Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Swedish Court Orders Detention of Wikileaks Founder Assange 298

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is likely to be detained for questioning over his alleged connection to a rape case. The Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, has requested the District Court of Stockholm to detain Assange, claiming that they have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogations. 'I request the district court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion,' Ny said in a statement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swedish Court Orders Detention of Wikileaks Founder Assange

Comments Filter:
  • Re:I dunno man (Score:5, Informative)

    by JockTroll ( 996521 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @09:56AM (#34267242)
    "Lawful coercion" does exist: it's called "arrest" or "detainment".
  • Re:Argghhh (Score:5, Informative)

    by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:08AM (#34267332)

    For fucks sake, they say they want to charge him, and then they let him go.

    They never actually brought him in or even asked him to turn up last time. This is the first time he's actually been called in for questioning - but wait - they haven't actually called him in yet! We've got a huge beatup about something that isn't even a story yet. This ridiculous amount of trial by media makes it look very much like a bluff where they have nothing that will stick to the point where he can be deported but they just want to harass him out of the country.

  • Re:I dunno man (Score:2, Informative)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:09AM (#34267350) Journal

    From what I hear, "rape" in Sweden isn't necessarily what we'd think of as rape. Even in the US, rape isn't always "rape rape". Get a guy and a girl drunk, let them have sex, and if the girl regrets it in the morning it's "rape". I would assume it's some such bullshit until proven otherwise.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:33AM (#34267562)


    On Thursday 18th November 2010, @wikileaks said:

    Statement by Julian Assange's counsel Mark Stephens

    Finers Stephens Innocent []

    LONDON, 1pm Thursday November 18, 2010

    On the morning of 21 August 2010, my client, Julian Assange, read in the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen that there was a warrant out for his arrest relating to allegations of "rape" involving two Swedish women.

    However, even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape; as various media outlets have reported "the basis for the rape charge" purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.

    The warrant for his arrest was rightly withdrawn within 24 hours by Chief prosecutor Eva Finne, who found that there was no "reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Yet his name had already been deliberately and unlawfully disclosed to the press by Swedish authorities. The "rape" story was carried around the world and has caused Mr. Assange and his organization irreparable harm.

    Eva Finne's decision to drop the "rape" investigation was reversed after the intervention of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the women. The case was given to a specific prosecutor, Marianne Ny.

    The only way the accused and his lawyers have been able to discover any substantive information regarding the investigation against him has been through the media Over the last three months, despite numerous demands, neither Mr. Assange, nor his legal counsel has received a single word in writing from the Swedish authorities relating to the allegations; a clear contravention to Article 6 of the European Convention, which states that every accused must "be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him". The actions by the Swedish authorities constitute a blatant and deliberate disregard for his rights under the Convention.

    We are now concerned that prosecutor Marianne Ny intends to apply for an arrest warrant in an effort to have Mr. Assange forcibly taken to Sweden for preliminary questioning. Despite his right to silence, my client has repeatedly offered to be interviewed, first in Sweden, and then in the UK (including at the Swedish Embassy), either in person or by telephone, videoconferencing or email and he has also offered to make a sworn statement on affidavit. All of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate. Pursuing a warrant in this circumstance is entirely unnecessary and disproportionate. This action is in contravention both of European Conventions and makes a mockery of arrangements between Sweden and the United Kingdom designed to deal with just such situations. This behavior is not a prosecution, but a persecution. Before leaving Sweden Mr. Assange asked to be interviewed by the prosecution on several occasions in relation to the allegations, staying over a month in Stockholm, at considerable expense and despite many engagements elsewhere, in order to clear his name. Eventually the prosecution told his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig that he was free to leave the country, without interview, which he did.

    Our client has always maintained his innocence. The allegations against him are false and without basis. As a result of these false allegations and bizarre legal interpretations our client now has his name and reputation besmirch

  • by grimJester ( 890090 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:57AM (#34267848)
    click []
  • Re:Legal response (Score:3, Informative)

    by techsoldaten ( 309296 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:17AM (#34268106) Journal

    It sounds like the retroactive rape charge is in relation to the guy sleeping with two girls who know each other. They only went to the police after they found out about the other encounter. That would mean the charges are less about the AIDS and more about the cooties.

    While I don't claim to be an expert in these matters, what I do know a thing or two about is the power of whisper campaigns. You can quickly dismantle someone's authority by just saying bad things about them and getting others to make jokes. The affect of the Assange affair, from what I have seen, is that he is getting smeared very effectively and a lot of people are in on it. If this was a political campaign and I was attempting to delegitimize a superior opponent, this is exactly how I would go about it.

    I guess what I am saying is I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims and look forward to learning what brought these charges to the level of rape. I would not be surprised to learn the details failed to meet the high standards most people would recognize as sexual assault. I would be utterly stunned if a single one of these jackals attacking Assange takes back anything they said if he's eventually proven innocent.

  • Re:Smear campaign (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:22AM (#34268184)

    Hide your kids, hide your wife.

  • by HonIsCool ( 720634 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:51AM (#34268594)

    Moreover, rape is absurdly loose in this country. You can have consensual sex with a girl, but she can still change her mind the next day and claim you "got her drunk" or "talked her into it". Personal responsibility pretty much goes flying out the door in such cases (precedents abound).

    [citation needed]


    But he allegedly had an "attitude problem" with women. That's not rape in my book. I don't care what the law says, it is simply immoral to prosecute a man for rape on such bullshit.

    It depends on what the "attitude problem with women" consisted of. According to one woman, it was that it started off consentual but turned into non-consentual and that Assange had a problem with accepting that. Allegedly of course.

  • by grimJester ( 890090 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:52AM (#34268612)
    here []

    as various media outlets have reported "the basis for the rape charge" purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.

  • Re:I dunno man (Score:3, Informative)

    by HonIsCool ( 720634 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @12:04PM (#34268812)

    I was going write something similar, so I'll just add some comments here instead.

    I'm a bit peeved with all the comments alleging that a "girl can have consentual sex and change her mind the next day and it is accepted as rape in Sweden". This is not what the courts have decided, where in fact they do seem a lot more willing to acquit than convicted in hairy cases. Which might not necessarily be the worst of things.

    I'll say though that the "Was she drunk, has she had many boyfriends, is she a slut?" is not regarded as a reason to acquit by the court, although the defense attorney might be too happy to trot out that line.

  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @12:08PM (#34268864) Homepage Journal []

    this is the italian version of the organization that was founded in every nato country, and probably in every country aligned with usa back in cold war.

    these secret organizations were set up in order to make sure that those countries 'stayed true to western ideals' -> basically u.s. interests. and, in all cases, even the secret service of the involved country did not officially know or was involved with these organizations, despite probably having members of these organizations among themselves without their knowledge.

    operations involved assassinations or character assassinations of dangerous individuals, intellectuals, politicians (death, accidents, or scandals, other means), setting up terrorist acts, even fake terrorist organizations to take blame for various actions in those countries in order to estrange the public from what the organization would claim to be. (set up fake leftist terror groups and estrange people from left ideology, or religions etc), creation and funding of various insurgent/guerilla groups in order to either aid the friendly regime (in 3rd world countries these kind of insurgence was the excuse the dictators were using for oppressive measures), or, to harass nearby unfriendly regimes, arrange any means that would ensure the u.s. friendly parties got the upper hand in elections, in democratic countries. (scandals, bribery schemes, cheating, anything) .... the list of activities is endless ...

    after cold war, some of the countries have ousted and prosecuted these organizations, or closed them down. some of the countries, did not. some of the countries, were not able to do that. some, are still trying.

    it is highly possible that, a version of this organization existed or still exists in usa, with, or without the knowledge of its intelligence organizations.

    and this 'rape case', seems WAY too similar with the cases in the accounts that the ex-agents describe in books describing gladio, or testimonies in court cases that were conducted over these.

    in case you forgot, wikipedia has a habit of exposing any kind of information to public, including very, very disturbing dealings of united states government and corporations. things even u.s. citizens cannot access and uncover ...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2010 @12:18PM (#34269070)

    I'm sorry, but the translation for "nämdeman" would be "juror", poor as it might be. "Lay assessor" would probably be a better term, even if less familiar to the slashdot audience. And these lay assessors are politically appointed figures indeed.

  • by IICV ( 652597 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @12:28PM (#34269228)

    Well that's the thing, they're not even questioning him - just read the letter from Mr. Assange's attorney a couple of posts up. What's been happening is that the Swedish prosecutors, in contravention of good taste and (apparently) Swedish law, have been announcing "We're going to arrest Assange for rape!", and then not doing anything about it, not telling him what the charges are, and not bringing him in for questioning. They even said he was free to leave the country!

    That's not the behavior of someone who wants to prosecute a criminal in the court of justice; if they had a case, they would fucking bring it, and Assange would go to jail for rape. This is the behavior of someone who wants to hang an innocent person in the court of public opinion.

  • Re:Key question (Score:3, Informative)

    by uffe_nordholm ( 1187961 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @12:35PM (#34269330)
    The court can decide to have the "doors closed". This means only the court itself and the people involved in the case see the evidence. Any witnesses called will hear/see nothing other than their own evidence. Further, the court decision can be stamped "Secret" in parts or in its entirety. If things are really sensitive, you will never find out there has even been a trial....

    I believe that one of the most often used reasons to close the doors and/or label the court decision secret is to protect the victim of the crime. This means that if JA is found guilty, the rest of the world might never get to examine the evidence, since it has been withheld to protect the interests of the victims.

    Yes, I live in Sweden, but no, I am not a lawyer.

  • by DES ( 13846 ) * <> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @01:06PM (#34269874) Homepage

    In any case, noone is going to have a clue what the truth is till Assange turns himself in for questioning. Fleeing to another country tends to make one look more guilty rather than less, but answering questions with a lawyer present (which is the key here - don't talk to police or prosecutor without your lawyer present, guilty or innocent) won't do much to make you look more guilty unless, well, you're guilty....

    Have you been paying any attention at all? The prosecutor repeatedly declined to interview Assange while he was in Sweden and approved his request to leave the country. I suggest you read some of the +5 comments, which include statements by Assange's Swedish and British attorneys.

  • by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @01:36PM (#34270408) Homepage Journal

    This is part of the US's PUBLICLY REVEALED campaign to discredit WikiLeaks. The way to do so? Ad Hominem. Make the story about the messenger - over and over, again.

    It wouldn't matter if WikiLeaks were fronted by Charles Manson - that's not the point of the disclosures.

    But once more, you fall for the legerdemain. [] [] [] []

  • Re:Legal response (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2010 @04:40PM (#34273338)

    Retroactive rape? "I consented, but if I'd known then what I know now I wouldn't have, therefore knowing what I know now allows me to reverse my decision of the past, therefore I didn't consent, thus it was rape." Twisted, but... lawyers. Same in every country.

    A Palestinian in Israel was recently arrested (convicted?) of such a crime. The woman pressed rape charges after learning he wasn't Jewish.

The greatest productive force is human selfishness. -- Robert Heinlein