No, observers claimed he was delusional to think he would be charged with a capital crime (meaning he could be executed if convicted), because that would violate the terms of any extradition.
Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left the embassy.
I’m not sure whether you’re really making a blanket statement about what all observers had to say. But if you are, your recollection is incorrect. The issue of capital punishment aside, many voices chimed in to say (especially in the early going) that the United States would not hold these cards close to its chest for such a long time and that he should just go face justice in Sweden.
Back then, I and a number of the other legal dudes on HN were saying that the US would definitely try to extradite Assange no matter how long he tried to stay in the embassy.[1] We all generally agreed he should face justice in Sweden (if he was innocent, as he claimed) because Sweden does not extradite for the crimes he is now charged with...but the UK does. While it's possible Sweden might have deported him to Australia after whatever happened in Sweden, that scenario was never brought up.
[1] We're still trying to extradite Polanski, even though he's been a fugitive for decades. The US legal system has patience, largely because everything takes so long anyways.
Even if guilty and they can prove it, a Swedish jail is probably nicer than a US one and I doubt he would go down for longer for the alleged crimes in Sweden than for those in the US. What was it - sex without a condom? Versus the espionage in the US?
When people are out to get you and you see irregular behavior from people in the government, what is a rational behavior?
The case had gone through not one but two prosecutor, both which dropped the case. Rumors of US influence and a third prosecutor picks up the case.
Could be nothing of course and just part of normal operation by the legal system. Just because people were out to get him doesn't mean he should had reacted paranoid about it.
The terms "many observers" and "many voices" are weasel words, and also blanket statements. Your argument would be much better if you could be more specific about who you are referring to.
What I thought, and still think, is that the idea that Assange would be executed is absurd. I also thought that the idea of Assange being whisked away to "black site" is absurd.
If he is kept incommunicado in similar conditions to Manning (kept naked and unable to talk to anyone, including her lawyer) I don’t see much difference to that and a black site.
Counterexample; the detainee here doesn’t even seem to know what the charges are, and most of the evidence (and its sources) are secret.
There is evidence (here-say) that he fired a rifle during a military confrontation and dug a trench, and according to the guards he said some nasty things to them during his extra-judicial detention, but I don’t see any charges enumerating the laws he broke:
At the end of the day, the conspiracy theorists were right.
Regardless of all the lies that the US government made, they were always going to make an extradiction request the moment Assange stepped out of the embassy.
I mean, our current information is that there were no "secret charges" ... until 2018.
So for 6 of the 7 years he was in there, the "you all are crazy conspiracy people" people were correct, and only for the last year have the crazy conspiracy people been correct.
There was even an administration change in between, which means that it is likely whoever followed up on these charges within the US government had their eye on the prize for more than half a decade.
Requiring a high standard of evidence would appear to be impartial. But state media has direct access to evidence for fleshing out the official narrative, even regardless of how real it actually is (eg yellow cake). Meanwhile those pointing out a "crazy conspiracy" are left hoping for leaks.
Previous speculation about USG extraditing Assange was solidly grounded in looking at underlying motivations and capabilities. Claiming that there would be no extradition was essentially implying that Assange couldn't be charged under US law, presumably due to some combination of the first amendment and jurisdictional issues. To anybody that pays attention to how USG actually operates, this was at best naive. Now the reality has finally been demonstrated.
This tendency to malign a non-official narrative as "crazy" for lack of a smoking gun demonstrates exactly why leakers are so vital. The conversation of 2012 would have looked much different if "he's hiding in the embassy simply to escape a rape charge" had been a completely nonsensical position. But as it was, it provided a basis for FUD while the "Assange bad" drums pushed people into thinking that it's right for something bad to happen to him.
The indictment leaked 5 months before Assange was kicked out of the embassy, 8 months after it was created.
It was, of course, the case that it was a sealed indictment and wasn't supposed to be released at all prior to the individual charged being arrested, but that is kind of a normal thing in our legal system; many of the charges against the individuals prosecuted as a result of the Mueller investigation came in the form of sealed charges, as another prominent instance of the practice.
> but that is kind of a normal thing in our legal system
Ok, well if it is normal then nobody should have been calling anyone at all a conspiracy theorist for saying that the US was going to have an extradition request the moment he stepped out of the embassy.
We were right. He stepped outside and now there are charges.
The DoJ at the time explicitly denied Assange being under sealed indictment, which, if he was, it should not have.
(In general, the US government is not supposed to explicitly lie to the American people, hence the "I can neither confirm nor deny" line that comes up when an issue is classified; you can't say P, because you can't reveal classified information, but you also can't say not-P because you aren't allowed to lie in an official capacity.)
>observers claimed he was delusional to think he would be charged with a capital crime (meaning he could be executed if convicted), because that would violate the terms of any extradition.
While the Foreign Office may insist that we will never extradite if there is a possibility of the death penalty, the Home Office on the other hand can take it upon themselves to waive that requirement and have apparently done so recently in another case, so it is possible and the UK is quite prepared to say that it isn't, while doing it - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067
>>>> Is it your belief that he would not end up in US custody? And do you think he also believes that?
>>> Yes, that is my belief. I don't know what he believes.
>> Well, you seem to be implying that he is being dishonest about his fear of being extradited. As if he is doing this so he doesn't have to answer to the charges in Sweden. Based on your statement, you clearly do believe that he isn't actually worried about ending up in US custody.
> I do think he's being dishonest, yes. He has access to skilled lawyers, and his concern about extradition to the US is irrational: it's easier to extradite him where he is.
Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left the embassy.