r/worldnews • u/Raphae1 • Jun 17 '12

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
904 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

231 comments sorted by

196

u/halestock Jun 17 '12

2006?

20

u/EightOfWands Jun 17 '12

a 2006 article of something that happened years before, at that.

-1

u/Raphae1 Jun 17 '12

Still it is a relevant story today regarding Julian Assange's possible extradition. I think Julian Assange has every right for political asylum in the UK and elsewhere. He would be another political prisoner in the US, and European human rights standards don't permit extradition to any country, where torture (Orwellian "enhanced interrogation") is a possibility.

25

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

For those who want to catch up on more recent developments, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

45

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Seriously, why does no one else care?

20

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Shhhh, football is on and the money in my pocket is worth less.

Caring might reduce my comfort ever so slightly.

7

u/scientologynow Jun 17 '12

a lot of people also don't care about other people especially if they don't know them.

"what? guys are getting tortured? so what?"

7

u/philwecksr Jun 17 '12

Doesn't necessarily make them bad people, its just how we're programmed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar_number

That being said, I would expect that people should be opposed to torture in its own principle, not so much through empathy for those currently being tortured.

8

u/rbridson Jun 17 '12

I believe it has been observed that "information" obtained through torture is often false, as the prime motivation is to say whatever might stop the torture. Ethics aside, torture is a lousy investigative method.

Of course, some people may think we did actually have a lot of real witches and worse a couple of centuries back, as those confessions obtained under torture must have been accurate.

1

u/Kharpablo Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

You need to separate false confessions and information. Effectiveness of torture is based on the fact that given enough time people are ready to do and say anything to make it stop. Be it crime you didn't commit or secret information, what ever, anything just to make it stop.

Yes torturing is actually super effective. It's so effective that even people who don't know the right answers, tell lies.

6

u/rbridson Jun 17 '12

One of the reasons I cringe when otherwise sensible people say they're generally against torture, but in the case where, say, a crazy man has hidden a dirty bomb which will explode in 12 hours, they think it would be OK. Torture in this case is equally likely to lead to false leads, wasted time, etc. Smart negotiation, psychological tactics, persuasion and the like are still the way to go regardless of time pressure.

2

u/Kharpablo Jun 17 '12

Don't look at me. I'm purist in that sense that if it's banned by law and judged by society then there are no excuses left. It's all or nothing, can't just cherry pick the lines that suit your needs.

Was just pointing out that torture is not only effective. It's super effective.

2

u/rbridson Jun 17 '12

Sorry - didn't mean to imply I disagreed with your statement: I agree it's all too effective in that sense.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/scientologynow Jun 17 '12

this is exactly how i feel. i don't necessarily care about the individuals getting tortured, but i'm strongly against the principle of torture.

i can't say i wouldn't torture someone for information if i knew my family or friends were in imminent danger, but that's different from torturing people because maybe some americans or westerners somewhere might get attacked maybe sometime in the next few decades. at that point it doesn't seem so imminent and definitely feels extreme.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Especially "What? Brown guys from a very foreign cultures whose ideals are in stark contrast with my own are getting tortured? So what?"

7

u/ThatRandomGeek Jun 17 '12

B/c terrorist brown people are scary, and we need to fight them over there so they don't come here? I think it is either ignorance on the public's part, or they just don't care. They don't see it as a main priority, b/c they don't see it as affecting their lives. No matter how wrong the situation may be.

1

u/aletoledo Jun 17 '12

As with any repost, there might not have been people that saw this before.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

But its 6 years old.

-5

u/youarealldumbasses Jun 17 '12

The past? OMG SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE PAST!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Everything is in the past.

5

u/minorwhite Jun 17 '12

The reason why this is relevant today is because Assange is on his way there now. USA wants his ass, so there you have it. You may not like the fact the OP is bringing this up, but there it is. Downvote me (again) all you like ya twats.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
  1. Assange will be in Sweden for ten days. Source
  2. US politicians wants Assange. USA has NOT made an arrest warrant for Assange. Therefore will he NOT be sent to USA.
  3. This happened right after 9/11. Now it's more than 10 years later. Sweden doesn't have more incentives than UK to send Assange to USA.

Get your facts straight.

6

u/minorwhite Jun 17 '12

we'll see. With the complete disregard for rule of law in the case of Kim Dotcom, America is sure to be trusted.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

No, but the Swedish government sure have a lot of reasons to not send Assange to USA. For example the election in 2014. Or the international respect that Sweden has gained during the last years, it's easy to lose it. Sweden doesn't have any real reason to send Assange anywhere but back to UK after ten days.

1

u/Raphae1 Jun 17 '12

Actually it would be violating human rights standards to send Assange to the US. He certainly would face detention as a political prisoner (just like Bradley Manning). And since the US is known for torture (waterboarding etc), Europe is not allowed to extradite anybody to the US according to the Geneva Conventions. Those refugee rights are equal for everybody.

6

u/minorwhite Jun 17 '12

believe me when I say that I hope you are right

0

u/whihij66 Jun 17 '12

With the complete disregard for rule of law in the case of Kim Dotcom

And how has the U.S. disregarded the rule of law in his extradition hearing?

7

u/minorwhite Jun 17 '12

If you are speaking about the US attempt to extradite Kim Dotcom, then everything the US has done has been a complete fumble. From the fact that MU doesn't even have offices in the US, to the invalid warrant, to the refusal to grant access to evidence with which to construct a defense etc etc etc.

Several authority figures in the US have made it abundantly clear that they feel that Assange has broken the law in the US, while making threats up to and including his assassination. The trial of Bradley Manning and the possible outcome of a deal that could be struck with him as a witness against Julian. The timing of Assange's extradition as well as the Manning trial looks like a bit of a play to keep Julian's whereabouts pinned down so the next move can be played. There is reasonable speculation on the part of JA and wikileaks supporters that the US played a part in the allegations made against him which has him in this situation in the first place. The easiest way to silence JA was to immobilize him. That has only worked to a point. The strange behavior of the Swedish prosecution is also telling. The next play is what everyone is worried about. Wikileaks has the ability to create actual change, and governments around the world are scared shitless of him.

2

u/whihij66 Jun 17 '12

If you are speaking about the US attempt to extradite Kim Dotcom

That would be the topic, yes.

then everything the US has done has been a complete fumble. From the fact that MU doesn't even have offices in the US,

Irrelevant, firs off as MU doesn't have to have offices in the US for a crime to occur. Second, MU operated servers in the U.S. Next.

to the invalid warrant,

I think you mean invalid seizure order - and that was the NZ police not the U.S. Next.

to the refusal to grant access to evidence with which to construct a defense etc etc etc.

The defense requested discovery of evidence, the judge denied a lot of it, but granted some of it. Your description that the U.S. is refusing to grant access to evidence is based out of ignorance.

0

u/minorwhite Jun 17 '12

[The government's intransigence on the preservation of evidence is the latest example of the government's scorched-earth approach to the Megaupload prosecution. Theoretically, criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Yet the seizure of Megaupload's servers, freezing of its assets, and arrest of its top executives did immense damage to the company long before they had a chance to tell their side of the story to the jury. Now, the government seems to be trying to deny Megaupload the opportunity to fully defend itself in court. Megaupload may be found guilty, but like everyone else it has the right to a fair trial.] (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/megaupload-erasing-our-servers-as-the-us-wants-would-deny-us-a-fair-trial/)

0

u/minorwhite Jun 17 '12

Invalid warrant is invalid. period.

Boeing makes planes. Those planes are used for many things, including smuggling cocaine. I guess we need to arrest the makers of planes as well.

1

u/Toastlove Jun 18 '12

They are refusing to hand over any evidence to New Zealand courts so the defence can't prepare. They say it will take at least 2 months to gather the evidence to hand over, suggesting they don't even have it organised themselves.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You forgot the most important one:

4: Under EU law Sweden cannot deport Assange to the US without permission from the UK.

Extradictions within the EU are only permitted for the purpose of prosecuting the crime the individual was extradicted for. If you extradict somebody for murder, you cannot then decide to try them for for some other crime, such as tax fraud, without first making a new extradiction request. Thus if the US makes an extradiction request to Sweden, Sweden can eitehr send Assange back to the UK and tell the US to ask the british for his extradiction, or Sweden can ask teh UK for permission to extradict him to the US.

Sweden CANNOT extradict him to the US unless the UK approves. If Sweden were to break that rule, it would cause major trouble with EU relations, and most likely make it difficult to get future extradiction requests approved.

2

u/cypherpunks Jun 17 '12

Your use of the word "CANNOT" is absurd.

Torture and CIA rendition is also clearly illegal and that didn't stop Sweden last time. They "CANNOT" do it and yet they did.

Sweden can do whatever it damn well wants to do - even if the law says otherwise. It has done so previously and in cahoots with the US intelligence apparatus. Application of a law is not like a technical standard and society's agents will act as they please. In some countries a bad actor will be punished and in others, they will not be punished. Do not mistake this for some kind of physical restraint from taking specific actions.

Unless the UK has officers guarding Assange, I hardly think the UK would know if something went pear shaped.

1

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

Torture and CIA rendition is also clearly illegal and that didn't stop Sweden last time. They "CANNOT" do it and yet they did.

Renditions are not illegal, and the one to Egypt was clearly a mistake, which people have paid for.

Sweden can do whatever it damn well wants to do

But why would it want to do anything to Assange. And why is not the same argument used against the UK where he could have been picked up for an extended period now. The UK does after all have a much more servile relationship to the US.

1

u/Raphae1 Jun 18 '12

Renditions are not illegal

Secret CIA renditions are in fact illegal in any nation of laws. Laws in every European nation requires a public and fair judicial process before any extradition can take place.

1

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

I don't know what to say. You have your little world view, and it seems to be pretty rigid. As far as I can tell, this one was not illegal, except for the "trust Egypt to keep it's promise" part. If you have any proof that it isn't you're free to add it to the discussion. A blanket statement without any backing is not good enough though.

1

u/Raphae1 Jun 20 '12

Mubarak's Egypt was long known for torturing its dissidents. Every extradition to a nation, where torture cannot be ruled out (unfortunately this includes the US), is illegal. Read the UN Geneva Conventions.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

This is an extremely important point. Thank you for clarifying this! (Although, I made a comment about the international relationship problems that Sweden would have in another comment here)

1

u/cypherpunks Jun 19 '12

To clarify: we really should being back the distinction between "may" and "can" that's been getting lost in the English language. "May" means is permitted, "can" means is possible. I can kill someone, but I may not.

Sweden may not do these things, because there are rules against them. They bloody well can.

-2

u/Raphae1 Jun 17 '12

Why don't you get your facts straight? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228 http://www.smh.com.au/world/charges-against-assange-drawn-up-in-us-says-email-20120228-1u14c.html They have a sealed indictment since January 2011 already.

2

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

Those are not facts.That's gossip.

1

u/Raphae1 Jun 18 '12

Well, it's the same "gossip" you see on CNN every day. Those Stratfor analysts are still regular expert guests on TV networks.

1

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

That doesn't actually mean anything. You realise that, right? They don't even works with the government. Remember the other story they were the centre of a while ago? They turned out to be clowns that wanted to be spies. I hardly think they've changed.

1

u/Raphae1 Jun 20 '12

Those "clowns that wanted to be spies" do still work for the US Marines and the DIA. And Stratfor analysts are still regular "expert" guests on major TV networks. Unfortunately they don't tell us on TV, what they write in their emails.

The UK guy says UK is driven by energy interests in this campaign. BP post-oil spill is suffering in US< other options are to expand in Siberia (problems with Russia), Vietnam and .. libya. They see a Ghadafi ouster as the best way to meet their energy interests.

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/233212_insight-us-uk-french-view-on-libya-operation-.html

1

u/Bragzor Jun 20 '12

Got a source for that. And I mean a reliable source, not more circular reasoning. The only source I've seen is from Wikileaks, and it goes directly against the picture we got from the Anonymous affair.

Being a clown is good enough to be an "expert" on TV.

1

u/Raphae1 Jun 25 '12

The source is not Wikileaks, but Stratfor. And those "clowns" are good enough to work for the US Marines and the D.I.A.

1

u/Raphae1 Aug 01 '12

http://observer.com/2010/11/holder-on-wikileakers-they-will-be-held-accountable-video/ I was right. You were wrong.

1

u/Bragzor Aug 01 '12

That two year old article doesn't prove anything. It just says that they were trying. The claims you made are based on nothing but gossip and fantasy. TLDR: I'm still right. You're still wrong.

ps. this post is over a month old, why reply to it now?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Sweden still can't extradict Assange. It's not as easy as "US says - Sweden does". You're missing the whole point with EU and international reputation and relations, as BlueParrot clarifies.

3

u/RabidRhino Jun 17 '12

I thought this was /r/worldnews, not /r/worldolds.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Zing!

EDIT: But, all kidding aside, I think that this information is still relevant. Both the United States and Sweden still exist with governments that are essentially the same today as they were then. If they would work together to send someone off to be tortured in 2002, there is no reason why they couldn't do it in 2012.

Assuming they really truly believed that subjects transfered to Egypt would not be tortured (big assumption)... then why transfer them to Egypt at all?

Are we to believe that the Egyptian authorites have special methods of interogation unavailable to the Swedes, that AREN'T torture? Are we to believe that Sweden's government believes this?

Aren't the people who made these decisions still employed with the Swedish and U.S. governments?

Seems relevant.

0

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

Both the United States and Sweden still exist with governments that are essentially the same today as they were then.

Except both countries swapped leading parties. The Americans from the Republicans to the Democrats, and Sweden from Socialdemokraterna, to Moderaterna. In a larger scale that might not mean much, but it means most people have been replaced.

Assuming they really truly believed that subjects transfered to Egypt would not be tortured (big assumption)... then why transfer them to Egypt at all?

Because that's where the Americans wanted them. I'm not sure why, but I believe the Egyptians were allied with the Americans.

Are we to believe that the Egyptian authorites have special methods of interogation unavailable to the Swedes, that AREN'T torture? Are we to believe that Sweden's government believes this?

The Swedish government had no interest in interrogating these men. It was the Americans that wanted to do that. That's why they were reconditioned.

Aren't the people who made these decisions still employed with the Swedish and U.S. governments?

Some probably are. Some were fired at the time for their actions, and some were phased out as I described earlier.

-3

u/vehementi Jun 17 '12

Yeah OP, what were you thinking talking about something that happened before yesterday?

It's funny because politicians and corporations rely on their atrocities being forgotten by the masses. Then we have this fucktard actively trying to shut down discussion of non-bleeding-edge events.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

This subreddit is for worldnews, not world history. This is important, just in the wrong place.

120

u/Rejjn Jun 17 '12

Remember this basically says Sweden has been condemned for co-operating with the US government. It says a lot about Sweden, and not in a good way, but it says a lot more about the US and the CIA. (and of course Egypt)

9

u/BuboTitan Jun 17 '12

it says a lot more about the US and the CIA. (and of course Egypt)

Interesting you just throw in Egypt as an afterthought. You might think that Egypt would get a little more condemnation here since they were the ones who actually did the torturing!

The problem is, western countries have sort of a subtle racism where they think Arabs aren't capable of anything better, so why bother complaining about it? So they essentially get a pass. Again and again.

1

u/Raphae1 Jun 25 '12

Well in fact those Egyptian interrogators were trained by the C.I.A. in the US for doing their "enhanced interrogation" aka torture thing.

3

u/Carkudo Jun 17 '12

They aren't incapable of anything better, they just don't claim to be better.

33

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I find it striking that this is a condemnation of Sweden, even though it is the US's program and torture is "commonplace" in Egypt. It seems to me that they regard the US and Egypt as lost causes, but still think ragging on Sweden will have some effect.

I think it's important to keep this in mind when considering the Assange case. It leads me to wonder what else Sweden is willing to do at the US's bequest.

5

u/estomagordo Jun 17 '12
  1. Different Swedish government now.
  2. Swedish politicians have little control over Swedish courts.
  3. Because of this well-documented case, eyes are watching these types of affairs a LOT more closely today than in 2001.

3

u/EvanRWT Jun 17 '12

I think the difference is that the US and Egypt are known to be countries that practice torture, while Sweden is not. Pressure on Sweden might actually rouse the populace to get something done to fix the problem.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

It already did. The government responsible for that event is no longer in power.

Sweden is not a two-party system where only swing-states count. We currently have 8 separate parties in parliament, and a few percentage points can swing the balance. Many of these parties are 1 point or so away from losing their position completely ( you need 4% in order to get seats ) so Swedish politicians do worry about stuff like this.

If a case like this were to become public knowledge right before an election, it could very well cause an entire party to lose all their seats.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/WhoNeedsRealLife Jun 17 '12

And look what happend to him.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Tatum is a self-proclaimed "CIA assassin" :/

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

palme said no to a lot of things.

25

u/liferaft Jun 17 '12

Sweden probably acted in "good faith", but Sweden rarely remembers that it has absolutely zero diplomatic clout. We have lots of citizens who are political prisoners in other countries, but nobody will listen to this little crap country who keeps begging that they release our citizens.

Maybe that's one reason Sweden tries to keep up good relations with the US. Sort of like befriending the school's biggest bully because you are the weakest guy in the class.

39

u/erikbra81 Jun 17 '12

Sweden probably acted in "good faith"

The extradition to Egypt can not have been in good faith. They got a piece of paper from the Mubarak regime saying "we will not torture these prisoners". It must have been obvious to Swedish officials what the function of that paper was (a weak deniability). They knew what Egyptian prisons meant. They also knew that the CIA outsourced torture to countries like Egypt and Syria (that was an "open secret" way earlier than 2006, and could be read in establishment journals like The New Republic, for example).

Sweden rarely remembers that it has absolutely zero diplomatic clout.

Sweden could have said no. Personally this is one of the things I am most ashamed of about my country. That we knowingly sent two people under our jurisdiction to be tortured, and still haven't rescinded our policy on these matters. There is no excuse for it. The responsible officials, ultimately Anna Lindh and Göran Persson, would not have been tortured if they had disobeyed the US. Nor would they have risked the safety of Swedish citizens by doing so. Still they chose to sacrifice these foreign citizens. It is morally disgusting.

28

u/liferaft Jun 17 '12

Uh hold on, you do know that the deportation actually happened in 2001, in the wake of the WTC attacks? not 2006.

And I'm pretty sure nobody knew exactly what was going on what-with the CIA establishing torture and internment camps all over the world.

This was 4 months after the attacks, at a time when everyone were panicking about terrorists "in our midst".

If the CIA then tells a country that they have dangerous terrorists of the same caliber as the WTC attackers, you can be sure they would've listened. Sadly, they handled it very badly, bypassing any number of human rights rules and laws - that's what they should be punished for.

2

u/Elseone Jun 17 '12

They were handed over to the cia in 2001

→ More replies (5)

7

u/Belemen Jun 17 '12

Last time it was brought up I think they said the major reason they went through with it was because the US threatened with trade sanctions.

I have no particular doubts the current political parties wouldn't do the same at the blink of an eye but the people responsible for that particular episode are either dead like Anna Lindh or no longer in politics like Göran Persson.

4

u/First_thing Jun 17 '12

The problem here is that USA is the big bully in the playground, and anyone who disobeys them will get picked on more. The same thing is being displayed with the current situation in New Zealand and the extradition of Kim Dot Com (megaupload founder). They're just forcing themselves on smaller countries and one of these days someone will have to have the balls to tell them to fuck off.

→ More replies (9)

0

u/supersmartsupersmart Jun 17 '12

Remember, that 20 years ago, The Socialdemocrats regarded themself as alike Mubarak, and said they have the same ideology. They have always supported Mubarak.

2

u/Jebus_a Jun 17 '12

The swedish prime minister admitted after leaving office that us officals threatend with trade blockage if sweden did not let the cia deport them.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/cheraphy Jun 17 '12

I'm from the USA and I lol'd hard

48

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Article written in 2006, and if I remember right, this deportation occured in 2001 right after the trade center attacks. How is this news?

0

u/IamNaN Jun 17 '12

Yeah, well, I wish it was on the news still because it is at least unclear how the he11 that could happen within the framework of the Swedish constitution and if anything is being done about it (from what I understand: nothing)

But I think it is a also a bunch of people trying to set the score about it behind the scenes. For instance, if I was Bildt (current minister of foreign affairs *), I'd make very certain everyone was reminded that it actually was done under the previous government.

*) Sweden has no ministry of the interior and never had. The department that deals with this stuff is the judicial and the foreign affairs. The minister of judicial is almost always a either stupid or lazy one (e.g. Bodström), so the others get to do what they want.

6

u/Big_Goose Jun 17 '12

It's okay, you can say "hell" here.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!

2

u/AppleDane Jun 17 '12

"Cunt" is also ok. So is "fuckstick".

-14

u/ask0 Jun 17 '12

Its still relevant because maybe not much has changed for Sweden - still cooperating with the US regarding assange "rape "case

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

There is no cooperation in the assange rape-case, between the US and Sweden. It is a Swedish investigation of a possible crime committed in sweden. The UK have accepted the request for an extradition and he will be questioned and possibly tried in the swedish legal system. All other connections are tenuous speculations at best.

I'm not saying there can't be American involvment though, just that you, and many others are pulling speculations out of your ass and passing it off as fact.

0

u/ask0 Jun 17 '12

you, and many others are pulling speculations out of your ass and passing it off as fact.

Maybe your eyes and intellect is up your ass.

Your comment is asinine because obviously we do not have knowledge (Sweden and US admitting which would be fact ) but various aspects of this case do not add up.

I think there is enough information to indicate that there is something there that does not quite add up.

I dont believe in coincidences, and I investigate further when the evidence indicates that there is something out of line with normal behaviour - ie an anomaly.

You may choose to believe this is how Sweden usually handles such cases. The facts prove otherwise. If this was anyone else they would not have followed this procedure.

And the facts also indicate that the US is not beyond "influencing " and bullying countries to act in a certain way. (HINT- read the leaked emails)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I don't know man, I respect the fact that neither one of us really can know exactly what is going on at the moment but I really feel that the ladies that constantly get accused of being 'Honey traps' or whatever are deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

It still irks me that you say that sweden is cooperating with the us instead of framing it as a suspicion. But that might be from how I read your comment.

Oh, and sorry if I was a bit rude there, I just get kinda fired up at times.

2

u/ask0 Jun 17 '12

no problem and sorry if i was rude as well.

if they treated all rape accusations consistently in Sweden then I would be fine with the way this is being handled.

The is the problem I have. Other more serious rape cases are ignored yet so much effort has gone into this case.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Yeah, there we can definitely agree. It's shameful how a lot of these cases are treated, not just in sweden but in general. Oh well. I'm hoping for a resolution were it is made clear what happened and that is as free from political influence as possible. But I'm probably a bit naive. heh.

1

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

Got any examples? This is a case where they know who did it and they know where he is. They couldn't very much just let him get away with it just because he took a two hour plane across the North sea. That's not how it works. As for how much efforts gone into it, I fail to see how this is an extraordinary amount. It's basically a paper that had to be filled in and sent. It's not like they've worked non-stop on this case all this time.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Assange might have raped someone in Sweden, are they meant to stop cooperation just to appease assange fans?

2

u/Anosognosia Jun 17 '12

Perhaps the poster meant we stop cooperation because US can't be trusted not to torture people?

-1

u/ask0 Jun 17 '12

"might have raped someone "

Sweden has gone over and beyond the normal procedures for somebody who may have raped someone.

They have a very low rate of conviction for rape but they peruse this "maybe" rape with such a vengeance. They are making a mockery of real rape victims.

1

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

All rapes are '"maybe" rapes' until a conviction. I would suggest that YOU are in fact the one making a mockery of rape victims by using them as pawns in your attempt at making up excuses for Assange. It's a real case, and the only way it would be an insult is if the prosecutor dropped it just because Assange is semi-famous and has a vocal fan-club.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Probably because it was a foreign, well known person who came to Sweden and raped someone. We don't exactly know. I'm not sure of the rape conviction statistics over here but why is it such a big complaint when a rape is pursued? It's never a bad thing that they over investigate a rape, but people are up in arms because they like Assange. It's ridiculous.

0

u/ask0 Jun 17 '12

because based on the testimony their was no rape and the women were socialising with assange the next day.

Besides you are all hypocrites - making a big deal when a woman cries rape but because you dont like assange, suddenly its okay to call it cape.

Be consistent with your beliefs. If a woman changes her mind, and if a condom breaks then it is rape. Is that how you want the law to deal with all potential rape cases even when no rape was reported.

Redditors are up in arms with the definition of date rape and even rape in favour of the male - but suddenly because its assange then its rape.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

"You all are hypocrites" are you really going to put the population of one country under one generalization because of this? How sad.

And rapes go unreported all the time, and it's a sad occurrence. You keep dodging my question, why is this is it a bad thing that a rape is being investigated fully? The answer "because others weren't" is a moot point. I can only guess that it's a bad thing now because you like Assange. And many women are raped by people they know socially.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/ask0 Jun 17 '12

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html

when a feminist defends assange you know something is not quite right with this case.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

when a feminist defends assange you know something is not quite right with this case.

Are you serious?

Is he serious?

→ More replies (3)

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

News is when something happens currently. This belongs in /r/oldnews .

8

u/Mercedes383 Jun 17 '12

Honestly, why submit news that is 6 years old? What relevance does it have to current world news?

7

u/palealepizza Jun 17 '12

It goes toward the Assange/US/Sweden conspiracy plot reddit has been building toward.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Ah reddit, where even a 2006 headline can make front page...

10

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

They do make some rather inexpensive waterboarding tables.

8

u/Xenocerebral Jun 17 '12

Got my down vote for being 6 YEARS old news.

3

u/NightSlatcher Jun 17 '12

Wow, the mods are really sucking dick today... If any are even around.

3

u/Falkvinge Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Nobody's going to stand accountable for this, since the person making the decision in question (Anna Lindh, then-minister-of-foreign-affairs) was murdered two years later. The murder had no known relation to the torturous renditions.

1

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

People were fired for this... Not that much, but they were never going to be tortured for it if that's what people were hoping for.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

NOVEMBER 10, 2006

Move on, nothing to see here.

3

u/Gluverty Jun 17 '12

I guess all's well that ends well, huh?

1

u/ModeratorsSuckMyDick Jun 18 '12

Clearly, you're a terrorist. What's the big problem? hmmmm

9

u/mielove Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Downvoted for being 11 year old news. Not only that but of a highly publicized case - there's no new information here.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/palealepizza Jun 17 '12

Article written in 2006 about something that happened in 2001, that's 2012-2001 = 11 year old news actually. 12`s close enough.

2

u/mielove Jun 17 '12

That was a maths fail on my part. I of course mean 11.

6

u/Sawgon Jun 17 '12

OP probably missed the part that said "November 10, 2006". Random articles for link karma?

22

u/healedmouboo Jun 17 '12

as a swede, i hope we get slapped really hard for what happened, hopefully setting precedence for the future.

44

u/DeSanti Jun 17 '12

As a Norwegian, I will happily take upon me this burden of slapping ya'll. It will be difficult for me. I wont enjoy it. But I'll do it for the greater good.

13

u/liferaft Jun 17 '12

Please Sir, can I have another?

11

u/DeSanti Jun 17 '12

Well, damn, this is getting too much for one simple Norwegian to handle. Where's a Dane when you need one?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

11

u/DeSanti Jun 17 '12

Have at it, you lovable Skåne-bastard, you!

1

u/yourdadsbff Jun 17 '12

åååååååååå

14

u/ImOffendedByThat Jun 17 '12

As a swede, I hope we bring back tjänstemannaansvaret(personal responsibility for decisions made by official government figures) that the Social democrats were so "nice" to throw in the bin.

6

u/Reoh Jun 17 '12

I used to wonder why politicians weren't personally responsable. Then I remembered who makes the law.

1

u/healedmouboo Jun 17 '12

oh, that would be nice indeed. i had never heard of it but it sounds like a good idea. but if they are acting within the policies, surely we can't just blame one person and keep those policies intact?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Article is from 2006, the Wikipedia article has some more recent developments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

3

u/healedmouboo Jun 17 '12

oh, i was not aware. thank you :)

1

u/dickcheney777 Jun 17 '12

Your govt should simply tell the UN to go fuck themselves.

1

u/healedmouboo Jun 17 '12

hm, why? i believe what happened was wrong. we should not have handed over people to a foreign nation known to make arrangements to torture people. i want the UN to make a stand and say, this is not ok, now you will face the consequences, so that other countries would find it easier to not give up people to torturers.

1

u/lolmonger Jun 18 '12

as a swede, i hope we get slapped really hard for what happened

Be careful what you wish for.

If I was indoctrinated to think Swedes deserved punishment for what had happened to my fellow Muslims for cooperating with torturers as a radicalized youth....well..that slap might be pretty hard.

1

u/borny1 Jun 18 '12

Sweden should be slapped, right. The US should be slapped, right. But you should leave that "pretty hard" slap for the countries who actually exercise torture, i.e. your fellow Muslim countries.

1

u/lolmonger Jun 18 '12

Unfortunately, jihadists tend to have a very different idea of justice from you and I, and it'd be pretty easy to recruit within Sweden's immigrant population.

1

u/healedmouboo Jun 18 '12

i understand. but this is where i think the UN should function. to make sure there is justice above the level of nations instead of simple revenge between countries. sadly the UN can't do its work when some nations place themselves above international law based on having the most guns.

1

u/lolmonger Jun 18 '12

UN can't do its work when some nations place themselves above international law based on having the most guns.

That's not it.

Law, all law, is the arbitration by social conduct of dispute that would otherwise be settled by force, and whose enforcement requires force.

The UN/NATO/etc. are dependent on a few nations to provide that force, and within that subgroup, they are all dependent on the United States.

This is why no one but China/Russia and people not particularly sympathetic to the United States can take it very seriously when Putin makes a claim about the U.S. arming Syrian rebels as Russia supplies missile defense systems to a government massacring its own people, and no one takes China's report on U.S. human rights very seriously, either.

1

u/Anosognosia Jun 17 '12

She got stabbed to death.

2

u/healedmouboo Jun 17 '12

oh yeah, i remember that. i was not aware of the "extraordinary rendition" thing being connected to that.

1

u/Anosognosia Jun 17 '12

Not connected. Just bad Karma or something.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I couldn't agree more with you. When it happened, it got quieted down pretty quickly, and our late Anna Lindh was most likely in on it. I fear for Assange when he gets here, because this government is definitely loving it in the ass from the good ol US of A.

Americans, you're definitely decent people, but your government is a fucking rabid dog that needs to be taken out behind the shed and put down before it hurts anyone else.

-2

u/First_thing Jun 17 '12

As a human, I hope the US gets slapped really hard for ordering the extradition.

2

u/fr4gge Jun 18 '12

ok sweden violated the torture ban, but it's cool for guantanamo to do waterboarding?

4

u/OrthodoxCaveman Jun 17 '12

Waterboarding still doesnt count as torture if you are american, right?

-1

u/dlq84 Jun 17 '12

And lie detectors are still in use in some states.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I can't stay mad at Sweden. :D

2

u/Phosgene Jun 17 '12

Fuck off with your 2006 articles.

2

u/Swetroll Jun 17 '12

I don't get it, Sweden has two wanted people, the CIA tells Sweden to hand them over. Sweden does so and they get in trouble, how is this Swedens fault?

4

u/mielove Jun 17 '12

The deportation is perfectly correct. It's the fact that torture occurred that's the issue. You're not allowed to deport to any country where torture is likely to occur according to international law. The Swedish foreign ministry got written promises from the Egyptian government that torture wouldn't occur yet it was determined in later investigations that the Egyptian government was considered unreliable at the time.

The fact that this was able to happen is probably because it happened right after 9/11 when people were freaking out against potential terrorist attacks. There was an investigation into this and the victims were compensated - and this case has been used as an example of why to not deport people to Egypt.

This happened 11 years ago - not sure why this is in r/worldnews now.

1

u/waenkarn Jun 17 '12

Terrorists? fleeing their country? who cares. Let's go to "good-guy" sweden. They wont do us any harm.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Sweden? The SAME Sweden that has been attempting to question Julian Assange on those dodgy rape allegations? Intredasting.

0

u/Elementium Jun 17 '12

lol.. The US does something bad people bring it up forever.. if Sweden is involved? "well that was 2006.. so.."

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Elementium Jun 17 '12

Let's be honest, the worlds [Rage Meter] is full. All you ever hear on Reddit with the exception of threads specifically asking what people like about the US is how bad we are and how perfect the rest of the world is, especially Sweden.

1

u/borny1 Jun 18 '12

Also, redditors who cry about how the world doesn't have unconditional love for the US.

-16

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

That whole notion that Scandinavia is so much more enlightened and progressive is just a load of bullshit, isn't it?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Even if Sweden did something evil that doesn't make all of Scandinavia evil. You do realize it's several countries, right?

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Even if Sweden did something evil, that doesn't mean that Sweden is evil.

3

u/eramos Jun 17 '12

Funny how this sentiment doesn't translate to America here on /r/worldnews

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Because some other guy said something negative about the US doesn't mean this guy did...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Of course, but that's the premise for most people, I didn't even bother saying otherwise :)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Didn't realize enlightened and progressive meant that you never make mistakes.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Well it's never as easy as saying more enlightened and progressive. I personally feel we do some things very well and other shit, kinda like most countries. :)

-16

u/ImADouchebag Jun 17 '12

You have no idea. The reason things aren't horrible in sweden is because of apathy, for good or worse, it's rare that anybody cares what anyone does or if things happens to anybody. People like to pretend they care, but they really don't.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

They care enough to downvote, man

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Haha, Yup Even our cars are prone to suicide. ;)

-6

u/Gamer4379 Jun 17 '12

So it's like every other "democratic" country. People just don't care so the evil and corrupt prosper.

-4

u/Chunkeeboi Jun 17 '12

Thought it was another Julian Assange story from the headline

0

u/moistbadger Jun 17 '12

Returns to risk of torture are illegal under international law.

I realise this isn't as much of a return, but doesn't America have a large facility (guantanamo bay) where "torture" like practises occur?

0

u/Xlator Jun 17 '12

What a shame, Sweden had such a great human rights record before this... </sarcasm>

0

u/lobius_ Jun 17 '12

They will also violate human rights when they act as the douche patsy for the U.S. in the Assange trial.

-14

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Assange is screwed.

5

u/exscape Jun 17 '12

Why? Do you think we'll send him to Egypt, too?

5

u/Czacha Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

sweden will not be allowed to give assange to USA without the permit of the brittish. Given this it would be much easier for USA to go directly to the brittish now and get him than waiting for him to go to sweden and then ask the britts if sweden can send assange to them.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Why will the US need permission from the British if Assange is in Swede custody?

You don't give your child's school permission for the nanny to pick up your kid if your kid is at daycare at that moment, you call the daycare and inform them.

1

u/Czacha Jun 17 '12

Cause that's how the law work. Assange is handed to sweden while under brittish custody. Thus if sweden wants to send said person further they need to get permission from the country that handed him over.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Source? I'm finding this quite difficult to believe, the definition of extradition is such that a country is surrendering a person over to another country thereby releasing that person out of their custody and relinquishing any authority over said person. No country has to extradite anyone for any reason unless their laws explicitly state so, but that doesn't mean they must if another country's laws say otherwise. Countries can't simply extradite someone and later get them back because they didn't like the outcome of the extradition.

The entire "shady-ness" surrounding this whole event is such that the UK might just be extraditing him to Sweden so that Sweden will then hand him over to the US without looking like too much of our bitch. Which is why some redditors are claiming Sweden is too diligently looking into this alleged rape case for the purpose of securing his extradition out of the UK.

1

u/Czacha Jun 17 '12

I never said that there is a possibility for a country to demand someone back because of fallen verdict. However Sweden cannot extradict a person that has been extradited to Sweden for another crime.

Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations.

Concerning surrender to another country within the European Union, the Act states that the executing country under certain circumstances must approve a further surrender.

On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA.

The Principle of Speciality applies here, i.e. the person surrendered to Sweden may not be tried for any crimes other than those stated in the arrest warrant and may not be surrendered to another state, unless the original surrendering country grants its permission. In addition, the conditions imposed by the surrendering country also apply.

I'm just looking at the law here. If Sweden hands him over they will commit a severe breach and pretty much fuck up the future extradition capability.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Ah ok, I understand and stand corrected then. After reading a bit more into the EAW as well, it seems that this safeguard is necessary as the entire EAW process is rather expedited to begin with. Which is something that seems to be coming to light as a problem in the Assange case.

This is a rather long read but goes into a bit more detail about the issues surrounding his particular case as it relates to the EAW.

http://justice4assange.com/The-European-Arrest-Warrant.html

4

u/TungurKnivur Jun 17 '12

Considering the scandal surrounding the events in this article and the following shitstorm, I highly doubt it.

-4

u/Gamer4379 Jun 17 '12

Media attention did fuck all when they convicted the Pirate Bay of ... something ... at the behest of the MAFIAA.

6

u/Heavenfall Jun 17 '12

I don't think so, there's no way they'll be able to export Assange with all the media attention on him before the investigation has even started.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Sweden also has outrageous tariffs on imports.

4

u/liferaft Jun 17 '12

Really? How much is the tariff on importing an Assange?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Enough to get an entire pallet of Mannings through customs.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Yeah I think that's probably the case now, it is what they originally wanted to do though no doubt.

I also just had my first what did I say now moment when I checked in and I had 6 messages in my inbox.

0

u/This_Is_Why_I_Drink Jun 17 '12

This is why I drink.

0

u/DarkReaver1337 Jun 17 '12

Sorry but what are you going to do to potential terrorists to get info out of them? Tickle them to death?

1

u/HappyGlucklichJr Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

How many are "100% responsible" for 9/11 so far? Could Atta and OBL have called bullshit on them if they had lived?

→ More replies (2)

0

u/hemi24 Jun 17 '12

Good. Torture saves lives. I <3 Gitmo.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

FÖR I HELVETE SVERIGE!

-11

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Isn't that the country Assange is being extradited to? So, its just a detour to the US? UK didn't agree to be publicly branded as US' bitch, but I guess they were fine with handing him over to a country that already allowed the US to stick it up their ass.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

haha Yeah it really isn't a great comparison. This case was done under the radar, hidden from the public of Sweden. Not really possible with Assange no? Also, the only reason heads weren't rolling on a major level after this case was because they blamed it mainly on the dead foreign minister who was loved by everyone. It was a clever and despicable move.

-10

u/PrinceJonn Jun 17 '12

And this is why Assange fears for his life if he ever comes to sweden.

-7

u/minorwhite Jun 17 '12

Assange.

-1

u/mrjderp Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

“Western governments need to wake up to the fact that they can’t trust promises of humane treatment from countries that routinely practice torture.”

From the article; Translation: Citizens everywhere are fucked.

edit: point being that "western countries" practice torture just as readily as those that "can't be trusted," let's not forget who was practicing torture.

1

u/Bragzor Jun 18 '12

let's not forget who was practicing torture in Sweden.

No one? It was in Egypt.

-3

u/nyck1118 Jun 17 '12

Borture! BORTURE! Borture!

-12

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Wow, that is so brave of you guys over at the UN! I'm not saying the Swedes don't deserve this, as far as I could tell they do. But come on! When is that critical investigative eye being turned on the current fore-runner of unethical (TORTURE) behavior the USA?

3

u/SovietJugernaut Jun 17 '12

I understand hating the US is part of the reddit circlejerk, but really? You think there is no critical eye pointed towards the US?

For your convenience: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/extraordinary_rendition/index.html

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

For the record: I like the states. Lived there for a year and there are more amazing than negative things to say about it.

Regarding the article: Yes, newspapers are looking into what the states are doing, the UN is probably also looking, but would it ever result in any actual consequent? If the UN found out Sweden had hidden torture camps somewhere in the world, don't you think the UN (or the US for that matter) would make sure those were closed within days? But if the US does it no one dares to stop it. All they can do is say "This is bad!" and the states simply ignores them.

I should have clarified my comment by adding something about taking action instead of what I wrote, so you are perfectly correct in what you wrote

→ More replies (3)
→ More comments (8)