• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sweden drops Julian Assange (creator of Wikileaks) rape investigation

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Blackjack200 said:
It seems like you're saying that there was no reason for a politically motivated rape investigation because the U.K. could have extradited him at any time. Right?

edit: changed "charge" for "investigation"[/QUOTE
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the charges from Sweden are irrelevant to him getting extradited to the US
 
Blackjack200 said:
Bullshit. He offered to answer questions from inside the embassy and Sweden refused. Odd thing to do if you're investigating a crime. They wanted him in their custody so they could send him to the U.S.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have the right to dictate the terms, simple as that. It's not "odd" to refuse his wishes.
 
WelshBloke said:
I'm saying that the charges from Sweden are irrelevant to him getting extradited to the US
Click to expand...

That's legally correct, but you're ignoring political considerations. For example, do you think that the fact that the US hasn't asked Ecuador to extradite him means that they wouldn't ask the U.K. Or Sweden to extradite him?

You don't need to have a treaty in place to extradite, a nation state can extradite as a courtesy.
 
Blackjack200 said:
That's legally correct, but you're ignoring political considerations. For example, do you think that the fact that the US hasn't asked Ecuador to extradite him means that they wouldn't ask the U.K. Or Sweden to extradite him?

You don't need to have a treaty in place to extradite, a nation state can extradite as a courtesy.
Click to expand...
If you were the US and you wanted to put Assange behind bars, why would you choose some overly complicated plan for him to be arrested on rape charges and then extradited to the US from Sweden when Sweden avoids extraditions over political causes to the point it refused to extradite a CIA agent that defected to the Soviets? Occam's razor needs to kick in at some point.

Is there a good chance the US would like to get their hands on him? Yes.
Was he any safer in the UK than in Sweden? Nope.
What's the likelihood the rape charges were cooked up by Sweden to specifically help the US get their hands on Assange for what was obviously going to be a political reason (and which they would almost certainly block)? Very, very small.
 
DisarmedDespot said:
If you were the US and you wanted to put Assange behind bars, why would you choose some overly complicated plan for him to be arrested on rape charges and then extradited to the US from Sweden when Sweden avoids extraditions over political causes to the point it refused to extradite a CIA agent that defected to the Soviets? Occam's razor needs to kick in at some point.

Is there a good chance the US would like to get their hands on him? Yes.
Was he any safer in the UK than in Sweden? Nope.
What's the likelihood the rape charges were cooked up by Sweden to specifically help the US get their hands on Assange for what was obviously going to be a political reason (and which they would almost certainly block)? Very, very small.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a complicated plan, I think they wanted him in Swedish custody until they could negotiate an extradition. Maybe the U.K. refused to extradite to the U.S. because they didn't think the optics were good. Who knows?

What is Occam's razor telling you here? That's he was really just hiding in the embassy to beat the rape charges? Then why is he still there?
 
DisarmedDespot said:
If you were the US and you wanted to put Assange behind bars, why would you choose some overly complicated plan for him to be arrested on rape charges and then extradited to the US from Sweden when Sweden avoids extraditions over political causes to the point it refused to extradite a CIA agent that defected to the Soviets? Occam's razor needs to kick in at some point.

Is there a good chance the US would like to get their hands on him? Yes.
Was he any safer in the UK than in Sweden? Nope.
What's the likelihood the rape charges were cooked up by Sweden to specifically help the US get their hands on Assange for what was obviously going to be a political reason (and which they would almost certainly block)? Very, very small.
Click to expand...

Sweden was only one of Assange's problems. Another is that he jumped bail in the UK. That's a crime in and of itself even if Sweden has withdrawn the extradition request for which he posted bail. UK authorities will arrest him on sight outside the Embassy & can request extradition from any place he might go if he slips out under the radar. Only after he's in police custody somewhere will we find out about US extradition.
 
Blackjack200 said:
I don't think it was a complicated plan, I think they wanted him in Swedish custody until they could negotiate an extradition. Maybe the U.K. refused to extradite to the U.S. because they didn't think the optics were good. Who knows?

What is Occam's razor telling you here? That's he was really just hiding in the embassy to beat the rape charges? Then why is he still there?
Click to expand...

Because the UK will arrest him for jumping bail if he leaves the Embassy. To my knowledge, the US has not filed for extradition with anybody or Interpol as the Swedes did. we may never. Assange only has one way to find out.
 
Jhhnn said:
Sweden was only one of Assange's problems. Another is that he jumped bail in the UK. That's a crime in and of itself even if Sweden has withdrawn the extradition request for which he posted bail. UK authorities will arrest him on sight outside the Embassy & can request extradition from any place he might go if he slips out under the radar. Only after he's in police custody somewhere will we find out about US extradition.
Click to expand...

Jhhnn said:
Because the UK will arrest him for jumping bail if he leaves the Embassy. To my knowledge, the US has not filed for extradition with anybody or Interpol as the Swedes did. we may never. Assange only has one way to find out.
Click to expand...

Okay, so Assange is now hiding out because he doesn't want to face the music for jumping bail? Come on.
 
Blackjack200 said:
That's legally correct, but you're ignoring political considerations. For example, do you think that the fact that the US hasn't asked Ecuador to extradite him means that they wouldn't ask the U.K. Or Sweden to extradite him?

You don't need to have a treaty in place to extradite, a nation state can extradite as a courtesy.
Click to expand...
Of the three countries named there the one most likely to extradite him to the US without question is the UK.
 
One of the more interesting suppositions in all this is that the US intends to extradite Assange to face some nebulous charges that seem highly unlikely given the freedom that our Constitution & laws grant the press. That's not necessarily true of other countries whose state secrets have been revealed by Wikileaks. Claiming persecution by the big bad US govt may just be a grandstanding play.
 
Victorian Gray said:
If arrested for breaking bail he faces the possibility of up to a year in jail (and/or a fine). He doesn't wish to go to jail.
Click to expand...

He's been in the embassy for five years. Come on.

WelshBloke said:
Of the three countries named there the one most likely to extradite him to the US without question is the UK.
Click to expand...

No one would extradite him without question. IIRC, Assange was much more popular in 2012 than he is now, so the idea that an obviously political extradition to the U.S. would be distasteful to the U.K. is not really that hard to imagine.

Jhhnn said:
One of the more interesting suppositions in all this is that the US intends to extradite Assange to face some nebulous charges that seem highly unlikely given the freedom that our Constitution & laws grant the press. That's not necessarily true of other countries whose state secrets have been revealed by Wikileaks. Claiming persecution by the big bad US govt may just be a grandstanding play.
Click to expand...

Jeff Sessions just said that arresting Assange is a priority, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The U.S. absolutely does want to extradite him and prosecute him.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...iority-says-us-attorney-general-jeff-sessions
 
5 yrs? Should have given up after ~30hrs, since only "last night" is relevant there. One also only serves 2-6 years for rape in sweden anyway, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Blackjack200 said:
He's been in the embassy for five years. Come on.



No one would extradite him without question. IIRC, Assange was much more popular in 2012 than he is now, so the idea that an obviously political extradition to the U.S. would be distasteful to the U.K. is not really that hard to imagine.



Jeff Sessions just said that arresting Assange is a priority, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The U.S. absolutely does want to extradite him and prosecute him.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...iority-says-us-attorney-general-jeff-sessions
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. Sessions is a whole new kettle of fish, obviously. He panders to the law & order crowd magnificently, doesn't he?

Just like Trump promised-

I am your voice, said Trump. I alone can fix it. I will restore law and order.
Click to expand...


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/trump-rnc-speech-alone-fix-it/492557/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top