Julian Assange To Be Interviewed In London After All 262
mpawlo writes: The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Ms Marianne Ny has submitted a request for legal assistance to the English authorities and a request to Ecuadorian authorities regarding permission to interview Julian Assange at Ecuador's embassy in London during June-July 2015. Back in 2010, a warrant was issued in Stockholm, Sweden for WikiLeaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange. Ever since, Assange has found refugee at the embassy of Ecuador in London.
Popping the popcorn (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden that the authorities, in a failure to interview someone that has been open to it on foreign soil, would run up against if they didn't interview him, which would basically void the ability to prosecute (and to seek extradition) if they don't take this step.
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.
In that case, would it be good or bad if Japan was involved?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:5, Insightful)
So much time do you think women should serve in prison if they lie about being on the pill? Since fraud is fraud, and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Note, this isn't an issue of changing one's mind the night after. This would be the same as in the US, if you asked your partner "do you have AIDS" and they say "no" and you later found out they had it and knew it, Is that rape? Not in the US, but because AIDS is deadly, it has been pursued as a criminal offense. That's the closest US analog I can come up with.
That's part of the trouble, analogs that don't completely apply, combined with allegations that can't be proven.
Every so many months there are fairly high-profile rape or other sexual abuse violations in the news. A common thread in most of these situations is that they lack proof, and usually it's due to action or inaction on the part of the accuser. Some cases find the accuser's actions like bathing or waiting too long to have destroyed physical evidence, and other cases find documentation showing th
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:4, Interesting)
And let's not forget that she tweeted her friends next day to come and meet her cool new boyfriend.
She was clearly traumatized, right?
(Or maybe was it the police that made that 'trauma' decision for her - I mean she must be traumatized after that, right? She's such a sweet/innocent little CIA agent after all...)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me float something by you. And the reasons why I feel most these allegations are a joke. Seemly _two_ women at the same time reported this crime. This whole argument of any real laws being broken stop short there for me. And you have to be very blind to think any of this situation holds any true merit at this point.
For example if it were one person making the complaint (which is like almost every other time) then this whole thing would have never of seen the light of day and the cops would have to dismi
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:5, Informative)
Let me float something by you. And the reasons why I feel most these allegations are a joke. Seemly _two_ women at the same time reported this crime.
No they didn't.
One of them went to the police station to ask if it was possible to force Julian to take an AIDS test. Nobody was accusing anybody of anything at that point.
The police were the ones who started all the 'investigating' and found the second girl. They interviewed her and found she had a similar experience. Result: Julian was interviewed to get his side of the story, then sent home with no charges.
A few weeks later somebody higher-up found "Julian Assange" when they were fishing in the police computer and figured they could maybe use this as an excuse to grab him and take him to the USA. The press were told he was a "serial rapist". The rest is history.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar crimes exist in many American states. In Arizona, the definition of "without consent" [azleg.gov] includes:
(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.
(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the crime exists everywhere. Sexual fraud is a lie for sexual gain, which is a subset of "fraud".
Not in sensible countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Popping the popcorn (Score:5, Funny)
consent given to lies isn't consent
Yup. That pretty much covers every casual sexual encounter in the whole of history.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the "considerations"?
I never used the word "considerations" so I can't help explain what I meant. Perhaps you should read slower, and with less frothing at the mouth.
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:4, Informative)
It's the first sentence of the fucking article, you retarded idiot.
Wonder no more. Anything else I can copy and paste for you, I asked knowing full well that you would need to be walked like a dog, fed like a baby, and cleaned like a shithouse rat?
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:4, Funny)
You must be new here. No-one reads the articles, this ain't playboy.com.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think the UK govt is willing to step in for Assange, he's been a thorn in their side for ages so they'd be just as happy for any justification to throw him to the dogs.
I think this may be a sign that Sweden's getting sick of having thi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes -- "the statute of limitations on several of the crimes of which Assange is suspected runs out in August 2015."
http://www.theguardian.com/med... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to be interesting to watch. If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms. I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden that the authorities, in a failure to interview someone that has been open to it on foreign soil, would run up against if they didn't interview him, which would basically void the ability to prosecute (and to seek extradition) if they don't take this step.
I do not know how the law works in the UK or Sweden, but in the US, you cannot elude capture in order to run out the statute of limitations on your crimes. Once the police file a subpoena to compel you to be interviewed, the clock stops running on the statute. I think this makes sense, in general, though of course could be abused like anything else.
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:5, Informative)
And they NEVER lie in extradition requests....just ask Leonard Peltier. They used the same trick on him and it worked...they got a mentally ill woman to say she was his gf and that he was involved in the crime (shooting of 2 FBI agents on indian land) and Canada rolled right over and gave him up. Now, decades later, Canada has had to live with the fact that they didn't even bother checking out the US' story, which was a complete fabrication. FYI, even the FBI admits they have NO IDEA who shot their agents but that didn't stop them for jailing Peltier.
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden.
And, if Assange is extradited to the Sweden, then extradited anywhere else (the US may not extradite him directly, but may bounce him around, if they can, to find the most favorable place to extradite him from), what will you do? Eat your hat?
The level of "must extradite" is unusual. There must be some other reason that they didn't interview him before now. They have done this with others, and didn't have an issue with a remote interview. He isn't asking for unusual treatment. He's asking for standard treatment. Sweden won't give it to him. Why?
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:4, Informative)
And, if Assange is extradited to the Sweden, then extradited anywhere else
Extradition? Who said anything about extradtiton?
Why not just hand him over to some shady types, then stand by while they shove drugs up his ass and ship him off somewhere to be tortured. Oh don't be silly, you say, Sweden would never do that... [wikipedia.org]
Now, why on earth would Assange be not especially keen on getting involved in the legal system in Sweden I wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
So, why would the US bother to extradite Assange to Sweden when the UK is much more friendly with us and much more likely to grant extradition?
The people who think we want to extradi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The level of "must extradite" is unusual. There must be some other reason that they didn't interview him before now. They have done this with others, and didn't have an issue with a remote interview. He isn't asking for unusual treatment. He's asking for standard treatment. Sweden won't give it to him. Why?
Because Sweden has been bought off. Any claims for respectability they might have had died with Olaf Palme.
Re: Popping the popcorn (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also not common to let somebody leave the country that you want to interview. He had permission from the authorities in Sweden to leave because there was no substance to the accusations. After he left they decided that they should interview him and since then he's refused to go back. Hell, they're even expecting him to pay for his flight to answer the questions.
I can't blame him for not wanting to return, he might be a world class asshole, but that doesn't make the procedings any less suspect. This whole affair has set the cause of fighting sexual assault back by quite a bit as it's hard to take accusations seriously that are based upon revoking consent after the fact.
not quite true (Score:2)
Aug 18: Assange applies for Swedish work/resident permit.
Aug 20: The two women file their complaint and local prosecutor issues arrest warrant.
Aug 21: Case transferred to Chief Public Prosecutor (CPP).
Aug 22: CPP doesn't find enough evidence to substantiate rape
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview
Yes, it is. We do it all the time here in Sweden. It's standard procedure and not having done it already is outside of the norm.
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:4, Insightful)
A Swedish sports player will be able to testify via Skype [expressen.se] regarding assault allegations as to not miss a game on the same day. In contrast, Swedish prosecutors have refused to question Julian Assange using the same methods for over four years.
So no, asking to be questioned over there is not asking special treatment. The fact that this was not done like the norm is the special treatment.
How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow NOT been mistreated or short changed? How?
He also said that he would go to Sweden for questioning if they could give him some guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, something Sweden refused to give.
Like you pointed out, it's supposed to be just questioning, how could it be such a problem? It is pretty clear that the questioning is not the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You think Assange isn't a fugitive? Yes, he is. He jumped bail in the UK and fled extradition.
Julian Assange: the fugitive [theguardian.com]
Assange spent 10 days in jail in December 2010, before being bailed to the stately home of a supporter in Suffolk. There, he was free to come and go in daylight hours, yet he says he felt more in captivity then than he does now. "During the period of house arrest, I had an electronic manacle around my leg for 24 hours a day, and for someone who has tried to give others liberty all their adult life, that is absolutely intolerable. And I had to go to the police at a specific time every day – every day – Christmas Day, New Year's Day – for over 550 days in a row." His voice is warming now, barbed with indignation. "One minute late would mean being placed into prison immediately."
Julian Assange supporters ordered to forfeit £93,500 bail money [theguardian.com]
This gets a little tedious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't "escape" from Sweden. He left with permission. He isn't "hiding". Everyone knows where he is. He just isn't going out of his way to turn himself in, after having announced his location and intentions to the authorities. I don't know what that is, but it isn't "fugitive".
I believe that the term you are looking for is "refugee".
Re: (Score:2)
He has an open invitation to Ecuador, so he isn't really stateless or without anywhere to live as such.
Re: (Score:3)
He is a fugitive. He broke bail conditions from a British court and he is holed up in the Ecuador embassy in order to evade a European arrest warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
It is well known that if Assange is extradited to Sweden he will immediately be extradited to the United States.
And that the real crime he committed was offending the united states intelligence agencies.
And when he is extradited to the united states, he'll disappear and not be seen again for a decade if ever..
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm sure Britain will send a very harshly-worded letter to Sweden afterwards.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden. Your example has nothing to do with this case. The women making the complaint say that Assange assault them. There isn't much room for confusion here.
Those are just excuses to get Assange out of Ecuador embassy in London. The rape complaints are very suspicious, they were filled late. Issuing international interpol warrant based on those accusations only is unheard of. This whole case is political and it's clear that he is harassed for his anti-government activity in wikileaks.
Re:Popping the popcorn (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that reading the article is unpopular here, but at least read the headline. Assage has no problem with the questioning, he just has the problem with the location of the questioning. This recent activity just validates the idea that the prosecution in Sweden is not interested in justice or the "rape" charges. The Swedish prosecution is a puppet for someone else's agenda that has nothing to do with rape or justice. It was simply a lure, and now that the lure is expiring and they are not going to get what they originally wanted out of this, they are now pretending that they are actually interested in moving forward with the case. In doing so, they render their lure useless, which is why they waited until the edge of expiration to do this.
I put "rape" in scare quotes because the definition of rape, as understood in the rest of the English speaking world, does not mean anything like what is alleged in this case. In fact, it is insulting to rape victims to use the same word to describe this.
They could have done this years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm sure they don't have a satisfactory answer for why they dug in their heels.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is a perfectly satisfactory answer in two parts:
1. It is very unusual to do so, especially in light of #2.
2. They expect to charge him, which means taking him into custody for trial.
Re: (Score:2)
"2. They expect to charge him, then ship him off to the United States so he can be shoved into some hole in Gitmo for the rest of his life."
There...fixed that for you. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Gitmo is for "terrorists". [wikipedia.org]
Re:They could have done this years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
There's people in Gitmo for wearing the wrong sort of watch:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
(clue: It's one of the most common watches in the world.)
And not just one person...there's a whole list!
http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/L... [wikialpha.org]
Team America, fuck yeah!
Re: (Score:2)
Probably never, since they have diplomatic immunity. At best they could PNG them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also very unusual for a suspect to be holed up in a foreign embassy for 5 years. That doesn't explain why it needed to take them this long to accept the obvious fact that this is an unusual case and just do what they need to do.
Re: (Score:3)
I think there is a perfectly satisfactory answer in two parts:
1. It is very unusual to do so, especially in light of #2.
2. They expect to charge him, which means taking him into custody for trial.
How come they didn't do that when, you know, they had him in the interview room in Sweden (voluntarily). Why did they release him with no charge?
Maybe all this only started a few weeks later when somebody was fishing in the police computers looking for "Julian Assange"? Luckily for him he wasn't still in Sweden or he'd be in Gitmo by now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are established protocols for interviewing suspects when they are outside your jurisdiction. And it's not like these provisions are uncommonly used in the EU. The only thing irregular here was the prosecutor's unwillingness to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Because "justice" involves handing people over to be tortured [hrw.org]. You trolls DGAF about justice anymore than Republicans care about perjury [thinkprogress.org] or affairs. [thinkprogress.org]
Before even seeking asylum, Assange offered to return to Sweden if they promised not to hand him over to the U.S. Sweden has refused to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I look forward to yet another xenophobic or misogynist post from you. Shouldn't you be paying taxes instead of giving the world a bad impression of Greeks?
15 years in the embassy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He's avoiding imprisonment in Sweden because Sweden has an extradition Treaty with the US, and once he walks out the front door of that embassy and walks on that plane to sweden, it's about 50/50 odds he ends up in US custody.
That said, thanks for the tip on Jozsef Mindszenty, I am going to have to read up on that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK has an extradition treaty with the US. Even if we assume that silly theory is true, things get more complicated by sending him to Sweden, not less. In the UK only 1 country has to consent to his extradition: the UK. In Sweden there are 2 countries that have to agree to his extradition: the UK that has him now (and has extradition treaty with the US) and Sweden.
The idea you are supporting there is a nonsensical Rube Goldberg legal "contraption" [wikipedia.org] that makes no sense. In essence it is a lie that Assa
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even about extradition. Sweden has a history for helping the CIA ship people off to be tortured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
He's not so worried about legal due process, more being cuffed, having drugs shoved up his arse, then shipped off by the CIA to be beaten and tortured in some shithole somewhere.
The thing is, Sweden lost the moral high ground completely when they did that. I am a firm believer in the rule of law, but Assange has a very good reason to not want to get involved with the lega
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think that would actually happen to a man who has had as much publicity as Julian Assange?
This is all about avoiding the rape charge, nothing else. Assange clearly thinks that there is a chance he might get convicted.
That last sentence is speculation, but it is a more credible story than that the UK or Sweden would collude in a CIA kidnapping of a public figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think that would actually happen to a man who has had as much publicity as Julian Assange?
A high chance? No. A chance: yes. It's a small chance with amazingly terrible consequences.
The US government has it in for Assange and wikileaks. They used political pressure to stop the credit card companies from sending money to wikileaks--nice and easy if you don't want to bother with due process, judges or any of that crap. IT was only reversed after they started losing breach of contract lawsuits.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Embassies are not sovereign territory. [wikipedia.org] Host country jurisdiction applies, but most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies.
The Ecuadorian embassy is in a building that has several other functions and was not purpose-built as an embassy. According to Wikipedia, the embassy itself uses only rooms on the ground floor [wikipedia.org]. Colombia has an embassy in the same building.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The UK has more qualms about openly handing people over to regimes fond of torture and execution than Sweden does. Regimes like the United States, which spent a year and half torturing Manning with solitary confinement before trial.
Re: (Score:2)
If Julian is to spend more years in the Ecuador embassy, I would suggest that the London municipal council adds a small fenced yard to the embassy premises, so that he could walk outdoors for an hour or so.
It is harmful to our common human dignity that a man cannot have a possibil
Re: (Score:2)
De facto and de jure he is in this embassy room 24/7. Since he is a human I feel there should be still some minimum dwelling standard. I is not difficult for the city of London to arrange it. I do not suggest a park, but a small yard or a garden near the embassy is quite doable.
Re: (Score:2)
The embassy resides within a structure housing other entities, including the Colombian embassy. Extending the building to extend the embassy would be up to the property owner/manager and Ecuador.
For London (as the city or as the seat of the British government) to do so would indicate acceptance of Assange's decision to seek asylum and would place the Crown in a difficult legal position in regards to his bail-jumping.
Re: (Score:2)
A tiny reliably fenced yard or a garden adjacent to the building where Julian could walk once a day is all that is needed. I do not believe that it is a unsolvable issue for the city of London municipal government.
People do need outdoors exercise. It is vital for the biology and clear to an
Re: (Score:2)
This case is kind of returning to medieval practice of keeping people in dungeons.
Nobody keeps Assange in some dungeon.
He was free on bail awaiting trial (or extradition), he could have lived in some spacey condo or whatnot.
But he decided, on his own himself, to run and go to the embassy. (Thereby forfeiting the money of the sponsor who posted bail. Real classy move.)
And even there he is free to leave 'the dungeon' at any time.
It is his decision to stay there.
You implying that the UK government is to blame is ignoring the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is keeping Assange in a dungeon. He could walk out of the building where he lives any time he likes. It's nobody's decision but his own to stay there. This would all be over now if he had not chosen to flee justice.
Re:15 years in the embassy (Score:4, Interesting)
Such a vast difference in attention appears to indicate that the actual crime is not seen as important but getting revenge for the political embarrassment caused by Assange is.
Do you agree or have some different view?
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well Assange is worried the Swedish charges are just an excuse to get him to Sweden, where he'll be turned over to the Americans.
America, as you know, is so terrified by terrorism that they hold kangaroo courts for people like Assange. It's very likely he'd wind up spending the rest of his life at Guantanamo Bay if he were foolish enough to go back to Sweden."
Re: (Score:2)
"Marianne Ny submitted a request for assistance to U.K. authorities and a request to Ecuador" ... "The U.K. foreign office said that its ability to facilitate a meeting with the Swedish prosecutor remains limited with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy."
Is he currently in the UK as you say? Physically, technically, you could argue that. But he's not really in the UK at all, unless he walks outside.
Re: (Score:2)
He is currently in the UK which has an extradition treaty with the US. From the UK only 1 country (UK) has to agree. If he goes to Sweden there are two countries that have to agree to extradition: UK & Sweden.
The argument as I understand it is that the UK has fairly serious requirements for extradition, whereas Sweden is expected to just cough him up on request.
Re: (Score:2)
BS. Given the attention that this whole situation has been given, they can not just disappear Assange. Not anymore.
If the British police put him in a plane and the Swedish police doesn't receive him, that would be a real problem for Sweden.
Also, they can not extradite him anymore silently, but if the US wants him they have to officially ask Sweden and Sweden has to go trough the whole legal process.
The situation is way to public for Sweden to risk being seen cutting corners.
Re: (Score:2)
Extradition would be the only way for the US to approach it, even if they wanted to follow through on that through Sweden instead of the UK. He's far too high-profile for him to simply disappear.
being scared of swedish extradition (Score:2)
being scared of swedish extradition system is legit.
they've fucked up before.
really the effort in regards of the claimed crime is bizarre(and the victims deciding what it was, that happened, afterwards, after finding out that he was a two timer).
Rei has the night off or something? (Score:2)
Because you are a very poor on-call troll.
Repeating Big Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar. Before ever seeking asylum, Assange offered to return to Sweden if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States - something they have done [hrw.org] before - an offer that has been ignored.
So the Bilderberg meeting... (Score:2)
...was good for something after all. Who'd have thunk it.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen to Max Keiser much?
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of him. I was only joking - just found it funny how it was the very day after the meeting.
Re: (Score:2)
He's on Russia Today but he constantly rages about the Bilderberg meetings. He reminds me of a guy on crack; he probably is.
Ecuador Called (Score:2)
They want their conference room back. "Please get this guy out of our embassy! He's stinking up the place!" - Ecuadorian Ambassador to UK
Re: (Score:2)
If a woman has sex with a man, and doesn't want any more, she should go home. If she is home, she should send him home.
At the very least, put your damn underwear back on or go sleep on the couch.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "victim" must have been CF's sister or something. He's gone so far 'round the twist he's even replied to himself at least once.
Re: (Score:2)
She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
And I imagine that this is the point that the defense will hinge on. Is the response "you'd better not have HIV" rather than "no" a form of consent? Because the flip side of a woman having the right to say no at any time is that she also has the right to say yes at any time. If no means no, and anything else you can reasonably assume to mean no also means no (which, by the way, I do believe) then it's equally arguable that there are more ways to say yes than "yes".
Re: (Score:2)
Except that that claim is false, as proven by her own SMS history. In her own SMS's she's admitted that she wasn't asleep.
Re: (Score:2)
My main issue is Assange evading justice, even at the cost of those who put up his bail having to pay nearly a hundred thousand pounds total when he refused to leave the embassy. There are enough allegations that a trial is likely the most appropriate way to handle it, but enough questions that maybe Assange will be able to walk free.
That said, rape can absolutely happen in a case of sex without consent. Someone who is unconscious whether from intoxication or just an extremely heavy sleeper is incapable o
Re:Read he article (Score:4, Insightful)
This is pretty much the view of a prostitute who's charging for each ejaculation.
In real life, consent is rarely explicitly given. When I'm caressing a women, just before penetration I do not ask if I can. As long as she doesn't say "no", I infer she accepts. If I pull out and then start a cunnilingus, I still do not ask for consent. And if after the cunnilingus I start again with penetration, once again I do not ask for consent. I just do it.
If after spending the night with a woman, I wake and feel like caressing her in the morning so she gently wake up, I still don't ask for consent. I don't wake her up first. Since we had sex, since she accepted to sleep with me after sex, I infer the consent is still valid. In real life, sex is based on implicit consent and normal expectations. In real life, once consent is given it must be explicitly revoked, or at the very least there must be valid reasons to believe the consent was implicitly revoked.
Yes, I know misandrists... I mean feminists, are trying to get all the power they can against men. Sorry, but their idea of "consent" is simply a way to abuse men. Feminists can go to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much the view of a prostitute who's charging for each ejaculation.
In real life, consent is rarely explicitly given. When I'm caressing a women, just before penetration I do not ask if I can. As long as she doesn't say "no", I infer she accepts.
Sure, consent is rarely explicitly given. But the other person needs to be in a position to make a decision. They need to be able to voice their objection, if they so desire. Somebody who sleeps can neither consent nor object.
Or let me put it differently: Consent needs to be given explicitly (using words or actions) or implicitly (by being able to object, but not doing so).
But lack of consent because the other person can not make any decision means you're entering rape territory.
In the situation described h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's a fucking idiot. He's spent FIVE YEARS locked up in that embassy. If he'd gone back to Sweden and been sentenced, he'd probably be out of prison by now.
There's the risk that he'd be extradited to the USA where they'd either kill him or lock him up forever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Getting him from Sweden takes one unmarked CIA plane. Then there will be an official inquiry, some people will be told this is not the way things should be done, and that's the end of it. It's been done before.
Extradition from the UK may need to go past an actual judge. With Sweden presenting a rape case, that part is easily completed, and the UK can get him on the way to the US without anybody risking their political career.
If he had been a regular rapist, the UK wouldn't have been spending nearly that muc
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually he's much safer in Brittain (and certainly in the embassy) than in Sweden. Sweden has shown itself in the past to be even more willing to do the bidding of the US than the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
You have no idea how extradition works, if you are extradited to one country, and that country tries to extradite you to another, the first country is required to have an additional extradition hearing unless that move was an established pre-condition.
The Swedish wouldn't be "extraditing" him to the USA, they'd be "lending" him as part of the ongoing investigations into Wikileaks.
See: https://justice4assange.com/us... [justice4assange.com]
What are the chances of the USA ever giving him back after Sweden drops its charges? Slim/none.
What would the UK be willing/able to do about it? Probably nothing. Nobody's job is on the line (they're all following the law) so, hey, bad luck Julian.
This interview in London is just ass-covering by Sweden to keep the case alive. Don't expect an
Re: (Score:3)
You know, they make medications for paranoia now. You don't have to live with the condition. There is absolutely no evidence that the US wants Assange beyond people making shit up. The US already has Manning, and Assange being a foreign citizen cannot be charged for treason. What reason would the US have for taking Assange? It isn't like putting him in jail will suddenly make Wikileaks close its doors, it is still running with him locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Re:Finally they have seen the light (Score:4, Informative)
An indictment is soooo necessary to engage in extrajudicial detention or execution. /sarc
Just ask Italy exactly how much the US cares about Italian criminal law, in particular, kidnapping. Twenty some CIA employees were convicted of kidnapping -- of course they ran prior to their trial date. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not forget he offered to go to Sweden for a second interview if the Swedish PM gave him his personal assurance that he wouldn't be transferred to the USA.
(The PM naturally refused...he knew his job would be on the line)
Re: (Score:3)
As in most western democracies, the Swedish PM cannot tell the courts what they will decide for any current or future case. It's not an assurance he had the power to give.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but for all we really know Sweeden is an easier place to black bag him and move him off to one of the many secret US prisons as well, where he might even be secretly tortured, afterall, its what the US does, and has not prosecuted anyone for.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a fucking idiot. He's spent FIVE YEARS locked up in that embassy. If he'd gone back to Sweden and been sentenced, he'd probably be out of prison by now.
Doesn't mean he'd be free.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you often subscribe to or come up with conspiracy theories? This is on the same level as a conspiracy theory. There is no reason to arrest Assange, what he did could have been legally done in the US. If the US wanted Assange, it would be far easier to convince the UK, one of the US's closest allies to arrest him. Why go through all this trouble with Sweden, a country which doesn't particularly like the US?
Beyond some blowhard politicians, no one in the US is calling for his arrest. Just as no one is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain why it's been impossible for these last few years for Sweden to interview Assange in the embassy as he has suggested, but now it's suddenly possible?
I've no axe to grind either way, but you must admit this is puzzling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:British are tired (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why have we had to wait for so long? By whatever justification of the need to question him now, I can easily think of a counterpoint why it should have been done the moment he went into the embassy. The only reason I can think that this wasn't done sooner was in the hope he'd get pissed off and give himself up, which is roughly equivalent to the teenage ploy of "I'll piss $girlfriend off so much that she'll dump me instead of me having to do it myself". And so we arrive right back at the start - any ju
Re: (Score:2)
He already offered to return to Sweden if the Swedish PM publicly promised not to hand him over to the U.S.