5 ms·

He was in the UK for two years after leaving Sweden before he entered the embassy. Had he really been fearful of extradition to the US, why would he choose to r

by OlleTO 7y ago

He was in the UK for two years after leaving Sweden before he entered the embassy. Had he really been fearful of extradition to the US, why would he choose to run away to the country which (at least at the time) has the strongest ties to the US?

rndgermandude 7y ago
He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. I'll give you that the UK is a bad choice to go, but at the time he was free and clear of any charges. Only after he was in the UK, Sweden reopened their investigation, and at first reported him as a "witness" they'd like to interview, and that's what they based their request for extradition on. He wasn't "accused" at the time Sweden filed. His "pre-text" wasn't that he feared the UK would extradite him to the US, but that the UK would extradite him to Sweden, which would extradite him to the UK. So he was fearful of Sweden, not the UK. You can say that this is stupid or even claim he cannot genuinely believe that and is therefore disingenuous, but unless a true mindreader shows up, we cannot know what he thought and feared, really.
- notahacker 7y ago
  He was obviously free to leave the country, but his lawyer was advised the case had been reopened 5 days before he arrived in the UK
- OlleTO 7y ago
  >He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. True - I'd forgotten that part. In any case - the case was reopened in November 2010, and Assange didn't enter the embassy until June 2012. If this truly was some sort of grand conspiracy to get him extradited to the US, I'd imagine the CIA has more reliable and straightforward methods of arresting/disappearing someone. In addition to the above, EU law forbids extradition chains (Assange extradited from the UK -> Sweden, and then Sweden -> US) without explicit permissions from all involved countries.
  - ptero 7y ago
    > I'd imagine the CIA has more reliable and straightforward methods of arresting/disappearing someone Probably, but there are likely extreme hurdles to such "disappearing" of well known persons (especially those who are not universally hated). Having the technical capability is one thing. Effectively acknowledging its use in a mostly friendly, sovereign country is a very different matter.
    - erikbye 7y ago
      Yes, they do. It's called extraordinary rendition.
  - makomk 7y ago
    Extraditing from Sweden would probably require the permission of the UK government, who are generally more than willing to bend over backwards for the US on this kind of thing. What it avoids is getting the UK courts involved; how much that matters in practice is an interesting question. Also, I don't think the US was ready to extradite him yet back in 2010. Edit: yep, arrest warrant supposedly issued in December 2017 over his work with Manning back in 2010.
    - gsnedders 7y ago
      It wouldn't avoid the UK courts getting involved; consent from the UK for onward extradition from Sweden is subject to judicial review, much like any other extradition request.
  - wolco 7y ago
    The CIA killing him would have created a huge us pr nightmare.
    - fixermark 7y ago
      Correct. And would have been entirely unnecessary, because they could just wait him out. If the goal is deterrence, he works just as well as a symbol rotting in the Ecuadorian embassy as either dead or rotting in jail.
- isostatic 7y ago
  > wasn't that he feared the UK would extradite him to the US, but that the UK would extradite him to Sweden, which would extradite him to the UK I assume you mean "extradite him to the US" Why would Sweden extradite him to the U.S. when the UK wouldn't? Either way, he promised the UK courts he wouldn't flee. Then he fled. Now he's been arrested for skipping bail. Good. Everytime someone skips bail, it makes it harder for innocent people to get bail when they are charged with crimes they didn't commit.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    Indeed, "to the US" I don't know what he was thinking? Maybe he had memories of Pinochet not being extradited from the UK? Maybe he had memories of the Swedes doing the bidding of the US re:thepiratebay?
    - monocasa 7y ago
      The Swedes have previously allowed the CIA to just straight up kidnap people, outside of the legal process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
      - erikbye 7y ago
        Yeah, well... using CIA and SOF to abduct people is just US M.O. With or without permission from the "host" country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar#CIA,_Pentagon,_and_Navy_SEALs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar#CIA,_Pentagon,_a...
  - DanBC 7y ago
    People might be interested in the case from 2018 where Assange tries, and fails, to get the arrest warrant for breaching bail to be dropped. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/...

by OlleTO 7y ago

rndgermandude 7y ago

He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. I'll give you that the UK is a bad choice to go, but at the time he was free and clear of any charges. Only after he was in the UK, Sweden reopened their investigation, and at first reported him as a "witness" they'd like to interview, and that's what they based their request for extradition on. He wasn't "accused" at the time Sweden filed. His "pre-text" wasn't that he feared the UK would extradite him to the US, but that the UK would extradite him to Sweden, which would extradite him to the UK. So he was fearful of Sweden, not the UK. You can say that this is stupid or even claim he cannot genuinely believe that and is therefore disingenuous, but unless a true mindreader shows up, we cannot know what he thought and feared, really.

notahacker 7y ago
He was obviously free to leave the country, but his lawyer was advised the case had been reopened 5 days before he arrived in the UK
OlleTO 7y ago
>He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. True - I'd forgotten that part. In any case - the case was reopened in November 2010, and Assange didn't enter the embassy until June 2012. If this truly was some sort of grand conspiracy to get him extradited to the US, I'd imagine the CIA has more reliable and straightforward methods of arresting/disappearing someone. In addition to the above, EU law forbids extradition chains (Assange extradited from the UK -> Sweden, and then Sweden -> US) without explicit permissions from all involved countries.
- ptero 7y ago
  > I'd imagine the CIA has more reliable and straightforward methods of arresting/disappearing someone Probably, but there are likely extreme hurdles to such "disappearing" of well known persons (especially those who are not universally hated). Having the technical capability is one thing. Effectively acknowledging its use in a mostly friendly, sovereign country is a very different matter.
  - erikbye 7y ago
    Yes, they do. It's called extraordinary rendition.
- makomk 7y ago
  Extraditing from Sweden would probably require the permission of the UK government, who are generally more than willing to bend over backwards for the US on this kind of thing. What it avoids is getting the UK courts involved; how much that matters in practice is an interesting question. Also, I don't think the US was ready to extradite him yet back in 2010. Edit: yep, arrest warrant supposedly issued in December 2017 over his work with Manning back in 2010.
  - gsnedders 7y ago
    It wouldn't avoid the UK courts getting involved; consent from the UK for onward extradition from Sweden is subject to judicial review, much like any other extradition request.
- wolco 7y ago
  The CIA killing him would have created a huge us pr nightmare.
  - fixermark 7y ago
    Correct. And would have been entirely unnecessary, because they could just wait him out. If the goal is deterrence, he works just as well as a symbol rotting in the Ecuadorian embassy as either dead or rotting in jail.
isostatic 7y ago
> wasn't that he feared the UK would extradite him to the US, but that the UK would extradite him to Sweden, which would extradite him to the UK I assume you mean "extradite him to the US" Why would Sweden extradite him to the U.S. when the UK wouldn't? Either way, he promised the UK courts he wouldn't flee. Then he fled. Now he's been arrested for skipping bail. Good. Everytime someone skips bail, it makes it harder for innocent people to get bail when they are charged with crimes they didn't commit.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  Indeed, "to the US" I don't know what he was thinking? Maybe he had memories of Pinochet not being extradited from the UK? Maybe he had memories of the Swedes doing the bidding of the US re:thepiratebay?
  - monocasa 7y ago
    The Swedes have previously allowed the CIA to just straight up kidnap people, outside of the legal process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
    - erikbye 7y ago
      Yeah, well... using CIA and SOF to abduct people is just US M.O. With or without permission from the "host" country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar#CIA,_Pentagon,_and_Navy_SEALs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar#CIA,_Pentagon,_a...
- DanBC 7y ago
  People might be interested in the case from 2018 where Assange tries, and fails, to get the arrest warrant for breaching bail to be dropped. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/...