Here's a chronicle of some of the events: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assa...
The most interesting thing I took away from the whole spectacle was:
The Organisation of American States (OAS) has voted to hold a meeting next Friday following Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange, who is currently taking refuge in the country's embassy in London.
The permanent council of the OAS decided that a meeting would be held in Washington DC after members voted on the issue. The US, Canada and Trinidad and Tobago opposed the resolution, but 23 members voted in favour of the meeting. There were five abstentions and three members were absent.
The OAS secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, said the meeting would not be about Assange but the "the problem posed by the threat or warning made to Ecuador by the possibility of an intervention into its embassy in London. The issue that concerns us is the inviolability of diplomatic missions of all members of this organisation, something that is of interest to all of us."
I have a feeling Assange will be holed up in that embassy for some good time to come.
- "Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation." This was the initial questioning by local authorities. So unless every police station in every part of Sweden had been told to get Assange no matter what at any opportunity it's unlikely this was some conspiracy. Perhaps the local police station over reacted - but no conspiracy
- "Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement." Ok so the further up the chain it goes the initial charge is reduced. If there was a conspiracy at this point wouldn't it work the other way?
- Can't avoid this piece of irony: "During the interview he expressed his fears that anything he said would end up in the tabloid newspaper Expressen. The interviewing police officer said: "I'm not going to leak anything." The interview was leaked."
- "On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden." More than two weeks after the initial report he's still allowed to leave Sweden. Surely if the US government wanted to use this case to trump up charges and have him arrested and deported via a proxy state (as is so often stated) wouldn't they have gotten the ball rolling within those two weeks?
- JEFFREY L. BLEICH, US AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA (May 2012): "It's not something that the US cares about, it's not interested in it, it hasn't been involved in it - and frankly, if he's in Sweden, there's a less robust extradition relationship than there is between the US and the UK, so I think it's one of those narratives that has been made up - there's nothing to it."
If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage.
Anyway, just wanted to highlight some counter points that won't sit well with many people here but that's probably even more reason to point them out.
I mostly agree with your conclusion, but keep in mind that Wilen and Ardin went to a specific police station out of their way where they knew someone. So if there was a conspiracy that involved them, then that would be the likely means - a co-conspirator at this specific police station. That said, I think it's more likely they were "just" trying to cause inconveniences for Assange based on Ardin's infamous "revenge" blog post (commentary on using vague statements to the police to trigger an investigation as a means of "legal revenge")
> - "Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement." Ok so the further up the chain it goes the initial charge is reduced. If there was a conspiracy at this point wouldn't it work the other way?
You miss the point afterwards where the prosecutor changed.
The senior prosecutor that dismissed most of the allegations is NOT Marianne Ny - the current prosecutor. Marianne Ny took the extremely unusual step of stepping in to take over the case after this other senior prosecutor had all but closed it after finding that no crime had occurred.
So indeed, if there is a conspiracy, the conspirators stepped in at this point, and the very fact a prosecutor stepped in like this is strange. It is not a common occurrence, and certainly not to have a prosecutor so publicly pretty much totally reversing the decision of another.
> "On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden." More than two weeks after the initial report he's still allowed to leave Sweden. Surely if the US government wanted to use this case to trump up charges and have him arrested and deported via a proxy state (as is so often stated) wouldn't they have gotten the ball rolling within those two weeks?
Personally I think it is more likely that this is Marianne Ny and the advocate for the alleged victims deciding they have a chance of trying to push for even stricter interpretations of Swedish rape law. They are both known to be extremely radical in their opinions on the subject, and that fits better with both of them swooping in.
IF the US wants to use this as an opportunity, I believe it would be just that: An opportunity that might open up. That the whole case is a premeditated conspiracy does seem like far too big a stretch.
But if they want to get hold of him, Sweden is a convenient place to have him holed up, as the CIA has repeatedly shown they are willing to risk diplomatic incidents with Sweden (and/or obtain assistance from Swedish authorities).
> if he's in Sweden, there's a less robust extradition relationship than there is between the US and the UK
That's just pure comedy gold. There are several high profile extradition cases between the US and UK that have gone on for years. E.g. McKinnon who is still in the UK 10 years after his initial arrest. Meanwhile, Sweden tends to rubberstamp extraditions, and Swedish police have handed people over to CIA goons without due process. If I was at risk of extradition to the US, I'd much rather be in the UK than Sweden.
> If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage.
I agree. It is probably not a conspiracy, at least not to extradite him. Though of course it is working wonderfully if it is an intentional attempt to ruin his credibility.
But assuming it's not, that doesn't mean it might not be convenient, and it also doesn't mean that there's not reason to believe that there's politics involved in this case, though I'd be more inclined to believe that would be due to Marianne Ny (the prosecutor).
The exact same type of about-face happened in the case of George Zimmerman's alleged murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida. In both cases, the Occam's Razor explanation is this: the public notoriety of the case led a senior prosecutor to pay closer attention and countermand the decision of junior prosecutors not to pursue it.
Which should be a giant red flag that it is indeed true and not a random made up rumor. You sound like those who claim the Osama raid was fake because it was messy. When the fact that it was messy should give you a smell of reality in it. Real life is messy. The conspiracy to get Kim Dotcom to the USA was just as messy, and real. The fake weapons of mass destruction on Iraq were absurdly messy from day 1. And it was a real conspiracy. You can tell that those "911 was an inside job" conspiracies are made up because 1000's of human beings would need to be perfectly orchestrated for it to work.
Something of the size of trying to get Assange to the US on fake rape charges, would obviously have its own screw ups. Implying there's nothing to see here because it's not perfectly orchestrated like a Hollywood movie, would be rather naive.
Also, this is very time-consuming and Wikileaks is hardly publishing as much as it used to. So in some way, the "conspiracy" is working out.
I have very little experience with such matters. In reading various historical events (I'm reading about the founding of Panama now), it seems that a lot of luck is an important factor.
Either some combination of the US/UK/Sweden is conspiring to bring Assange to the US. OR. Ecuador is granting Assange's asylum not because in their best judgement they believed it was warranted but for some more nefarious, maybe political, reason like spiting Sweden or the UK.
Or maybe there is no conspiracy and Ecuador is just as stupid as most HN commenters.
Sure, the US does want to question him. But they haven't issued an extradition request, and by the looks of things getting him out of Sweden would be just as difficult as getting him out of the UK, if not more so.
I highly suspect Assange is actually just trying to avoid jail time, if he's going to these lengths to avoid going to Sweden for questioning on unrelated accusations of sex crime.
Assange is very attention-seeking and seems to care a lot about his image, which I suspect he is going to great lengths to avoid damaging.
Edit: I hate to compare HN to reddit, but I worry that I'm being downvoted for having an unpopular opinion. (edit: this has changed.)
Edit 2: I'm reconsidering my stance on this, my father's (conservative) opinions have too much influence on me.
I believe Assange has reasons to be afraid and even if an extradition to the US might be unlikely it is his life that is gambled with.
As a Swede I am quite embarrassed for our part in this.
[edited to change 'prosecute' to 'charge']
Many people have pointed out in HN that the sex was consensual according to the 2 women, but the issue is about protected or unprotected sex. Rape has a different definition in the Swedish legal code than everywhere else in the world. EDIT: I didn't understand how Swedish law work. See AndrewDuck's reply above. But still, they could interrogate him by videoconference (what Assange offered) or charge him in absence.
About avoiding jail time, why shouldn't he try to avoid it?
Lots of people are trying to point out that Assange isn't being accused of rape, but some sort of "not-using-a-condom" silly rape law that is only the law is whacky Sweden, herp de derp feminists de derp political correctness gone mad.
However in order to be extradited from UK, he had to be accused of a crime that would have been illegal in the UK. I suggest you read the High Court extradition appeal case ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ). The courts quite clearly decided that it wasn't some weird 'sweden-only' law, but what he was accused of would be a crime in England & Wales.
In fact, he's 'charged' with 4 things:
• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex.
• "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW).
• "Sexual molestation" - "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body."
• "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.
Before you talk about what's going on, read up on the charges.
Now Assange believes, that the extradition to Sweden, for whatever reason, is just a false pretence to send him to the U.S. What makes the whole case dubious is the timing the case came up, which was right after WikiLeaks's diplomatic cables release, and also that Sweden immediately issued an InterPol warrant, which is kinda unusual for the alleged charges. So I'd be highly suspicious, too.
It's impossible to unconditionally promise something like that.
> The U.S. repeatedly demonstrated, that when it comes to political prisoners they don't care much about human rights, the law, or habeas corpus. Look how Bradley Manning is being treated
Bradley Manning's treatment might seem excessive to you, but it satisfies every legal and constitutional requirement for the detention and treatment of soldiers accused of violating the UCMJ.
> or may I just remind you of Guantanamo Bay?
If the US wanted Assange in Guantanamo Bay, he would have been in Guantanamo Bay for awhile now. There's absolutely no way a promise from the Swedish government would protect Assange from extraordinary rendition in the first place.
He offered to be interviewed from the embassy. Isn't it suspicious that Sweden won't accept that, given that this man hasn't been charged with anything?
0. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
I personally will be glad to see Assange in Swede to face his accusations but I'm also concerned by the risks of extraditing him to the US.
For instance this week the Ecuador said they asked Britain and Swede for assurances of not extraditing him to the US and they said No. Even if their argument is that their justice is independent and therefore cannot make such promise I find it very convenient for them to use this argument.
So am I deluded in conspiracy theories? I don't think so, the best proof is to see the treatment Pvt. Manning received at Quantico, I therefore think there are big powers behind the scene trying to shut down this new whistleblower movement by making examples. I'm not approving all of their actions but I really think they are not criminals and it should be easy to find bigger fish to fry.
I'd be surprised if he got more than 6 months if convincted - there's been people convicted for violent rapes in substantially worse circumstances that have gotten less than two years.
Maybe his ego won't allow him to face a possible conviction or something, or maybe he genuinely is afraid - whether justified or not - of being handed over to the US.
But it just doesn't make sense to go to this level of effort "just" to avoid a Swedish prison sentence given the relatively low level of the alleged crimes.
(EDIT: quiet => quite)
or this short post: http://www.ianwelsh.net/assange-and-wikileaks-the-basics/
or this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu4WCskniEc
inform yourself
Seriously though, lets try to look at this objectively.
We have a man who is wanted for questioning relating to sexual offences and is actively trying to escape the charges. In any normal situation, we would all say that he should go and face the courts and if guilty do the time. Pro-Assange people claim that he should not face the courts on the grounds that this will be used to extradite him to the US. These same people are saying that someone who may be guilty of a crime in Sweden are saying that the law shouldn't apply to him.
Additionally, this same man has done an awful lot of work to expose corruption and wrongdoing at a high level. In the process of this however and through an exchange with a journalist, the raw cable information, all unredacted has been compromised, in the process potentially jeopardizing the lives of many people named in the unredacted cables. The US is understandably livid and take the disclosure of classified material seriously. Again, pro-Assange people claim that the law should not apply to him, that he was doing a good thing by exposing the redacted information, but are strangely silent on the fact that he posted the whole thing online and put these lives in potential danger.
Additionally we have the unprecedented act of the British government threatening the integrity of the Ecuadorian embassy (thanks for pointing this out Daishiman). This is indeed strange and unique. It's worth bearing in mind that the threat was made against the advice of legal counsel. It may be possible that the person responsible didn't understand the Vienna convention. The UK now has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden, as per their treaty with Sweden.
I find it interesting that people can suspend their views of justice based on the allegations of political meddling. The fact is that he is wanted by the Swedish government, and he's admitted that he had sex with the two ladies in question, yet the arguments against him facing the Swedish judicial system fail to offer up any reasons why he should be exempt from the law beyond claims of a conspiracy (which may or may not be real, we don't know for sure and probably never will).
Sweden has not charged Assange with anything. They want him for interrogation. There is nothing impeding the Swedish government from questioning Assange in the UK. The whole extradition is a farce as long as other alternatives remain, which do not affect the investigation in any way.
It should be noted that the flagrant threats the UK has made to Ecuador's diplomatic integrity is something basically unheard of. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War no government has made a similar case for people of both much higher profile and admittedly far more dangerous to the public.
Second, no one has proved or bothered to show to any degree that anyone has had their safety compromised.
Lots of talking about Assange from the embarrassed governments in question, very little action towards showing that he was any danger to anyone.
You're also correct about the threat on the embassy front, I should've put that in. Thanks again.
Technically no, but that's more with how the Swedish system works. In the High Court appeal to the extradition, the judge ruled that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). So he it is the opinion of the English courts that has been the equivalent of "charged".
Sweden won't guarantee that it will not extradite Assange to the U.S. If this is about justice for the rape charges, then why can't they make that guarantee?
The law is not an end, it's a means to achieve Justice. If we fear that justice is more threatened by his extradition, it makes perfect sense to support the decision not to extradite him.
As John Adams wrote, "It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."
* Again, pro-Assange people claim that the law should not apply to him, that he was doing a good thing by exposing the redacted information, but are strangely silent on the fact that he posted the whole thing online and put these lives in potential danger.*
Assange is not an US citizen nor was he in the US. Exactly what law prohibited him from publishing that information?
I find it interesting that people can suspend their views of justice based on the allegations of political meddling.
Or maybe they just disagree with you on what is actually justice, or how it can be better protected.
I still can't decide whether I like that or not - on the one hand, it's nice to see that citizens of a country who are passport holders (passports are gov. property and can be easily revoked) are free to do what they want around the world, on the other hand, it's kind of sad to see that your government doesn't do anything to help you...
Countries that generally get a raw deal in their dealings with the US, like many in South America, can use him as a bargaining chip. And that's exactly what's happening here. Reading between the lines, seeing beyond the silly headlines the papers are feeding us, does not require you to be a foreign policy expert.
As someone said in an earlier post, whether we like Assange as a person is less relevant than the fact his ill-considered actions have pushed the envelope and are forcing some issues about the internet to be addressed, the resolution of which hackers have been patiently waiting for many years.
It's interesting to think about all the cables that were never released, i.e. the vast majority of them. How did the newspapers decide which ones to let the public see? Those decisions are having real effects. They were in essence policy decisions. Someone at the news corporation had to say, let's release these cables about Ecuador.
And here we are.
Pass the popcorn.
Just one word to answer that and destroy any credibility that position could have: Pinochet.
I just can't escape the opinion that something about Assange is just off. Don't get me wrong: something is very strange about the way Swedish prosecutors are acting. But think about this: if these charges were exactly what they appeared to be and there was no US involvement, claiming a US conspiracy sure could be an effective defence in the court of public opinion.
Some commenters point out that there's no evidence the US government put the two women up to this so there's no US involvement. This is a false dichotomy.
Personally I believe that the initial interview and prosecutorial involvement was innocent enough but probably what happened is that the US got wind of it and saw it as a way to get Assange to Sweden. I expect the reports are true that the US has a sealed indictment against Assange. I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing.
The question of why not extradite from the UK is also unresolved. It's clear that it is easier to extradite from the Sweden (ie "temporary surrender"). Perhaps the US doesn't want to give the UK the political headache of having to deal with this and having it drag out in the courts.
It also seems like the Swedish government does't have the legal authority to guarantee non-extradition to the US.
Overall it's very strange and very disturbing.
EDIT: another possibility: the Swedish police and duty prosecutor misinterpreted and/or overreacteed, a more senior prosecutor acted more rationally but then it went further up and may not been at the behest of the US at all but simply could've been the government or even some lackey just being eager to please.
If nothing else, Sweden really should have to come clean on who made the decisions regarding Assange's arrest warrant (after giving him clearance to leave) and the Interpol "Red Notice".
Also the UK will not extradite murderous dictators if they don't want to. (e.g. Augusto Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August... ).
It's very fishy, but that doesn't mean Assange has immunity.
edit to remove thread hijack cause
The truth didn't kill anyone. Those who committed the acts and gave the orders that became the truth that had to be leaked did.
Is it journalism? I never saw a story when I read the leaks; it seems that their purpose has been to disclose private (stolen) conversations that are obviously state secrets.
Update: I'm backing away from this; my only intention was to ask whether it would make anybody a "journalist" to simply release the verbatim private conversations of others. I have no intention of debating the right or wrong of Wikileaks or what they've done.
If you want to get uptight about the security implications of the leaks, a better place to start is wondering who setup the system that allegedly allowed a mentally unbalanced soldier to carry evidence of war crimes and private diplomatic correspondence out of a military facility on a USB key. Assuming it was Manning who leaked the information AND it constituted any real security threat, it seems clear he should never have had access to that sort of material.
Journalism is supposed to guide you to readily available and verifiable facts whenever possible. The journalist gives you insight into an event. One is then able to leapfrog the initial hurdle of that initial research and more easily educate yourself about the world you live in.
Without facts and sources, it's just storytime.
EDIT: More importantly, you can't divorce journalistic research from journalism itself.
The fact that a technology story is also political, also has global ramifications, matters in other realms and daily life, makes it more important as a technology story.
"Off-topic: Most stories about politics, or crime...unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This is indeed off-topic.
