Legal myths about the Assange extradition

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

by gadders • 14 years ago

112 181 14 years ago

CJefferson• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

streptomycin• 14 years ago

As a test, you could read another article by a legal expert that has a very different tone: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...

Both articles are fact-based, and neither contradicts the other as far as I can tell. But it's very easy to put a bias on fuzzy political issues.

jeltz2• 14 years ago

"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...

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.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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?

jeltz2• 14 years ago

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.

doe882• 14 years ago

I have not seen Assange asking any promise to Swede. Ecuador did, Assange I don't think so. I think you nailed it though on what kind of guarantee he could hope for. I think he knows very well that's impossible to juridically formulate the kind of protection it would want to have. Therefore yersterday he didn't even formulate such request he took a higher stance (and even more improbable to succeed) by asking the US of stopping the FBI investigation.

gregsq• 14 years ago

I don't think there's much that Assange can do to guarantee that he won't be extradited to the US. Firstly, the claim that needing both the UK and Sweden to agree extradition is largely irrelevant. Even Assange's native government, Australia, has already stated that it has no objection to extradition, and the UK has previously agreed on extradition for its own citizens, as stated. In all likelihood, this would be a formality, the foreign office acting by proxy. So 1&x = x.

The necessary preconditions for extradition are that both torture and the death penalty are precluded. The latter is easily satisfied, and is often given to states that forbid extradition where the death penalty may be applied. [1]

Locking someone up for a long time is not torture, so these apparent defences are essentially weak and I would say immaterial, even if Assange has every interest in exaggerating them.

The US is not in a competition over access to Assange. It certainly wouldn't be sensible to request extradition before the outcome of the Swedish process becomes clear. The purported fact that an extradition request has not been made seems to me immaterial to either current or future intentions or discovery.

His native government won't protect him, the UK government in all likelihood won't, so it's down to Sweden. Whether he's convicted of any crime or not there, a properly formed extradition request that passes muster will be the US's to singularly decide I'd say.

As far as I can tell, Assange sees himself and Bradley Manning in a cell for a very long time. And most everyone will forget about them eventually.

[ 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17037068 ]

philwelch4• 14 years ago

That's not extradition, that's extraordinary rendition, an extrajudicial process. It's always illegal. And while it's a worrying thing, it would be very odd if that was an option on the table for Assange, if only because they could have done it before, and can still do it just as easily from the UK, or actual Ecuadorian soil for that matter, than from Sweden. Assange is too much of a high profile target for renditioning to do anything but backfire.

cube13• 14 years ago

That's what bothers me about the "Sweden will send him to the US" argument.

I don't get why he's concerned about it, AND(at the same time) is in the UK, who, out of any country in the world, is quite possibly the MOST likely to agree to a US extradition request.

icebraining• 14 years ago

“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.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

This article isn't laying out a coherent argument for Assange's extradition; that's not its point. The point of the article is to catalog common misconceptions about the legal issues arising from the Assange drama. The "courage" of Ecuador in offering asylum to Assange is one of those misconceptions.

jlgreco• 14 years ago

"The "courage" of Ecuador in offering asylum to Assange is one of those misconceptions."

That may very well be a misconception, but I am not sure I see how it is a legal misconception.

danso• 14 years ago

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

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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.

izx• 14 years ago

The backdrop to the Assange case has been the upcoming presidential election in Ecuador, slated to be held just six months from now in February 2013. President Correa, who was first elected in 2007, will be seeking a second term under Ecuador's 2008 constitution.

Opinion polls published in the Ecuadorian media in 2012 have shown Correa with a commanding lead over his prospective opponents, largely because there is no consensus challenger. Polling from CMS in March showed Correa with just under 49% of the vote, more than 40 points ahead of the five included challengers, who polled between 1% and 9% each. Thiry percent of voters, however, said that they had not chosen a candidate to support. More recent polling has shown the emergence of Guillermo Lasso as the closest prospective candidate with 17% of the vote, while undecided voters fell to 17%. Correa held fast with 50% of the vote.

With a split field, Correa is practically guaranteed a win. Ecuadorian electoral law does not require the winning candidate to garner a majority of the popular vote; if a candidate receives at least 40% of the vote and is at least 10 points ahead of the next finisher, he or she wins in the first round.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/17/rafael-c...

eli3• 14 years ago

New Op Ed in the NY Times:

But the confusion in London has, in fact, little if anything to do with Ecuadorean-British relations and everything to do with regional and local politics in the Western Hemisphere. And it has little to do with protecting Mr. Assange’s right to a fair trial or freedom of the press — which Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, has trampled upon at home.

Instead, it is an attempt by Mr. Correa to settle old scores with the United States, display his political prowess in the run-up to Ecuadorean presidential elections next year and make a power play for a leadership role on the Latin American left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/why-correa-lets-as...

rmc8• 14 years ago

Political points. They can trade them in with the UK, or look good in Latin America.

option_greek• 14 years ago

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.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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

philwelch4• 14 years ago

Kim Dotcom's situation isn't that unusual. To whatever extent law enforcement overstepped their bounds, due process will eventually prevail. He's still in New Zealand after all.

Karunamon2• 14 years ago

>To whatever extent law enforcement overstepped their bounds, due process will eventually prevail.

You have a lot more faith in the infallibility of our justice system that I do. For example: http://www.change.org/freedaniel

marvin3• 14 years ago

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]

thom• 14 years ago

As a general gauge, I think a lot of people are hugely offended by the idea that some forms of non-consensual sex aren't rape.

tomjakubowski• 14 years ago

Under what insane set of morals or laws is having sex with an unconscious person not considered rape?

nollidge4• 14 years ago

People also get confused by the idea that some types of non-married men aren't bachelors.

rmc8• 14 years ago

I am offended by the ideal that there are people who think non-consensual sex doesn' count as rape.

What's next? "Some forms of non-consenting taking of property shouldn't count as theft", etc.

citricsquid• 14 years ago

> This is not the kind of high-profile violent crime that would lead to an international manhunt through Interpol.

This is not a "normal" crime situation, as a commenter put it yesterday: no embassy would normally grant a third party protection when there is an arrest warrant for rape involved, nor would this situation "normally" have so much media attention. Replace Assange with someone else equally as politically relevant (say G .W. Bush) and the situation would be identical.

> In the interest of gauging people's opinions, does anyone disagree with this particular point?

This article explicitly states that Assange is just as safe in Sweden from America (if not more so) as he is in England. He chose to stay in England until an arrest warrant was issued; if he believed his life was in danger why was he happy to stay in England until the arrest warrant? Why didn't he flee before? If Sweden is willing to disregard all their laws to extradite him why didn't England?

His behaviour seems like the behaviour of someone that wants to avoid being taken to the place that he is wanted for arrest and that the wikileaks involvement is one big cover, the reasons relating to Wikileaks have been shown in articles like this to be irrelevant, articles like this have shown that the supposed concerns are not legitimate, so the only conclusion I can come to is either Assange believes he is going to be found guilty of his supposed crime, or that he thinks Sweden is willing to break lots of laws that England aren't willing to break, yet this article again shows that is very unlikely.

His behaviour is inconsistent, therefore I am not 100% sure that this is all one big play to get him to America to be murdered. I think it's just as likely that his "fame" is the problem.

> 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.

The article explains that they can't make that promise and it also explains why such concerns are of little relevance.

Tycho3• 14 years ago

Just because the article explicitly says Assange is safer in Sweden than in the UK, doesn't mean it is true. By the letter of the law it might be a simpler case in the UK, but the British press is a different beast and the public is already extremely sensitive to their government's coopereation with American extraditions. These are factors which are in Assange's favour which change the equation significantly.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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?

hnolable2• 14 years ago

> No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way.

So why does Ecuador see it that way? Are they stupid or easily fooled? Do they want to start political controversy? Some other conspiracy?

doe882• 14 years ago

> 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.

marvin3• 14 years ago

To answer your question about the article itself, some of its points are good. Point one ("the charges would not be rape under UK law") and point four ("Sweden could try Assange in London") seem both good and relevant. But like I said, they don't seem to have a lot of influence on the heart of the matter in this case. And I don't think it makes sense to discuss the other points without looking at the whole picture.

To bring up two concrete misgivings I have with the article:

    Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA

Extradition cases are almost always a political issue, subject to treaties that are often negotiated outside of the normal legislative authorities. So there is definitely something to the objections people have to this point, and this article doesn't give justice to the objections.

    By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press

Maybe not freedom of the press. But Equador did offer Assange political asylum. The reason is up to debate. If you take it at face value, they believe that Assange is the victim of political persecution. Otherwise you'll have to say they're trying to piss off the US, or maybe somehow protect their own interests. But they offered him asylum for a reason, and this is very relevant to discuss. In fact, it's very strange that we have a world where a former banana republic offers political asylum to a guy who's wanted in the West.

e12e9• 14 years ago

As to why US would care if Assange was in Sweden, maybe it has something to do with the wikileaks hosting? I don't know, and I don't really think so -- but I just came across this:

https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikil...

Maybe it would make it easier to (legally) wire tap communication going through the Wikileaks infrastructure if Assange is improsoned in Sweden ? (Eg: open an investigation for suspicion of drug use in prison).

Just a thought.

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

A couple of things, one of the tenants for democracy was that a government elected by the people is more trustworthy than a self selecting government. There are lots of discussions on why this may (or may not) be true, but historically it comes down to whether or not you believe the people are willing (and able) to replace an ill-behaving government.

The point about Assange being 'easier' to extradite from the UK than from Sweden is pretty key here. The US is on much better terms with the UK government and any extradition that would be possible in Sweden would be even easier to do in the UK. So I agree with the OP that its unlikely he is ever going to be extradited here, or perhaps even charged here.

A much simpler explanation however is that Assange uses his situation to both keep himself in the spotlight (attention on him and by reflection his cause) and to promulgate a message. The way he currently positions himself is as a persecuted rebel fighting the good fight, its a much better and engaging narrative than narcissistic dilettante with poor impulse control. Not being inside his head we cannot know which characterization is closer to the truth of course but we do know what he would like us to believe.

chimi4• 14 years ago

My question is: If Sweden wants Assange, why is Britain the one saying they'll invade the embassy? Shouldn't it be Sweden who is invading the Ecuadoran Embassy instead of Britain? I really don't see Britain bending over backwards to break the diplomatic status quo for Sweden, but I do see them doing that for the U.S. or themselves and that's why I think this is about more than a rape case in Sweden.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

Did this really seem like a good question when you typed it? "If Sweden wants Assange, why don't they send armed people to UK soil in order to violate the privileges of Ecuador's diplomatic mission to the UK?"

lolcraft• 14 years ago

Now, if you wanted to argue that the rape charges look strange, because those charges were dismissed at first, both victims do not want to prosecute further, the accussed is kind of a target, so on... well, OK.

But your argument here amazes me. Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist? It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on. And it should. I would be surprised and enraged if the Interpol had an arbitrary threshold of violence by which it would decide to act or not, as if they were nobles graciously granting the plebs the gift of international justice.

Now, I don't buy that this rape accussations are pretexts. If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pressure the U.K. to extradite him? Sweden is now full of U.S.'s lackeys, but the U.K. isn't? Or, shit, just send a CIA agent there and get him on a plane. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

white_devil3• 14 years ago

> Why is it suspicious at all for the Interpol to hunt for a possible rapist?

When does the Interpol ever get involved in a rape case? Especially one where someone is suspected of not-actually-rape -"rape", and supposedly only wanted for "questioning"?

What the fuck? Does this not sound suspicious to you at all?

> If the U.S. really wanted Assange, why haven't they charged him of espionage, hacking, anything to pressure the U.K. to extradite him?

Who knows? Maybe they came up with the bullshit rape charges in Sweden first, before someone thought of doing that? At least at this point, they kind of have to go through Sweden to maintain any tiny shreds of credibility.

CWuestefeld• 14 years ago

It does for thieves, kidnappers and so on.

I think this is the heart of the matter.

A couple of months ago my wife's car was robbed. The police did nothing but document the theft for insurance purposes, making no effort to identify or apprehend the criminal. I've no doubt that if my wife was assaulted, they would have made some actual efforts; and had she been killed or raped, they'd have made it a priority.

It must be that the authorities have some kind of scale for severity (and locale) of crimes, relating to how much effort they're willing to expend. Minor crimes don't get as much effort. Assange's accused crime is toward the higher end of that scale, but is also somebody else's problem; perhaps foreign police aren't willing to go as far for foreign crimes: would the Swedish police be willing to invest much if my wife's hypothetical assailant were known to be in Sweden?

The OP's point seems to hinge on this logic, which really does seem to be the way these thinks work. What we don't know is how the Swedish authorities (or any others) would rank the accused crimes in their table of "how much resources do we commit?".

nollidge4• 14 years ago

What if he really did commit rape, and Sweden really does just want to arrest him for that, and has no plans to extradite him? How would this situation look different to you?

> 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.

And here's where you reveal that you did not read the article.

thro936287Waway3• 14 years ago

There is agreement that both parties consented to having sex and that there was no violence involved. A strange kind of rape, isn't it?

The point here is, even if it turns out to be "rape", everyone has a certain picture of it in their mind. That is a picture of the random stranger preying on a woman. Or of parents/relatives abusing a girl. Or whatever.

So speaking of rape is very misleading, bordering on lying. Better call it was it was: consentual sex, supposedly started without a condom (contrary to agreement) and then continued after the women agreed.

podperson2• 14 years ago

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-exp7• 14 years ago

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.

podperson2• 14 years ago

> 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.

e12e9• 14 years ago

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...

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....

mattvanhorn2• 14 years ago

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

e12e9• 14 years ago

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.

brudgers3• 14 years ago

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...

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.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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.

tomjen33• 14 years ago

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

brudgers3• 14 years ago

English common law operates on precedent.

rmc8• 14 years ago

Pinochet was protected from extradition because he, unlike Assange, was a head of state and enjoyed a supposed immunity from prosecution as a result.

I'm sure it was also quite helpful that he was friendly with various high ranking British politicians, meeting Thatcher several times, and helping them with a little war they had in the South Atlantic.

mattvanhorn2• 14 years ago

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...

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

Please re-render your response in predicate calculus

rjsamson• 14 years ago

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.

ahelwer• 14 years ago

If people care deeply about something, they will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to maintain their worldview. I'd say it's a root cause of a whole lot of problems in developed societies. Nobody is immune, even (especially?) those who extoll reason and logic like it's the drive of existence.

graue• 14 years ago

No, I agree with you. There are an awful lot of people failing to engage with reality, stubbornly insisting what this article just debunked. I like the OP's name for these — "zombie facts" — you shoot them down and they just keep getting repeated.

We all have strong feelings on this issue. My original pro-Assange feelings are getting weaker, however. Sure, the accusation is terribly convenient for UK and Swedish governments, whose responses still seem suspicious in their vigor. But Assange should face those sexual assault allegations, if that's really all that's going to happen. If they are true, then what he did was reprehensible. Ultimately, we can't know what's going on behind the scenes here, if anything.

eli3• 14 years ago

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.

e12e9• 14 years ago

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

Tycho3• 14 years ago

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.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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.

Tycho3• 14 years ago

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.

Riesling• 14 years ago

I would not make the mistake of trusting the law per se.

Law is far from being deterministic. It is merely a framework used for discussing concrete events.

This is what drove me away from studying law after having done it for three full years. You have all those reasonable and just rules that get thrown over board (by re-interpreting them or bending the meaning of words) as soon as they collide with a greater purpose.

As someone who has switched sides let me tell you of how lucky we can be that in computer science a zero is a zero and a one is a one.

tepotenk• 14 years ago

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.

freehunter3• 14 years ago

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?"

e12e9• 14 years ago

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).

rprasad5• 14 years ago

It's convenient because he raped and/or sexually assaulted two women around the same time the Wikileaks leak happened.

The prosecutor also did not drop the case--he merely recommended that the charges than being considered not be made. His superior chose to disregard that recommendation and proceeded to charge Assange for the charges then being considered and additional charges.

tomjen33• 14 years ago

Look at what we know about the case. Look at the girls hanging out with him _after_ the supposed rape. Does that sound like the actions of a rape victim to you?

Add to that the case has already been dropped by the first prosecutor _and_ the girls didn't want to prosecute him for rape (they merely wanted to know if they could force him to take an STD test).

Oh and supposedly the new prosecutor is friends with one of the girls!

Sorry, but this case stinks.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

It's sad that a thread about Wikileaks is leading us to comments like this. It is in fact not unusual for people to remain cordial after being sexually assaulted by an acquaintance. People are routinely raped by their spouses and significant others, and those people do not instantly break off their relationships. Confusion and conflicted feelings are the norm in these situations.

It is possible to believe that Julian Assange is the victim of a politically motivated frame-up without writing dismissively about acquaintance rape.

e12e9• 14 years ago

Personally I think it is more likely that intelligence services had a hand in either a) setting the stage for the rape (ie: one or both the girls were intelligence assets), or b) pushing for prosecution (IMNHO more likely).

Motives for both a) and b) would probably be to discredit Assange, as well as (with arrest, the strain of a trial, and the presumed following incarceration in a perfectly normal Swedish prison) making Assange unable to contribute effectively to Wikileaks.

Damage to the reputation of Assange, as well as limiting his ability to move around would presumably also hurt fund raising campaigns.

There have been documented cases of similar (and much, much worse) by eg. the CIA and the FBI[1,2] -- I don't think exploring the possibility is crazy.

Saying it absolutely is so, without any proof, is crazy, however.

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/18/opinion/oe-schou18 (Extra irony points for link to LA Times story on Webb?) [2] http://cironline.org/reports/man-who-armed-black-panthers-wa...

wes-exp7• 14 years ago

"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.

tptacek35• 14 years ago

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-exp7• 14 years ago

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 :)

tedunangst2• 14 years ago

Where do those color codes come from? The Reporters Without Borders map puts the US and Ecuador in different colors. http://en.rsf.org/IMG/jpg/carte2012.jpg

wes-exp7• 14 years ago

I honestly don't know where the wikipedia ones come from. On the map you've linked to, they are different, but only by one.

lttlrck• 14 years ago

The color-codes do not denote categories...

Uchikoma• 14 years ago

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

dkrivndys456• 14 years ago

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.

e12e9• 14 years ago

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.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Related Stories