Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime United Kingdom

Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK 377

concertina226 writes "Lawyers representing Julian Assange have demanded that he be questioned in London over rape and sexual molestation allegations. 'Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion. Assuming that the prosecutor does not have a prejudiced opinion regarding the question of guilt, and is prepared to treat the different versions objectively, it is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would benefit everybody, including the injured parties,' the lawyers wrote."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

Comments Filter:
  • by DeathToBill ( 601486 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @06:52AM (#46236605) Journal

    Yes, but the reason he's there is that the UK seemed to be about to extradite him to Sweden. He was quite happy living in the UK so long as it didn't mean going to Sweden.

    It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....

    What that other reason is is hard to tell, exactly. It might be that he is genuinely guilty-as-not-yet-charged in Sweden. Or it could just as easily be that he has an enormous ego, a superiority complex and a highly-developed paranoia that makes him see persecution in everything, whether it looks plausible to a sane person or not.

  • by DeathToBill ( 601486 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @06:54AM (#46236609) Journal

    What deeper implications of travelling into Sweden, exactly? You mean escaping the UK's we'll-give-you-anyone-you-ask-for extradition treaty with the USA? I can see how that would be a problem for him, yes.

  • by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @07:12AM (#46236685) Homepage Journal

    Most "everybody else" is not being hunted by the United States. Frankly, if they want to call this an exception to the rule then yes, make an exception for Julain Assange and get of your ass and question him in the UK. This is indeed a special case.

  • by sugar and acid ( 88555 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @07:17AM (#46236711)

    Assange's resistance to extradition to Sweden is I think because he believes he is more vulnerable to extradition lock away in a Swedish Jail, not because the extradition process is easier from there to the US than the UK, just that he won't be able to skip bail and the country locked away in a jail. EAW extradition proceedings from the UK to Sweden were in motion, he was out on bail when he skipped off into the Ecudorian embassy. If he had been charged in Sweden for rape, combined with the obvious flight risk someone like Assange represents, bail would have been very very high or not available. Assange's thinking is it would be at that point that the US would start extradition proceedings.

    An interesting point here is it is implicit that Assange will not stand and fight any extradition proceedings if he can skip the country. It is a strategy that has left him imprisoned in an embassy in London. Also it has effectively accomplished what the authorities of many countries wanted to achieve, he is trapped, with a progressively smaller political voice.

  • by Goaway ( 82658 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @07:36AM (#46236777) Homepage

    So you're saying his request to be treated like everybody else is actually a request to be treated different from everybody else?

  • by cycler ( 31440 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @07:46AM (#46236813)

    No

    It isn't.

    And why should Sweden be more likely to hand his as over to the US when the UK has much tighter bonds across the pond??

    I call bullshit. /C

  • by flagboy ( 670403 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @07:47AM (#46236815) Homepage
    It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).
  • by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @08:01AM (#46236859) Homepage Journal

    Well he's not requesting to be treated like everybody else; he's requesting to be interrogated on Ecuadorian soil, which seems reasonable in this case. Why would a Swedish justice system prioritize a technicality over actually trying to move a rape case forward if they really gave a damn about the supposed rape victims?

  • He will (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @08:07AM (#46236887) Homepage

    He'll stand in a British court.

    To answer the charge of skipping bail, contempt of court, etc. Then he can - LIKE HE ALWAYS COULD HAVE - argue that he should be legitimately put on trial in a "friendly" country. And he'll go through the legal system, same as anyone else. And then the legal system will decide if the law allows him to or not (I imagine it would be hard to argue UK jurisdiction over Swedish charges performed by an Australian, but it's not infeasible if enough prejudice could be proven).

    Problem is, you didn't want to argue that several years ago. And you skipped bail, so we have no reason to believe it's not a delaying / avoidance tactic. So now you'll stand in a British court, probably be imprisoned by us for skipping bail for so long and so deliberately, and then WILL NOT ESCAPE our custody if they are required to hand you over to the Swedish anyway. Which they probably are, given the way EU law works.

    Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.

    But he didn't. He went through the courts and when he didn't get the answer he wanted, he skipped bail deliberately. So go rot in jail for a year or two FIRST and then you can come back to the original rape-charge issue and we'll think about it.

  • Re:He will (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pantaril ( 1624521 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @09:01AM (#46237107)

    Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.

    Suspicious things already did happen. Interpol invovlemnt in this kind of charges is unheard of. The constant monitoring of his residence by several UK policemens is also unheard of. The whole sequence of events after the "sexual assault" case his highly suspicious (he was questioned, than he was released and told he can travel off the country, after he did it, suddenly, both of the "victims" changed their minds and he is wanted for another questioning again). All of this makes me believe that this is indeed political case and mr. Assange is right to be afraid to travel to sweeden.

  • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @09:38AM (#46237311) Journal
    And, like everyone else, the prosecutor should interrogate him in the town/city where the crime was committed.

    Refusing to return to the country with jurisdiction and demanding to be interrogated in a third country is special treatment.

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...