Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/20/sweden-meet-julian-assange-inside-ecuador-embassy-wikileaks
162 comments
I wouldn't be surprised if Assange is found not guilty by the Swedish authorities and then Assange thinks he is free and leaves the embassy (which he plans to do). (I think the US could get Sweden to do that on the promise they have a worse sentence for him.) Meanwhile, the UK suddenly finds the UN's ruling as fair and extradite him to the US. If we're honest, the only reason the UK hasn't so far is because they are worried about the circumstances of doing so. If not for that, they really couldn't care and would probably use the favour with the US at another time.
What's really horrible here is that the UN seems to exist to serve the US agenda. I wonder whether if push come to shove, if other Countries in the UN would get help at all? After all, they turned a blind eye to Ukraine because they didn't want to deal with Russia.
Whilst there are still so many games at play, I think Assange is much better off where he is. I think Assange needs to find some funding from somewhere (shouldn't be too difficult) and upgrade that internet connection. Until all the cards are revealed he's probably going to be there a while.
What's really horrible here is that the UN seems to exist to serve the US agenda. I wonder whether if push come to shove, if other Countries in the UN would get help at all? After all, they turned a blind eye to Ukraine because they didn't want to deal with Russia.
Whilst there are still so many games at play, I think Assange is much better off where he is. I think Assange needs to find some funding from somewhere (shouldn't be too difficult) and upgrade that internet connection. Until all the cards are revealed he's probably going to be there a while.
What is never clear in these convoluted conspiracies is why the United "yes we'll go to war with Irak with you US" Kingdom would not extradite Assange so that it would be necessary to ask Sweden to do it.
It's like what one of the other comments say, the embassies are effectively extensions to Countries. Extraditing a guest of Ecuador may be considered an act of war and could set off a chain reaction for other embassies around the world.
I heard it was because he was a (high-profile) British citizen.
He's Australian.
I though Australians were British. Seems I am wrong though. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Simple: Australians are not citizens of the United Kingdom. Neither are Canadians, French or Germans. What additional enlightenment is necessary?
That was enough : )
What difference do you think that would make?
There would supposedly (IIRC) be certain rules against allowing the extradition of citizens of the commonwealth?
Not sure if Assange is a UK citizen, but if so they probably reserve the right to revoke citizenship anyway.
I tried to find some more information about this. Seems like the article is referring to a request that was made in March 2016 [1] by the Swedish Prosecution Authority.
Their timeline of "The Assange Matter" in Swedish is a bit more detailed [2]
[1] (English) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/the-assange-...
[2] (Swedish) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...
Their timeline of "The Assange Matter" in Swedish is a bit more detailed [2]
[1] (English) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/the-assange-...
[2] (Swedish) https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...
"the internet collapses the whole time" ? I really wonder what's going on from a layer 1/2 perspective their with last mile connection and ISPs. I'm assuming the british authorities haven't tried to stop the Ecuadorians from ordering ordinary internet service, though of course anything going into/out of there is subject to a great deal of scrutiny and signals intelligence attention.
In that part of London they should be able to obtain a fairly ordinary VDSL2 17a profile last mile connection which will be anywhere from 55 to 85 Mbps symmetric depending on how shitty the POTS phone wiring is, and how close the DSLAM is to the premises.
In that part of London they should be able to obtain a fairly ordinary VDSL2 17a profile last mile connection which will be anywhere from 55 to 85 Mbps symmetric depending on how shitty the POTS phone wiring is, and how close the DSLAM is to the premises.
Could the timing of this somehow be Brexit related?
Probably not. The ECHR is formally part of the UK's law; simply exiting the EU won't revoke it. Brexit would mean that no part of Assange's case would be appealable to the European Court of Justice while Assange was in the UK, but that seems like less a big deal.
This probably has more to do with the UN working group findings from earlier this year, and with the fact that Assange has imposed on himself a longer period of house arrest than he probably would have faced even if he'd been found guilty in Sweden.
This probably has more to do with the UN working group findings from earlier this year, and with the fact that Assange has imposed on himself a longer period of house arrest than he probably would have faced even if he'd been found guilty in Sweden.
It could also be related to his announcement regarding compromising material against Hillary Clinton (i.e. Killary wants him dead ;-)): http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-pu...
But let's not get carried away with wild theories...
But let's not get carried away with wild theories...
Interesting point
He'd still be in breach of his original bail conditions if Sweden dropped the charges and risks being arrested for breach of bail conditions if he were to leave the embassy.
For how long has he been in that embassy? Versus how much sentence would he get from a possible conviction?
It surprises me that HN is so full of conspiracy theorists. Assange is stuck in the embassy of a less than ideal country regarding freedom of press etc because of his own actions, and he's free to leave at any time. When he does, he will get arrested by English police, extradited to Sweden, and questioned regarding alleged rape. If the prosecutor thinks he's guilty he will get arrested, and he will stand trial in Sweden.
Nothing in this case supports any of the scare tactics he himself and parts of the Internet is using. Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK. Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. He was in the UK for months before he started hiding in the embassy. He is not in house arrest, he's fleeing the justice system of two well developed western countries. Sweden's government can't give any guarantees that he's been asking for, because it's against Swedish law for the government to interfere in legal matters. It's all a bunch of FUD, and people seem to eat it up because it fits their narrative.
Nothing in this case supports any of the scare tactics he himself and parts of the Internet is using. Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK. Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK. He was in the UK for months before he started hiding in the embassy. He is not in house arrest, he's fleeing the justice system of two well developed western countries. Sweden's government can't give any guarantees that he's been asking for, because it's against Swedish law for the government to interfere in legal matters. It's all a bunch of FUD, and people seem to eat it up because it fits their narrative.
Sometimes it's OK to say, "I don't know."
The term conspiracy theorist is used to denote some idea that is irrational. Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people.
Thus it's probably more prudent to accept one's own ignorance of the situation, and await more information before calling anything a conspiracy theory.
The term conspiracy theorist is used to denote some idea that is irrational. Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people.
Thus it's probably more prudent to accept one's own ignorance of the situation, and await more information before calling anything a conspiracy theory.
Yes, exactly.
>Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people.
It is really frustrating to witness people throw the 'conspiracy theorist' derision around so liberally when we know the above is true.
>Yet we're regularly challenged to redefine what is rational. It's not hard to come up with examples of things which were commonly accepted as conspiracy theories, which are now accepted as fact by most people.
It is really frustrating to witness people throw the 'conspiracy theorist' derision around so liberally when we know the above is true.
You mean like nobody will force to land a plane carrying a prime minister for example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Snowden, an American citizen, formally charged with a serious crime in the US? Is Assange, not an American citizen, charged with any such crime in the US?
Whether the charges are currently filed isn't important; they always can file the charges later.
The U.S. has claimed the right to kidnap people off the street, detain them indefinitely, or kill them as it deems necessary. I'd be very surprised if any of those tactics would be used on Assange, but in that context pressuring/asking another country to deport him to the U.S. to face charges seems within the realm of possibility.
If you were Assange, would you want to gamble life in prison on your odds, whatever they are?
The U.S. has claimed the right to kidnap people off the street, detain them indefinitely, or kill them as it deems necessary. I'd be very surprised if any of those tactics would be used on Assange, but in that context pressuring/asking another country to deport him to the U.S. to face charges seems within the realm of possibility.
If you were Assange, would you want to gamble life in prison on your odds, whatever they are?
That doesn't make sense because he was walking around freely in Sweden and was not afraid of being extradited before the rape allegations. If the US wanted to, they could have asked any allied or friendly nation to arrest and extradite him many years earlier.
I would if I really stood for what I believed in and wanted to prove that the US government was really as bad as I say it was.
So if I was Assange, yes I would.
So if I was Assange, yes I would.
Martyrdom... the dumbest way to measure the correctness of one's argument.
You embarrass yourself. Should the people who figured out that asbestos caused cancer have proved it by inhaling asbestos dust on camera, and then contracting cancer?
If you were one of them, would you do that?
If you were one of them, would you do that?
Then maybe you're just worried about disappearing, or "killing yourself."
Assange is not currently charged with a crime, but there are a few reasons not to give weight to that.
First, there are claims of a sealed indictment. Second, Dianne Feinstein and other similarly influential people have called for charges. And third, they have reason to delay those charges: laying them now would make extradition harder, as compared to extraditing for a subpoena and then bringing charges.
The result is that he's not charged (which could make things like grounding planes harder) but I don't know anyone who seriously believes he wouldn't be charged if he showed up in the US tomorrow.
First, there are claims of a sealed indictment. Second, Dianne Feinstein and other similarly influential people have called for charges. And third, they have reason to delay those charges: laying them now would make extradition harder, as compared to extraditing for a subpoena and then bringing charges.
The result is that he's not charged (which could make things like grounding planes harder) but I don't know anyone who seriously believes he wouldn't be charged if he showed up in the US tomorrow.
Whilst he hasn't yet been charged in the US, it is rumoured that there is a sealed indictment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#U.S._criminal_i...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#U.S._criminal_i...
That may be reason to force the plane to land when over US territories, but not in the EU. It's the EU who is at fault here however, for once again showing it has no balls.
The EU has extradition treaties with the US.
Do extradition treaties cover forcing diplomatic planes to land with no evidence aside from rumor that a person of interest is on the plane?
From what I remember Assanged attempted to get diplomatic license (become a diplomat for, don't know the technical term) from Ecuador but did not. There he can't get in a car and none of that stops the cops from setting up a large traffic jam till said car runs out of gas and assange has to walk. I'm not sure if there is diplomatic immunity for a tow truck.
The image of Assange trapped in an out-of-gas diplomatic car, being towed behind a beat up truck driven by a very amused blue-collar driver on the way to the airport sounds rather like something from a Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett novel.
Since these extradition treaties are not public record, all we can go on, is events. So apparently, yes.
No, Snowden is not a U.S. citizen. He has not be charged with a crime in the U.S.
Snowden should be protected by WPA [1]. Unfortunately, trusting ones' government will follow its' own laws is quite a risk.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
Sorry, you're way off base here. The WPA only protects Whistleblowers who work within the government reporting system. It's not a get out of jail free card for any action you perform under the auspices of 'blowing the whistle.'
And that might make sense if the government reporting system worked. The Thomas Drake case shows that it doesn't. Thomas Drake and some other government whistleblowers agree that Snowden did the only thing he could.
So let me get this straight. You contact "The Office of Special Counsel [1]" and they contact the FBI/CIA to take you away to an undisclosed location. You are never seen again. I'm just not buying the effectiveness of the formal procedure unless ones' goal is to die in vain..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Specia...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Specia...
In this case exactly. For Snowden, there is a reason he was hired as a contractor. The government contractors do not have the WPA protection that their fellow government works do.
Frankly this one remains unproven at best: all we know for sure is that the plane landed after its pilot cited fuel issues at a time when memos were circulating reminding border controls that Snowden was a wanted fugitive.
Edit: downvoters are welcome to prove me wrong by providing evidence to the contrary. We've no more reason to believe Morales is telling the truth than any of the alleged conspirators, particularly not when his own account is contradicted by the hard evidence of what the pilot said before landing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03...
Edit: downvoters are welcome to prove me wrong by providing evidence to the contrary. We've no more reason to believe Morales is telling the truth than any of the alleged conspirators, particularly not when his own account is contradicted by the hard evidence of what the pilot said before landing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03...
Perhaps there were legitimate fuel-gauge issues, perhaps not. That's disputable, and we will never know the truth. However, the fact that multiple US-allied nations denied that plane entry into their airspace isn't in dispute:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23174874
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23174874
Possibly. However, if it was your life on the line, wouldn't you want assurances? I know I would. Especially if you look at what happened to others.
You state that Sweden can't extradite him to the US. Given the fact that most of the laws created in most western countries (ranging from tax law to civil law) are often not extremely well defined (or frankly not even well thought out / put together), and can often easily be interpreted in very different ways by different judges, I can totally understand his point of view.
At the end of the day, as long as Ecuador doesn't kick him out, all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire. He's got leverage. If Sweden really wanted a solution to this, they would've done this years ago.
You state that Sweden can't extradite him to the US. Given the fact that most of the laws created in most western countries (ranging from tax law to civil law) are often not extremely well defined (or frankly not even well thought out / put together), and can often easily be interpreted in very different ways by different judges, I can totally understand his point of view.
At the end of the day, as long as Ecuador doesn't kick him out, all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire. He's got leverage. If Sweden really wanted a solution to this, they would've done this years ago.
> all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire.
The Swedish investigation may well expire (parts have already). This has never really been about the Swedish charges.
The English charges (relating to failing to comply with bail) do not expire. Very few offences in English law expire - something I'm sure will surprise Americans who are used to relatively short statute of limitations on even some serious crimes (e.g. the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations). England routinely prosecutes and jails people for alleged offences 50 & 60 years ago; many are elderly men in their 80's & 90's with little chance of mounting any sort of defence due to their age, but that's another issue.
Arrange cannot wait out the English charges and England is well documented as an enthusiastic participant in torture and rendition of both it's own citizens and foreign nationals. The UK-US extradition treaty is a shocking travesty of justice and is routinely used to send people from the UK to the US for activity carried out in the UK and considered lawful in the UK but which has upset US authorities. [1]
He has good reason to remain in the Embassy. Unfortunately he's likely to be there for many years to come and either be grabbed when he requires hospital treatment at some point in the future, or, the UK will decide it can live with some diplomatic protests and expulsion of UK diplomats after sending the SAS in to grab him from the embassy and hand him over to the US.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901
The Swedish investigation may well expire (parts have already). This has never really been about the Swedish charges.
The English charges (relating to failing to comply with bail) do not expire. Very few offences in English law expire - something I'm sure will surprise Americans who are used to relatively short statute of limitations on even some serious crimes (e.g. the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations). England routinely prosecutes and jails people for alleged offences 50 & 60 years ago; many are elderly men in their 80's & 90's with little chance of mounting any sort of defence due to their age, but that's another issue.
Arrange cannot wait out the English charges and England is well documented as an enthusiastic participant in torture and rendition of both it's own citizens and foreign nationals. The UK-US extradition treaty is a shocking travesty of justice and is routinely used to send people from the UK to the US for activity carried out in the UK and considered lawful in the UK but which has upset US authorities. [1]
He has good reason to remain in the Embassy. Unfortunately he's likely to be there for many years to come and either be grabbed when he requires hospital treatment at some point in the future, or, the UK will decide it can live with some diplomatic protests and expulsion of UK diplomats after sending the SAS in to grab him from the embassy and hand him over to the US.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901
> At the end of the day, as long as Ecuador doesn't kick him out, all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire.
Don't know about Sweden, but in the U.S. the statute of limitations is not granted to those fleeing from the law.
> No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.
- 18 U.S.C 3290 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3290):
Don't know about Sweden, but in the U.S. the statute of limitations is not granted to those fleeing from the law.
> No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.
- 18 U.S.C 3290 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3290):
Some of the charges against him has already expired, the rape charge expires in august 2020.
"You state that Sweden can't extradite him to the US. Given the fact that most of the laws created in most Western countries (ranging from tax law to civil law) are often not extremely well defined, and can be interpreted in different ways by different judges, I can totally understand his point of view."
=> It is not a matter of justice system (common law vs civil law) or law definition, but a matter of independence. And when it comes to independence, Europe has shown a strong will not to extradite people to the US. Add the media pressure around Assange's case and you get a good assurance that he won't be extradited to the US
Then again this actually happened:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Swed...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Swed...
It happened for alleged terrorists no one knew about - apart from people working in security/intelligence/military services - and Sweden felt extremely shameful. Not sure they want to do that again with somebody almost every has heard of and who hasn't been a threat to Sweden
To paraphrase grandparent, if it were you, would you be willing to risk it? It won't be much consolation to you if it happens and somebody in Sweden might feel ashamed about it.
I seem to remember Belgium extraditing someone for plotting to attack US soldiers on Belgian base.
When the US barks, Europe rolls over.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Trabelsi
When the US barks, Europe rolls over.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Trabelsi
Belgium was recently fined for this by the EU. So I'm not sure Europe is the one that rolled over.
Yeah but if you're Assange, some kind of punishment like a silly little fine later on really doesn't matter if you end up kidnapped.
Belgium routinely gets convicted and fined for its incredibly poor treatment of prisoners. In fact, it's been convicted TWENTY TWO times for locking up mentally ill prisoners in regular (overcrowded) prisons without treatment.
Look at Kim Dotcom for a counterpoint. He's been fighting extradition for what, 4 or 5 years now?
New Zealand is just as much a lapdog of the USA as Sweden, and Dotcom actually has had charges laid.
New Zealand is just as much a lapdog of the USA as Sweden, and Dotcom actually has had charges laid.
Dotcom is a New Zealand citizen facing charges within the borders of New Zealand. New Zealand just can't grab on of its citizens and toss them out.
Dotcom is not a New Zealand citizen. He is a German citizen and a New Zealand resident. He was specifically barred from a path to citizenship and owning property because he failed the good character requirement.
This is incorrect. The US is attempting to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand for violating US law outside of US jurisdiction.
I don't like the guy, but let's not lie about it.
I don't like the guy, but let's not lie about it.
>New Zealand is just as much a lapdog of the USA as Sweden
This doesn't sound like something a lapdog would do (February 2016): http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296076/us-requests-fa...
Lawyers for the US were at the High Court in Auckland today, where they asked Justice Asher to give the appeal priority and set an early date for the hearing.
Justice Asher declined that request but set a date for August.
This doesn't sound like something a lapdog would do (February 2016): http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296076/us-requests-fa...
Lawyers for the US were at the High Court in Auckland today, where they asked Justice Asher to give the appeal priority and set an early date for the hearing.
Justice Asher declined that request but set a date for August.
The current New Zealand leadership are worse than lapdogs. The goings on with Hollywood contracts (The Hobbit), Dotcom and spy agency leadership, TPPA etc etc are shameful. The lengths the PM goes to get in a photo with Obama etc etc.
USA asks, we say yes. It's gross. A shining light is New Zealand's judiciary who seem fairly offside with political leadership.
The justice system is a separate entity from the government. If the government had its way, they'd have shipped him over years ago.
If he sincerely believed his life was on the line from people that were willing to creatively reinterpret the law to get him to the US, he probably wouldn't have twice waited until the day there were no further legal impediments to him being prosecuted in Sweden before changing jurisdiction.
On the other hand, insisting that superfluous assurances are made by bodies that don't have any legal authority to make them is a very good excuse for not going anywhere.
On the other hand, insisting that superfluous assurances are made by bodies that don't have any legal authority to make them is a very good excuse for not going anywhere.
Forgive me, but this comment reads like yet more FUD. Do you have anything to add except more scare tactics? Of course I'd like assurances regarding anything with my life on the line, but why would I be special? Why would Assange be special? The law is the law, and an important principle in western law is that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Should you or I be allowed to flee abroad and then demand to be questioned where we are?
Sweden's government can't give any assurances beforehand, since every case must be judged independently. Sweden can't extradite Assange anywhere after he's been extradited to Sweden from the UK without the UK's permission [0, 1]. If the US needs Sweden and the UK to cooperate, why wouldn't they just ask the UK from the start, who's a much closer allied?
[0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index...
Sweden's government can't give any assurances beforehand, since every case must be judged independently. Sweden can't extradite Assange anywhere after he's been extradited to Sweden from the UK without the UK's permission [0, 1]. If the US needs Sweden and the UK to cooperate, why wouldn't they just ask the UK from the start, who's a much closer allied?
[0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index...
This is an absurdly naive view of a utopian hyper-rationalist.
The laws are created by those in power to serve those in power. They do not stand on their own, because they are enforced by cops, lawyers and judges, who are people. These people choose to enforce the law based on the situation at hand, and this can lead to a large disparity in outcomes given technically similar cases.
Assange and Snowden will both rot in Guantanamo the second they leave their safe houses. If you think otherwise, you are absurdly naive to the geopolitics of the world we live in.
The laws are created by those in power to serve those in power. They do not stand on their own, because they are enforced by cops, lawyers and judges, who are people. These people choose to enforce the law based on the situation at hand, and this can lead to a large disparity in outcomes given technically similar cases.
Assange and Snowden will both rot in Guantanamo the second they leave their safe houses. If you think otherwise, you are absurdly naive to the geopolitics of the world we live in.
He has a special case because they have been treating this as a special case from the start. Had he not been wanted for something beyond the official claim then he wouldn't have been treated as he is
Here are some more facts:
1. the Vice President of the USA, Joe Biden, has publicly called Julian Assange a terrorist
2. the US Government has a policy of assassinating people it considers to be terrorists.
Make of these facts what you will
1. the Vice President of the USA, Joe Biden, has publicly called Julian Assange a terrorist
2. the US Government has a policy of assassinating people it considers to be terrorists.
Make of these facts what you will
This is exactly the kind of irrational, sensationalist, FUD the parent was talking about. Do you honestly believe that the moment Assange steps foot outside the embassy, he's a dead man walking?
He's probably not brown enough for that. But the US does have a distressing tendency to kill people without any due process.
(I really didn't mean to accuse the Obama administration of racism, but seriously, what if he'd been an Arab and living in Yemen. Would the US really not have classified him as terrorist and killed him by drone?)
(I really didn't mean to accuse the Obama administration of racism, but seriously, what if he'd been an Arab and living in Yemen. Would the US really not have classified him as terrorist and killed him by drone?)
It can be worse he can be sent to Guantamo, the no rights land maintained by the democracy and human rights defender US government, the same that says that waterboarding is a good investigation technique.
Guantanamo is worse than being killed?
I suppose you have found a way to improve the prisoners' lot and at the same time outwit US Congress who is adamant in not letting them set foot in the United States...
But I believe very few people actually agree with you.
I suppose you have found a way to improve the prisoners' lot and at the same time outwit US Congress who is adamant in not letting them set foot in the United States...
But I believe very few people actually agree with you.
Yes, i agree with grand-parent, torture is worse then death. Especially when you know there is no way to escape it, and you will probably spend the rest of you life there.
Even life in prison can well be torture. I'm often surprised at the common thought that prisoners should get life instead of execution, like that's some kind of prize.
It's why I support life sentences over execution. It is the harsher of the two punishments. Bonus effect: you can attempt to rehabilitate an inmate, but not a dead man.
The main reason i am against dead penalty, there's always a possibility to rehabilitation. and dead penalty is always definite,
> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK.
Can you support that claim?
My understanding was exactly the opposite. Sweden can't execute someone who would face the death penalty where they are being extradited. That's part of why Assange hasn't been charged under the Espionage Act - it would bar extradition. I'm not conspiracy theorizing there, it's been explicitly stated that extradition is a reason to delay charging him until he can be brought here to face a grand jury.
> "Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK."
This claim doesn't seem relevant. As soon as he was facing legal involvement in the UK (or as soon as he got asylum, I'm not sure how the timing shook out there), he ran for the embassy. Your implication seems to be that he's hiding from Swedish prosecution rather US law, but I've seen no indication that he would leave the embassy if Sweden dropped charges. Without that, I don't see how the Sweden/UK distinction matters - he's avoiding both legal systems which could extradite him.
This is a sincere question - I'd like to know anything backing those points. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that A) Sweden couldn't extradite, or B) Assange is willing to face the UK legal system but not the Swedish one. One or both of those seems necessary for your conclusion.
Can you support that claim?
My understanding was exactly the opposite. Sweden can't execute someone who would face the death penalty where they are being extradited. That's part of why Assange hasn't been charged under the Espionage Act - it would bar extradition. I'm not conspiracy theorizing there, it's been explicitly stated that extradition is a reason to delay charging him until he can be brought here to face a grand jury.
> "Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK."
This claim doesn't seem relevant. As soon as he was facing legal involvement in the UK (or as soon as he got asylum, I'm not sure how the timing shook out there), he ran for the embassy. Your implication seems to be that he's hiding from Swedish prosecution rather US law, but I've seen no indication that he would leave the embassy if Sweden dropped charges. Without that, I don't see how the Sweden/UK distinction matters - he's avoiding both legal systems which could extradite him.
This is a sincere question - I'd like to know anything backing those points. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that A) Sweden couldn't extradite, or B) Assange is willing to face the UK legal system but not the Swedish one. One or both of those seems necessary for your conclusion.
Sweden can extradite, but not without permission from the UK. The terms of the European Arrest Warrant states that Sweden can't extradite him to a third country without permission from the UK. This means the US would have to convince two governments instead of one.
The UK will extradite to the US for a capital offence, but only with a written assurance that the death penalty will not be applied. I don't think the US would risk its extradition treaty for the sake of one person.
The question the Assange fans never seem to want to answer is why, if the US secretly wants to have Assange extradited, they didn't do that in the months when he was under house arrest in the UK. Why would they concoct an elaborate conspiracy to get him to Sweden so they could extradite from there, when it would be harder than extraditing from the UK?
The UK will extradite to the US for a capital offence, but only with a written assurance that the death penalty will not be applied. I don't think the US would risk its extradition treaty for the sake of one person.
The question the Assange fans never seem to want to answer is why, if the US secretly wants to have Assange extradited, they didn't do that in the months when he was under house arrest in the UK. Why would they concoct an elaborate conspiracy to get him to Sweden so they could extradite from there, when it would be harder than extraditing from the UK?
>> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him after he's been extradited from the UK.
> Can you support that claim?
Yes, and I've linked to a source in a different comment that's at the moment at -2 here. It's both due to the The Doctrine of Specialty and whether what he has done is a crime in Sweden or not [0, 1, 2].
When Sweden asked for Assange's extradition from the UK he was arrested after presenting himself to the London police and then let out on bail. London's Belmarsh Magistrate's Court then rules in favor of Assange's extradition. Then the High Court upholds this decision. Then he wins the right to appeal to the UK Supreme Court because his case is "a question of general public importance." He was certainly willing to face the UK legal system.
The UK's Supreme Court also ruled that he should be extradited to Sweden, at which point he jumped bail and fled to the embassy where he sought and received political asylum. He fled to the embassy only after all legal ways of getting out of the extradition from the UK to Sweden was exhausted. Nowhere in this has the US made any claims on him, all such talk comes from Assange himself that says it's all part of a smear campaign. If the Swedish charges are dropped he will still face the criminal charges in the UK from jumping bail.
[0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index...
[2] https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...
> Can you support that claim?
Yes, and I've linked to a source in a different comment that's at the moment at -2 here. It's both due to the The Doctrine of Specialty and whether what he has done is a crime in Sweden or not [0, 1, 2].
When Sweden asked for Assange's extradition from the UK he was arrested after presenting himself to the London police and then let out on bail. London's Belmarsh Magistrate's Court then rules in favor of Assange's extradition. Then the High Court upholds this decision. Then he wins the right to appeal to the UK Supreme Court because his case is "a question of general public importance." He was certainly willing to face the UK legal system.
The UK's Supreme Court also ruled that he should be extradited to Sweden, at which point he jumped bail and fled to the embassy where he sought and received political asylum. He fled to the embassy only after all legal ways of getting out of the extradition from the UK to Sweden was exhausted. Nowhere in this has the US made any claims on him, all such talk comes from Assange himself that says it's all part of a smear campaign. If the Swedish charges are dropped he will still face the criminal charges in the UK from jumping bail.
[0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index...
[2] https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...
No, it suffices that the United States assure Sweden that the death penalty would neither be sought, nor imposed, nor applied.
That's the standard European countries have adopted for such extraditions.
That's the standard European countries have adopted for such extraditions.
> It's all a bunch of FUD, and people seem to eat it up because it fits their narrative.
Not even particularly original FUD. Jacob Appelbaum was able to get away with a lot of things because he could always point to his accusers as being planted by the FBI or whoever.
Not even particularly original FUD. Jacob Appelbaum was able to get away with a lot of things because he could always point to his accusers as being planted by the FBI or whoever.
Already mentioned, but deserving to be mentioned again: in a normal criminal law case you don't have multiple nations deny airspace to a prime minister's plane on a hunch the suspect is on board.
> Sweden isn't legally allowed to extradite him
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
It appears US and allied governments have achieved much of what they wanted to anyway by immobilising Assagne in a small building with limited connectivity. This is possibly more valuable than highly publicised trial etc if he were in fact actually extradited.
It's terrifying that Assange's self-preservation might put Trump in the Whitehouse.
It's terrifying that Clinton might get into the Whitehouse. I mean... are there really THAT many stupid voters?
Trump... faaaaaar from perfect. But the reason he's made it as far as he has? Because people are sick of career politicians (Jeb, Marco, Cruz, etc) who make promises then proceed to fuck the voters.
Hillary is the worst of the worst examples of Corrupt Rich White Bought-And-Paid-For Politicians.
Trump... faaaaaar from perfect. But the reason he's made it as far as he has? Because people are sick of career politicians (Jeb, Marco, Cruz, etc) who make promises then proceed to fuck the voters.
Hillary is the worst of the worst examples of Corrupt Rich White Bought-And-Paid-For Politicians.
Trump is, as far as I'm aware, just as bought and paid for. He's just also not a career politician, but that doesn't mean he's not figured out how things get done at that level. Although best case scenario, all the career politicians decide they don't like an outsider and prevent him from doing anything he wants.
Hillary donations from corporations dwarf that of Trump. Trump does also not have JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc as donors. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N000...
Trump is the special interest. People seem to have this notion that Trump won't do stuff that only benefits the rich because no one paid him to. Instead, he is taking out the middle man. In other words, electing one of the Koch brothers doesn't mean the office isn't biased toward the Oil industry, just that it's cheaper for the Koch brothers.
Trump funds himself, so that comparison is disengenuous
My comment was primarily in response to: Trump is, as far as I'm aware, just as bought and paid for.
Fair. But being one of those we fear are doing the buying and selling, I'm not so sure its any consolation.
> But the reason he's made it as far as he has?
Because the Republican nominating system's non-proportional allocation of delegates, combined with the schedule of Republican primaries and caucuses, is designed to very strongly favor the candidate with an advantage in early name recognition especially if they can effectively appeal to a particular demographic that the Republicans have been focusing on as a key element of their coalition since Nixon's southern strategy, especially in a crowded field since the system is designed to create artificial delegate majorities from small electoral pluralities.
(This is engineered as a way to shorten the competitive period of primary contests by making a candidate's victory nearly inevitable very early in the process without them needing to secure anything like majority support even within the primary electorate, allowing the party to move quickly on to focus on the general election.)
Because the Republican nominating system's non-proportional allocation of delegates, combined with the schedule of Republican primaries and caucuses, is designed to very strongly favor the candidate with an advantage in early name recognition especially if they can effectively appeal to a particular demographic that the Republicans have been focusing on as a key element of their coalition since Nixon's southern strategy, especially in a crowded field since the system is designed to create artificial delegate majorities from small electoral pluralities.
(This is engineered as a way to shorten the competitive period of primary contests by making a candidate's victory nearly inevitable very early in the process without them needing to secure anything like majority support even within the primary electorate, allowing the party to move quickly on to focus on the general election.)
Don't get me wrong... I don't agree with the systems in place. Winner takes all? Super delegates? Two party system? All have parts ripe for abuse...
Trump and Bern should, by all reasonable definitions, be on "other" platforms. Trump is, if anything, independent... Bern is much further left than the normal "Democrat"... But anything outside of these two "buckets" has no chance.
90% of people don't fall fully into either of these buckets. These buckets drive "us vs them" partisanship that's only gotten worse and worse in recent years. Don't agree with the GOP 100%? RHINO (Commie! Socialist! etc)! Don't follow DNC? DINO (and Racist/Bigot/Islamaphobe/etc)
I'm not sure how exactly I would change it... but there needs to be more than two parties.
I sure as shit know I don't fall fully into either camp although I'm definitely more right than left.
Trump and Bern should, by all reasonable definitions, be on "other" platforms. Trump is, if anything, independent... Bern is much further left than the normal "Democrat"... But anything outside of these two "buckets" has no chance.
90% of people don't fall fully into either of these buckets. These buckets drive "us vs them" partisanship that's only gotten worse and worse in recent years. Don't agree with the GOP 100%? RHINO (Commie! Socialist! etc)! Don't follow DNC? DINO (and Racist/Bigot/Islamaphobe/etc)
I'm not sure how exactly I would change it... but there needs to be more than two parties.
I sure as shit know I don't fall fully into either camp although I'm definitely more right than left.
Its the Jesse Ventura[1] effect writ larger. I think some folks should start looking at the 1998 MN gubernatorial election. Polling before the election suggested he would lose, but that didn't happen.
1) not a supporter - people who sue widows are pretty much on my not nice list
1) not a supporter - people who sue widows are pretty much on my not nice list
It's still the voter who puts Trump in the Whitehouse.
Pretty sure releasing these documents, if they exist, is the opposite of self-preservation. After that he holds no cards at all.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11952855 and marked it off-topic.
God save the Queen!
Pardon Chelsea Manning !
I would put money on Assange putting some sort of road-block in the way to prevent this from happening.
He has done it before.
He wants to present himself as being a co-operative victim whilst simultaneously being as un co-operative as possible!
He has done it before.
He wants to present himself as being a co-operative victim whilst simultaneously being as un co-operative as possible!
Finally! Hope this finally moves ahead. The guys has been stuck there in 'house arrest' for years.
Sweden's long-standing refusal to interview Assange in Ecuador's embassy was most probably due to pressure from the US. I wonder what element could have changed that.
Edit: Or nothing at all has changed and the aim of the visit is purely "discovery".
Edit: Or nothing at all has changed and the aim of the visit is purely "discovery".
The long standing refusal was probably mostly down to the preference of the prosecutor regarding the circumstances of the questioning. In any case, she caved last year and since then its been a diplomatic squabble about why there is no progress, with Sweden giving no official comments (as per usual policy) and Ecuador boasting about how kind and full of compromises they are[1].
I don't expect much will be different now, especially as there is no impending deadline like there was last year.
[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-...
I don't expect much will be different now, especially as there is no impending deadline like there was last year.
[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-...
This is slightly paranoid speculation, but consider the following scenario: The US have realized that Assange is not coming out as long as the risk of arrest and extradition looms over his head.
So Sweden now does the interview so they can drop the case without losing too much face.
Assange goes free, and the US look for another way to snatch him or have him arrested by some allied state. (I am not even sure they would necessarily want to have him extradited - if he got convicted of rape in Sweden and went to prison for a couple of years[1], they might find that an acceptable outcome.)
[1] I have no clue what kind of prison time he would face. My gut feeling says 5-10 years, but my gut is not a lawyer and only has a very superficial knowledge of the Swedish criminal law.
So Sweden now does the interview so they can drop the case without losing too much face.
Assange goes free, and the US look for another way to snatch him or have him arrested by some allied state. (I am not even sure they would necessarily want to have him extradited - if he got convicted of rape in Sweden and went to prison for a couple of years[1], they might find that an acceptable outcome.)
[1] I have no clue what kind of prison time he would face. My gut feeling says 5-10 years, but my gut is not a lawyer and only has a very superficial knowledge of the Swedish criminal law.
I'm not going to try to translate the concepts, since I'm much too unversed in Swedish or any other law.
The prison sentences for the crimes that may apply in his case seem as far as I can tell to range between six months and ten years (that is the harshest possible sentence for rape here in Sweden, and I can only imagine that it is given under very aggravating circumstances). Also bear in mind that almost every prisoner is released on parole after serving two thirds of their sentence - anything else is an exception.
The prison sentences for the crimes that may apply in his case seem as far as I can tell to range between six months and ten years (that is the harshest possible sentence for rape here in Sweden, and I can only imagine that it is given under very aggravating circumstances). Also bear in mind that almost every prisoner is released on parole after serving two thirds of their sentence - anything else is an exception.
How has any of this to do with the US? If the US wanted Assange extradited, they would have simply asked the UK, which is a closer ally to the US than Sweden.
Why would Sweden help the US when the UK wouldn't?
Edit: To clarify, Assange has been for years in the UK before he went into the embassy.
Why would Sweden help the US when the UK wouldn't?
Edit: To clarify, Assange has been for years in the UK before he went into the embassy.
They have asked the UK. But by being in the Embassy, Assange is on sovereign soil, and it would be (politically) akin to the UK invading Ecuador.
Now, grain-of-salt all that. I've read several things that a) say it's not exactly sovereign, but the political fallout of the U.K. entering the embassy could collapse the entire house of cards that is the Embassy system worldwide, b) states have been kidnapping and assassinating people on foreign soil for ages (see: United States, Russia, Israel, etc).
I'm sure being stuck in the Embassy is seen, at least a little, as being contained. But if he ever stepped foot outside, that'd be the end of that.
Now, grain-of-salt all that. I've read several things that a) say it's not exactly sovereign, but the political fallout of the U.K. entering the embassy could collapse the entire house of cards that is the Embassy system worldwide, b) states have been kidnapping and assassinating people on foreign soil for ages (see: United States, Russia, Israel, etc).
I'm sure being stuck in the Embassy is seen, at least a little, as being contained. But if he ever stepped foot outside, that'd be the end of that.
The political fallout of the UK collapsing the embassy system would be collosal, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is one of the most widely adopted treaties.
There would be a lot of other countries very pissed at us for smashing it to bits in such a public way.
There would be a lot of other countries very pissed at us for smashing it to bits in such a public way.
First, no: embassies are not "sovereign soil" of the countries they represent. The Ecuadorian embassy in the UK is UK soil.
Second: do you have evidence that the US sought Assange's extradition prior to him taking up residence in the embassy? What would he have been extradited for? He's not a US citizen and has no duty of care for confidential information from the US that was never vouchsafed with him to begin with.
Second: do you have evidence that the US sought Assange's extradition prior to him taking up residence in the embassy? What would he have been extradited for? He's not a US citizen and has no duty of care for confidential information from the US that was never vouchsafed with him to begin with.
Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.
> Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.
Not weeks, years. He left Sweden in 27 September 2010, and it wasn't until 14 June 2012 that he had exhausted his rights of appeal in the UK (short of any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). He was on bail for pretty much the entire period (he spend nine days in police custody prior to being granted bail, but I don't believe he was ever in custody after that).
Not weeks, years. He left Sweden in 27 September 2010, and it wasn't until 14 June 2012 that he had exhausted his rights of appeal in the UK (short of any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). He was on bail for pretty much the entire period (he spend nine days in police custody prior to being granted bail, but I don't believe he was ever in custody after that).
I thought the reason why he couldn't be extradited directly from UK was because he was a high-profile UK citizen, which meant that it would be far simpler if they could get him to Sweden first?
(Disclaimer: I don't know nothing, I just think I heard.)
(Disclaimer: I don't know nothing, I just think I heard.)
There's a lot of misconceptions and straight out lies flying around regarding this case, you shouldn't believe the conspiracy theorists. He's not charged for having sex without a condom either.
If he were to be extradited to Sweden from the UK, and if the US wants him extradited from Sweden, the UK would have to give their permission to do so. Sweden would simply be an extra complication and wouldn't help any extradition claim the US might have.
http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...
If he were to be extradited to Sweden from the UK, and if the US wants him extradited from Sweden, the UK would have to give their permission to do so. Sweden would simply be an extra complication and wouldn't help any extradition claim the US might have.
http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...
So if the US wanted him, they could file the appropriate charges and just ask the UK to extradite him here instead of Sweden? Then what? He leaves the embassy and how does the UK decide where to send him first?
I think it's reasonable to assume he wouldn't leave the embassy, given his entire stated reason to be there is to avoid extradition to the US.
Which place he gets sent comes down to the decision of someone, likely the Home Secretary, but my memory of this is fuzzy and it could be down to the judiciary.
Which place he gets sent comes down to the decision of someone, likely the Home Secretary, but my memory of this is fuzzy and it could be down to the judiciary.
Assange isn't a UK citizen: he is Australian.
So in some sense he's safer in the embassy than he would be living in Ecuador proper. Because the US is willing to illegally kidnap people but won't dare to mess up the embassy system.
They don't seem to do much of that kind of kidnapping to put people on public trial, do they? The only case I know of was Eichmann's extraction to Israel. I assumed (but I'm not sure) that those kinds of operations were kept secret.
All that to say, I doubt they'd secretly kidnap Assange to put him on trial in the US for... publishing documents given to him by other leakers? It's not exactly a clear cut case, I don't think. It'd be more politically agreeable to kidnap some terrorist for that kind of thing.
All that to say, I doubt they'd secretly kidnap Assange to put him on trial in the US for... publishing documents given to him by other leakers? It's not exactly a clear cut case, I don't think. It'd be more politically agreeable to kidnap some terrorist for that kind of thing.
No, we don't do so much kidnapping (unless it leads to trial-less imprisonment at a CIA black site) as assassinations (the most public being Osama Bin Laden, of course).
If he went missing in Ecuador it could be spun as "local gangs" or something. If he were to go missing or end up dead in the embassy there would be a lot of fallout.
Nonsense. If you are wanted for a crime there is no country on Earth that lets you dictate to the police when and where they can have a word with you.
That's not what happened though. He dictated where the police were capable of having a word with him, and they chose not to do so there.
It's totally possible that there are legitimate reasons for that (if you already have enough evidence to convict, there would be no reason to 'interview' someone except in an arrest-friendly setting), but it's still a worthwhile distinction. This isn't someone calling up the police and going "I'll talk to you, but only if you agree to meet me at Starbucks." It's someone leveraging international law to leave the police with only one option.
It's totally possible that there are legitimate reasons for that (if you already have enough evidence to convict, there would be no reason to 'interview' someone except in an arrest-friendly setting), but it's still a worthwhile distinction. This isn't someone calling up the police and going "I'll talk to you, but only if you agree to meet me at Starbucks." It's someone leveraging international law to leave the police with only one option.
You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to have an attorney present, at least in one country.
Well that's nonsense. Do you honestly think most countries would rather let the charges expire rather than agreeing to do an interview outside of their jurisdiction.
Apparently there is, because he could.
[deleted]
Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents about Clinton that he's sure would lead to her indictment. And Obama is trying his hardest to help her avoid that. So maybe the US government is willing to "make a deal" with Assange through Sweden?
Just a theory.
Just a theory.
> Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents
> about Clinton
How likely is this to be some kind of bait'n'switch? Scenario: Swedish diplomats enter negotiations – raising delusive hope in Assange and everyone in the Embassy – with the intention to never follow with any feasible agreement in order to make Assange give up so he can deal with his health issues.
Negotiations haven been ongoing since last year, and according to the Swedish prosecution office the last request to interview Assange in the Embassy was sent in March this year (the third such request by their count).
It seems to me that it's the Swedish police that agreed to talk to Assange in the embassy. Not Swedish diplomats.
And to expound on that, the foreign minister is not allowed to influence the police in Sweden ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre ). Although there have been cases where this has happened (IIRC the US cable leaks revealed there was ministerial interference in the Pirate Bay case)
"Assange is suffering deteriorating health, he has a small space and little light. It is an embassy under siege. It is very difficult to make a phone call, the internet collapses the whole time, pictures are taken as people enter and leave the building"
Unusual that an embassy would have internet problems. Sounds like GCHQ have a van in the street...
Unusual that an embassy would have internet problems. Sounds like GCHQ have a van in the street...
Maybe they route all traffic through a VPN to Ecuador or something like that?
I doubt that GCHQ would be the reason for internet problems; even if they have "a van in the street", they'd have no incentive to impact the quality of the connection that they monitor.
I doubt that GCHQ would be the reason for internet problems; even if they have "a van in the street", they'd have no incentive to impact the quality of the connection that they monitor.
Unless incompetence. Or malice.
I used to work in the Albanian embassy building and the internet was terrible. I think they just didn't have much to spend on it.
I would have thought Internet access was a drop in the ocean vs all the other expenses involved in operating an embassy
Many embassies are little more than a house for the ambassador to live in, with a meeting room or two.
According to Wikipedia, the address of the Embassy of Ecuador, London is "Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent, London SW1X 0LS".
The "Flat 3b" makes me think it's a bit of a shoestring operation.
The "Flat 3b" makes me think it's a bit of a shoestring operation.
Interestingly, it looks like a very large apartment building, with several police officers clearly visible near doorways on StreetView.
It was under police guard from when Assange fled there until Feb 2015, which may be what you're seeing. (At significant cost: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31159594)
I think a lot of other expenses were underfunded too.
More permanent than a van. (Not that unusual for an embassy to be spied on!)
It might have something to do with the IMSI catcher installed more or less across the road; hard to hide those, they broadcast, and that one is not particularly trying to be stealthy.
It might have something to do with the IMSI catcher installed more or less across the road; hard to hide those, they broadcast, and that one is not particularly trying to be stealthy.
I would have a friend buy a good 4G data plan for 20GB monthly or even more. That would get him more reliable and faster internet. He could have several. How much does that cost?
So well timed after the 5th(?) anniversary of Assange moving in to the embassy it sounds like this was the plan for a while: "if we can't make him leave in 5 years, we might as well interview him there before any case becomes invalid."
Does Sweden have a statue of limitations on rape?
"Some in the Foreign Office fear a permanent impasse between the UK and Ecuador, and that Assange will stay in the embassy until 2020, by which time a statute of limitations applies under Swedish law on the rape case."
Its implied 10(?) years in the article
Its implied 10(?) years in the article
In that case, he's more than half-way there. That doesn't have anything to do with his ailing health, but it's interesting to note.
Per below, yes.
However, England doesn't have a statute of limitations on breach of bail, of which he is pretty clearly guilty. (England rarely has statute of limitations.)
However, England doesn't have a statute of limitations on breach of bail, of which he is pretty clearly guilty. (England rarely has statute of limitations.)
I'm not even sure what the exact allegations are or include. E.g. consensual sex, but without a promised condom might be a different charge.
The case is not Sweden vs Assange. The case is handled by one prosecutor (Marianne Ny) and everything attributed to Sweden is actually her decisions. If she has a plan or not, I don't think many people can tell.
I'm rather certain the article "Ghosting" by Andrew O'Hagan is something I found through HN, and it was an eye opening long read: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting
It certainly influenced my perspective of Assange's decisions, or choices, regarding himself (past, present, future). The story continues, as this article shows.