Hacker News Reader

Comment by boomboomsubban | Hacker News Reader

>Why would the USA need to get him extradited through Sweden if the UK can extradite him to the USA directly without any sort of fake criminal charges?

Currently the extradition of Assange has been refused on humanitarian grounds, as the US can't guarantee that they won't stick him in an ultramax facility and/or drive him to suicide. It's still facing appeal, but it's entirely possible the UK refuses to extradite.

I believe historically Sweden has been more willing to ignore such concerns when dealing with the US, which is why there would have been an incentive to fake charges that could get him moved to Swedish custody.

View on HN

> It's still facing appeal, but it's entirely possible the UK refuses to extradite.

Extradition has actually been approved by all relevant UK authorities, after formal reassurance from the US about his treatment. Assange is appealing that decision, arguing then-Home Secretary Priti Patel was an id-- could not seriously accept some meaningless words that they can renege a minute after getting him.

Meanwhile, the Australian government is trying to vaguely save face by making some noise, probably to extract some extra money from Biden to just shut up.

The US has even said if convicted he can serve in Australia. Australia could probably release or pardon him if they wanted to. I don't understand why people are so against him seeing a court room.

it's a little more nuanced than that, but for starters Assange already held the right to apply to serve any sentence in Australia.

What is crucial to understand is that prisoner transfers (IE; to Australia in this case) are eligible only after all appeals have been exhausted. For the case to reach the US supreme court it could easily take a decade, even two. What the US has proposed is a formula to keep Assange in prison effectively for the rest of his life, and in a US prison.

Ross Ulbricht - the infamous Silk Road guy: 1. Arrested in 2013. 2. Sentenced in 2015. 3. First unsuccessful appeal in 2017. 4. The case reached the Supreme Court and was denied in 2018.

So - 5 years. Fewer than Assange spent in the embassy.

Nowhere near the level of complexity and political visibility as Assange's.

I don't actually understand why people who were convicted on overwhelming preponderance of evidence so often waste everyone's time with appeals.

If you're in prison for life it's not like there's anything better to do.

They can't increase your sentence anyway.

Because he's a journalist who's being unjustly pursued for revealing the US government's dirty secrets. Secrets such as: American helicopter pilots gunned down two Reuters journalists in Iraq, and then killed a random civilian who came across and tried to rescue one of the wounded journalists. The pilots shot up a van with kids in the process (thank God the kids survived, though they lost their father), and then joked and laughed about it. The military covered it up.

The US is trying to set the precedent that if you air our dirty laundry, we can go after you, wherever you are in the world. Not in the US? No problem. Not an American? No problem.

I'm pretty sure that's not nearly the worst thing the US military has done. Collateral damage happens in every war.

Collateral damage is one thing, brutal execution is something else.

You are right that this is probably not the worst thing they did. I’m absolutely sure the US armed forces are a highly sought playground for psychopaths and people with sadistic tendencies. Furthermore military tends to attract people with a predisposition for authoritarian and/or facist mindset. We saw the snapshots of unspeakable torture - made by people that were so entertained by the atrocities that they just had to make commemorative pictures of it.

But collateral damage is something else: if I blow up a house with a terrorist leader in it, weil the debris kill a bystander? It happens in every war and it’s the main reason why a ‘just war’ still can’t be fought without tainting conscience.

> the main reason why a ‘just war’ still can’t be fought without tainting conscience.

Not to mention a completely unnecessary war sold using lies, and launched in violation of international law (not in self-defense, no UN Security Council authorization).

> Because he's a journalist

I disagree. Maybe a court should decide?

The US government also said that there were WMDs in Iraq. I don't understand why anyone would believe anything they say in a case like that of Assange, where the "national interest" concerns override any other consideration.

You're right, I'm shockingly behind on the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com