless the target is _really_ bad.

The FBI often refers cases with single digit millions in losses to state and local, because the SAs are busy with bigger cases.


Does it matter if they do the same thing (or worse) openly or covertly?

Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...

China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Yingying_Zhan...


Uh, you sure you linked the right article for China?


It's interesting that it may have been avoidable if he'd accepted rendition to Sweden to stand trial for the sexual assault accusation, given that the previous administration was apparently uninterested in extraditing him for this charge.

He likely made the situation worse by hiding out in the embassy---he became a symbol of something untouchable by American power, and this administration cares more about that sort of perception than the previous one.


Deport to Sweden then deport to the USA was the scheme Assange was afraid of IIRC. Something about Sweden having a stronger deportation treaty than the UK...


As evidenced by the "Cablegate" leak, it's more the fact that when the US government tells the Swedish government to jump, the latter asks "how high?" like a trained fucking poodle.

Regardless of which side is in power.


Link the leak? In this case, extraditing to Sweden on a wholly unrelated charge than to extradite to the US seems like a thing Sweden would not want because it would have hurt their credibility in future extraditions. All speculative now, ofc.


Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...

Sweden has pretty much zero credibility when it comes to extraditions requested by the US: https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...


> The US government is not a monolith, it consists of many competing factions.

The original comment said "administration", not "government". The current administration IS largely a monolith, given that nearly every high-level cabinet appointee has either been unqualified for the role or are ideologues who appear to have been hired on the basis of their loyalty to the Pres.

- Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser

- Scott Pruit as head of the EPA

- Ben Carson as Sec of Housing

- Rex Tiller as Sec of State

- Herman Cain and Stephen Moore on the board of the Fed

The list goes on an on.


I chose to say "US government" instead of "administration" because it may or may not have been the "administration" that requested the UK to extradite Assange.

Other factions within the US government are attempting to hold the executive branch in check, and it's possible that one of these factions requested the arrest and extradition.

At this point we do not know.


> I chose to say "US government" instead of "administration" because it may or may not have been the "administration" that requested the UK to extradite Assange.

No one outside of the administration has the authority to request extradition.




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

Search: