Hacker News Reader

Comment by philwelch | Hacker News Reader

I would use the same terms to describe any fugitive on the run from rape charges. What on earth does Sweden have to gain or lose from this? This is just conspiracy theory.

View on HN

    charges

I think you've been listening to the MSM too much. Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden and is only wanted for questioning.

Fair point, but he's "wanted" badly enough for a European arrest warrant and for extradition treaties to kick in.

In Sweden, you can't charge someone without questioning them first.

>This is just conspiracy theory.

Somewhat, which is why I never weighed in on it before. But if the UK is threatening something as unusual as invading an embassy, that is evidence that there is likely to be something more to the issue.

If the embassy is doing something as unusual as harboring an accused rapist, isn't that enough?

No. I remember a situation, though no longer the details, where someone was accused of spying during the Cold War and fled to an embassy. He was effectively trapped there, just like Assange, but whoever was after him didn't violate the embassy. Like I said, I can't remember the details, not even the country involved, but I think he ended up spending several years confined to the embassy.

Well the victim of espionage is the state, and the state has nothing to gain by imprisoning the spy themselves rather than letting the spy imprison himself in a foreign embassy. With rape, there's an actual victim.

If Britain does this, then from now on every Chinese dissident that seeks refuge in a Western embassy will somehow magically find themselves charged with rape, and Chinese police will stand ready to enter to arrest him for said rape.

(Substitute China for any other dictatorship as you please)

It is an incredibly bad precedent to set, and I very much doubt they will go there.

Leaving police posted outside until people get bored of the whole thing, sure. Sending stern letters, sure. Calling the Ecuadorian embassy in to explain himself, sure. Maybe a few more things. Maybe even expelling some low level staff if things get really nasty.

But if they enter the embassy, then either someone is a complete idiot and haven't thought through consequences, or Assanges suspicions about US involvement suddenly becomes a lot more credible.

Let me get this straight--a citizen of Australia is a "dissident" against the United States, so the US government arranges for him to be accused of rape in Sweden, leading him to refuse to surrender to British police and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.

If the British enter the Ecuadorian embassy to extradite Assange to Sweden, this sets a precedent for the Chinese government to enter embassies in China to arrest Chinese dissidents accused of rape in China? No, because in the case of Assange, the idea that he's some kind of political prisoner subject to a CIA plot lies somewhere between conspiracy theory and delusion of grandeur, while in the case of Chinese dissidents, it would be plainly transparent what China was trying to do.

Plus, it turns out that China gets their dissidents to stop hiding out in western embassies by threatening to beat their wives to death. Dictatorships are much more direct than you give them credit for: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/world/asia/chen-guangcheng...

Facts: he has NOT been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. The two women in question have not accused him of rape or described the incidents in question as rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And at best this is a case of he-said/she-said, with no other witnesses or evidence --- which is a situation that can be physically consistent with a framing, and thus, especially the surrounding context, needs to be treated with extreme skepticism.

To throw out just a few data points of context: the US government has a history of violating international law, violating the sovereignty of other nations, and, most recently, of violating it's own Constitution. Also consider Gitmo. And consider how Bradley Manning was treated while in custody, before/without trial, before/without even charges.

The American government plan to fly Assange to the US at some point.

That makes it an issue of foreign relations for the Swedish government.

If the US wanted him, why would Sweden be more amenable to passing him along than the US's closest ally?

Because as close an ally as the UK is, the UK government likes to think of themselves as a partner and don't like to be bossed around or involved in too shady stuff, and UK courts certainly don't like to be meddled with.

Meanwhile, Sweden has a history of cooperating with the US on illegal renditions in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, to the point where Sweden has actually paid damages to at least one person - Muhammad al-Zery - who was tortured after Swedish police had handed him over to masked CIA officers at a Swedish airport and witnessed as he was stripped, drugged, chained and handcuffed and loaded on a plane to be flown to Egypt where he was tortured.

Said person was in Sweden applying for political asylum.

It caused diplomatic incidents when it was first revealed to the public and Swedish authorities "put a stop to it". Then shortly afterwards, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that it was still ongoing with the knowledge of airport personnel. At least officially without the knowledge of the Swedish government.

Maybe they've stopped now. Or maybe the units that participated in it are just better at hiding it, or maybe the US government is just better at making sure said Swedish government units have better reasons to deny knowledge.

But the fact remains that for sveral years, the US extracted prisoners from and/or transported prisoners through Sweden illegally to hand them over to regimes that would carry out torture in violation of both US and Swedish law and international treaties, with the complicit knowledge of the Swedish government.

It's quite possible the UK did too. But which government do you think the US cares the least about jerking around?

The problem with the Swedish police and legal system is seldom that they do bad things. The problem is rather that the employees doesn't get much done except drink coffee and administrate.

There is another possibility: Theoretically, both the women might be paid by CIA when Assange is extradited for questioning. But that is just another stupid conspiracy theory.

Edit: Clarity.

Edit 2: It is hard to take the arguments seriously, since Assange originally went to Sweden voluntarily without fearing extradition to USA. Wikileaks should just get a saner guy as front figure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com