Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant 243
An anonymous reader writes A Swedish court rejected an appeal by Julian Assange to revoke a detention order issued over allegations of sexual assault. "In the view of the Court of Appeal there is no reason to set aside the detention solely because Julian Assange is in an embassy and the detention order cannot be enforced at present for that reason," the appellate court added. "When it comes to the reasons for and against detention, i.e. the assessment of proportionality that is always made when use is made of a coercive measure such as detention, the Court of Appeal considers that Julian Assange's stay at the embassy shall not count in his favor since he can himself choose to bring his stay there to an end."
Sounds reasonable (Score:2)
But still not great.
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:4, Informative)
There is precisely one case you're referring to. A decade and a half ago. And they weren't surrendered to the US, they were surrendered to Egypt via the US. After receiving bogus information from Egypt that the two illegal immigrants weren't legitimate asylum seekers but were rather convicted terrorist fugitives and a signed pledge that they wouldn't be tortured (Egypt promptly broke the pledge after they arrived). Here's the aftermath of that:
1) It turned into one of the biggest judicial scandals in Swedish history, receiving widespread protest and condemnation.
2) It led to a reform of not just Swedish but EU-wide extradition law, making it so that a mere promise of not torturing isn't enough, the country has to have a track record of not torturing.
3) The victims were offered by Sweden a large financial compensation package and Swedish residence.
4) Swedish attitudes against the US rendition program (which had worked in conjunction with Egypt on that case) that in 2006 outright had their special forces disguise themselves as airport workers to break into a CIA plane to get the proof they needed to shut down the extradition program through Swedish airspace, creating a major diplomatic incident between the two countries. And how do we know about this incident? Why, Wikileaks of course! [sverigesradio.se]
There's a reason why Assange was applying for a Swedish residence permit and moving Wikileaks' base of operations to Sweden when the incidents he's anklagad for occurred. No country has a spotless record, but Sweden has among the highest ranked judicial systems on Earth [worldjusticeproject.org]. Sweden has the world's best whistleblower protections and one of the most restrictive extradition treaties in Europe, flatly forbidding extradition for intelligence or military crimes (which is why, for example, the US couldn't get Edward Lee Howard [nytimes.com], the most damaging CIA defector of the Cold War). Assange repeatedly referred to Sweden as his "shield". Funny how Sweden suddenly turned from "shield" to "evil US lackey" when he faced accusations of rape, isn't it? Just ignoring the fact that, if surrendered to Sweden, both the UK *and* Sweden would be able to block an extradition to the US (under EU law on surrender of fugitives), while he had no problem being in the UK with only the UK between him and the US.
Again, funny how that all works.
Re: (Score:3)
From his point of view it seems suspicious that he was told that he could leave Sweden, but then for some reason the prosecutor changed her mind and decided he must come back for questioning. A video link or trip to the UK was not enough, he had to actually go to Sweden.
As far as I know there has never been an adequate explanation for that. While I'm sure Sweden would kick up a fuss if the US interfered, that might not be enough to keep Assange out of Guantanamo or some other place where they torture people
Re: (Score:2)
There is no adequate explanation - which is why the court in its judgement specifically told the prosecutor to "get on with it". Including stating to the press that "get on with it" could mean "go to London and do the interrogation there".
I have no idea how that extremely important development could be left out from an objective summary ..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
And they weren't surrendered to the US, they were surrendered to Egypt via the US.
They were surrendered to CIA agents at the request of the CIA. The CIA prefers to torture their victims outside the US.
It turned into one of the biggest judicial scandals in Swedish history, receiving widespread protest and condemnation.
And yet, despite being widely regarded as violating multiple laws, somehow nobody was actually convicted of anything. No functionaries, no officials, no politicians. So, yeah, violate the law and send people to get tortured and the newspapers will write a few articles about how bad you are and some will walk past you with a clenched fist in their pocket. Scary. That really wont happen again.
2) It led to a reform of not just Swedish but EU-wide extradition law, making it so that a mere promise of not torturing isn't enough, the country has to have a track record of not torturing.
And violating that will get you... a mean article in a newspaper and some angry glares?
3) The victims were offered by Sweden a large financial compensation package and Swedish residence.
Yeah, paid for by the tax payers. Oh, no, we'll have to give tax payer money to someone for violating their rights. We'll get cushy speaking appointments and nice educations for our kids in the US. But oh, no, tax payer money...
4) Swedish attitudes against the US rendition program
Most likely the Swedish security agencies got fed up with getting snickered at and played for total fools. I doubt it had much to do with ethics.
No country has a spotless record, but Sweden has among the highest ranked judicial systems on Earth.
... based on reported public perception. Swedes like to have a very high opinion of their country and government. They get very surprised when confronted with objective measures of education and discover how far they've fallen or discovering they get much better healthcare when on vacation out of the country. Filtering out self-satisfaction bias would be an interesting exercise.
Sweden has the world's best whistleblower protections and one of the most restrictive extradition treaties in Europe
Which means... what? If nobody is even prosecuted when torture protections are violated the law isn't worth the paper it's written on. Unless Thomas Bodström, Göran Persson and the responsible people in the security agencies are actually prosecuted and thrown in jail for what they did to the Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery it doesn't matter what the law says, because they are above the law. With politicians and security agencies above the law, Sweden cannot be trusted to enforce the laws they claim to have.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, get your facts straight. This is not an extradition case. It's a surrender case. Mixing up extradition rules and surrender rules is stupid because they're not the same.
Secondly, if you think Sweden's judicial system is so comparably terrible, you should complain to the peer-reviewers who passed the World Justice Project's methodology for ranking countries' judicial systems. Then you should complain to pre-charges-Assange for talking so highly of the Swedish system based on what he saw in the leak
Re: (Score:2)
The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country. It would be silly for Sweden to promise this. If anything, it would only encourage the US to actually test such a promise, even if they had no intention to do so.
Secondly, Sweden is bound by the terms of any treaty it signed with the US. They don't get to cherry pick who they will decide to extradite and who they will not. It is not even a political decision - a court will decide whether to extradite h
Re: (Score:2)
Extradition treaties do not work the way you think they are.
For example, Portugal has recently refused to hand over George Wright, a convicted murder and airline hijacker, to the US on the grounds that he has built up a new existence in Portugal.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country.
Right. The US refuses to lay "official" charges because those come with responsibilities. The EFF could start petitioning on his behalf. Demands could be made for a speedy and open trial, and other things the US doesn't want.
It would be silly for Sweden to promise this.
It would be perfectly sane to do so. It would be a statement that he'd be held for the "crimes" he is of interest for, and any charges from anywhere else would not be considered. It's not unheard of for countries to do so. Perhaps a promise that he'll be deported to Australia at t
Re: (Score:2)
"If you knew anything about our political system you'd know that US Senators have zero power to actually make good on those threats".
We stupid foreigners actually know a little about the American legal system, and not purely from watching old Perry Mason episodes. One of the glaringly obvious things we know is that it isn't so much the facts of the matter that count, but who has the most money and thus influence. If you have political clout - and anyone rich enough can get it - no prosecutor will even be fo
Re: (Score:2)
A senator doesn't need to be personally giving an order to make such a threat - it could be made based on some insider information that he has (e.g., being a member of some committee that oversees secret programs - much like quite a few senators were actually well aware of unconstitutional NSA activities long before the rest of us).
Re: (Score:2)
So what if there is an investigation. Someone leaked highly sensitive documents. Of course there was going to be an investigation. Doesn't prove that they definitely wanted to extradite him. At worst, Assange is like a spy, and the US generally doesn't go after foreign spies either.
Assange influenced an American man to provide documents, and that is the person the US went after. Of course if Assange steps into the US, he might find himself in a bit of bother, but it is highly doubtful they will go after him
Re: (Score:2)
That's been done before. Argentina closed the UK embassy after the UK invaded the Malvinas.
Re: (Score:3)
This article [swedishwire.com] probably covers the basics. Not sure if it's totally neutral but probably more so than you'll get from Slashdot commenters.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of tinfoil apparel, but there are indeed a couple of very fishy things about this case, all pointing to an organised effort to get Assange extradited or otherwise transported to the US. With that said, the court is right in letting the detention order stand from a procedural viewpoint (as far as I can tell, they haven't looked at the case itself, merely at the procedures)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, nonsense!
If the USA had really wanted Assange, the easy way to have gotten him would have been to extradite him from the UK while he was living there freely.
The whole notion that while he was living in the UK, the USA worked to convince Sweden to extradite him to Sweden so we could then extradite him to the USA is ridiculous.
It's not like
Re: (Score:3)
If the USA had really wanted Assange, the easy way to have gotten him would have been to extradite him from the UK while he was living there freely.
Your completely obvious logic has no place here. On Slashdot, everything has to be a vast shadowy conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many here are trashing Assange because they're establishment shills, not because they genuinely care that he didn't wear a condom in an uber-feminist country.
I can't tell with the trolls if they are lying, or if they truly think themselves experts in events when they have the most basic facts wrong.
He committed what the conservative media calls "rape" by committing fraud for sex. He lied for personal gain. That's fraud. Fraud to obtain sex in Sweden is fraud. He is accused of fraud, no more. Consent was given conditionally. He violated that condition. Thus the sex was (At the time) unconsented. Strictly, that can be called rape. But because there was t
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
Why thank you, Amazing Kreskin, for your profound legal insights.
After reviewing the evidence, of the three investigating officers, two (Wassgren and Gehlin) wanted him investigated for what would eventually be five charges (2x rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation), and one (Krans) wanted him for four (1x, 1x, 2x). The first prosecutor (Finne) first wanted him investigated for five (1x, 1x, 2x), then reduced it to what would become three (0x, 1x, 2x). An appeal from one of the victims was reviewed and found with merit (not unusual in Sweden, there's a strong victims' rights process), and a new prosecutor (Ny) was brought in, and the investigation resumed for all five (2x, 1x, 2x). A judge charged / anklagad him on all five counts (2x, 1x, 2x). Assange appeled the warrant and the Svea Court of Appeals held a full court hearing, with a jury, a review of all the evidence, and testimony from Assange's lawyers; they upheld four (1x,1x, 2x). He appealed to the Swedish Supreme court; they refused his appeal. The British lower court heard Assange's appeal (arguing malicious prosecution, flaws in the Swedish process, and an invalid EAW). The British lower court ruled against him on all counts. The case was heard by the British high court, which also ruled against him on all counts. And again, the British Supreme Court heard the case, and ruled against him on all counts.
But no no, who needs a pesky legal system when we have Amazing Kreskin here to tell us about how it's all a setup! Screw those lying b****s, right?
Heck, Assange's attorneys have all but admitted that he did it. Check out Emmerson's court statements, where he bloody admits that Assange started F*ing SW unprotected while she was asleep. Let it not be forgotten that the courts have SW's SMS records from that night where she's bitterly complaining about about how Assange keeps trying t F* her unprotected despite her telling him again and again and how annoyed she's getting about that), testimony from a friend and a family member she chatted with right before the event while she was out buying breakfast, and on and on, making it pretty unambiguous that she'd been refusing unprotected sex - something that neither Assange nor his attorneys have contested. Emmerson tries to argue that consent is implied because she didn't immediately push Assange out when she woke up to him F*ing her. But that's of course a nonsense legal claim. One, you can't get "retroactive consent", it has to be present from the beginning. Two, F*ing a sleeping person is explicitly illegal in both Swedish and British law; the fact that it was done in a manner she had been explicitly refusing is merely listed as an aggravating factor. Three, the reason she'd been refusing unprotected sex was paranoia about STDs, and it was already too late, she'd have to go to the hospital either way (just ignoring the "shock" aspect, which I can tell you is *very* real; it was already too late. As her ex boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified, she was so paranoid about unprotected sex that she not once allowed it in their entire relationship, and *still* made him get an STD test.
His freaking *defense* attorneys are admitting that he did it, so why should anyone be surprised that court after court keeps condemning him? And it's not like this is anything new for Assange. He had allegations of stalking against a 17-year-old [gawker.com] before he got famous. Even whistleblowers he's worked with for Wikileaks [dailymail.co.uk] have accused him of sexual aggression. This is a guy who wrote on his own blog [cryptome.org] about how womens' brains can't do math and how he's a god to women, and how his ghostwriter who spent months with him documented (with recorded transcripts) an unending litany of creepy sexual behavior,
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't need to be innocent for it to be a convenient situation for those who want to extradite him.
He can be both guilty of rape, and not deserving of what they'll do to him when they finally get him into the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
when they finally get him into the U.S.
Where does this keep coming from? He has not been charged with any crime in the US, nor have any judicial proceedings even been started against him. Sweden can't extradite him for this even if they wanted to. So why do people keep talking about this as a ploy to have him extradited to the U.S.? There is exactly as much proof (or even logic) that this whole thing is a US-led plot as there is that this was a plot by the U.K. to get him to flee there. Or that this was a plot led by Ecuador, Afghanistan or Vanu
Re: (Score:2)
Apply Occam's razor (gently).
Yes, lets. Sweden is, for the first time ever, refusing to interview a suspect abroad at their current location. So either they find something exceptional about him, or it was just a coincidence. The most simple answer is that there's something exceptional about him, and US involvement, or Swedish politics seem the most likely culprits. When asked for confirmation either way, the Swedes refuse to comment or clarify. If it were a simple matter, they'd have no reason not to. So the most simple explanati
Re: (Score:2)
"If he didn't want to be charged with a fairly serious CRIME, then don't commit the crime".
Have you ever heard of the "presumption of innocence"? It is morally and legally wrong to imply that Assange committed any crime, until he has been convicted in a court of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. There's nothing immoral in saying that Assange committed sex crimes, given evidence (which seems pretty strong, from where I sit). It would be immoral to deprive him of rights based on that, before conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to bum around Europe raping women, it is best not to piss off the world's most powerful governments
I would state that in an if-and-only-if form. It's also a bad idea to piss off the world's most powerful governments and then go bum around Europe raping women.
And, y'know, raping people in and of itself is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Svea Court of Appeals held a full court hearing, with a jury, a review of all the evidence
Apart from libel or press freedom cases, there is no jury system in Sweden.
One, you can't get "retroactive consent", it has to be present from the beginning.
Sweden does not have a consent requirement. Rape is defined as either the victim being incapacitated or sexual acts against the explicit objections of the victim. As she woke up, she does not fall under the incapacitated requirement, as she did not clearly object despite him being honest about the lack of protection there was no violation with her objecting. The facts of the case simply will not result in a rape conviction unless sig
Re: (Score:2)
First, I think you're wrong. A rapist will often not face explicit objections, having made it clear what will happen if he hears them. If I threaten a woman's baby, and tell her to shut up and cooperate, I'm not likely to hear explicit objections. I can't imagine that not counting as rape in any civilized country.
Second, asleep is incapacitated. A sleeping woman can't object and can't protect herself until she wakes up. By the time the woman woke up, the sex act was underway, so even by your dubious
Re: (Score:2)
Coercion would of course obviate the need for explicit objections. There was no coercion here.
There are of course grey scales of coercion as well. Physical threats would definitely get ruled as rape, but there have been cases where the woman didn't object because she felt like she'd be considered a spoilsport or not cool enough. Those cases have generally not been considered rape by Swedish courts. Unless the law gets changed to include a consent requirement, the courts are quite straight forward on that po
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden does not have a consent requirement.
Consent was given. It was just conditional. Lying to meet those requirements is perfectly legal in the US, and not in Sweden. That's why there is such a misunderstanding. What he did would have been 100% legal in the US. But he wasn't in the US, but the Slashdotters have trouble separating out jurisdiction, and speak as if the US should force the world to live under US law.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, Sweden does not _have_ a consent requirement. There have been discussions about changing the law to include that, but that is not the law today.
As he did not lie when asked about protection and she did not object it was not rape as Swedish law would currently classify rape.
Re: (Score:2)
A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter`s consent;
He had consent to have sex (with conditions that were not met). The realization that the conditions were not met was not know until later.
/My reading of NY law would have his acts legal in NY. But I'm not an NY lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Your biased assessment would make more sense if Anna Ardin didn't work for the CIA...
Re: (Score:2)
Aftermatch: Nothing.
The other informed in leading roles, including other ministers indicated that this was vetted by the ministry of foreign affairs and ultimately the minister.
Coincidentally and very unfortunate, she had been murdered by a madman when the story broke, and I think that took the edge out of any public or criminal investigation.
I think a lot of people hid behind this unfortunate event - she was definitely informed, but since the gentlemen in question where allegedly two very dangerous terr
Rape Apologetics Go Here (Score:2, Insightful)
Live down to expecations, Slashdot.
Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here (Score:5, Insightful)
This wasn't a rape, it was a CIA setup. Anyone remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn [wikipedia.org], the IMF chief who made the tragic mistake of challenging the U.S. dollar [guardian.co.uk]? A few months aftr he started proposing a new global currency to replace the dollar, he suddenly became a rapist. They dragged him off a plane in New York in handcuffs and everything. Prosecutor announced it was a rock solid case. His political career was destroyed, he was ousted as IMF head. Then exactly three days after his successor at the IMF was sworn in, suddenly the prosecutor dropped the charges and admitted that the case was bogus.
Character assassination it *SO* much easier than assassination with a bullet. I'm just surprised that Edward Snowden hasn't been accused of being a child molester yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Or, you know, he sexually assaulted people. It happens. Look at Bill Cosby.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, sometimes proposing a new currency to replace the dollar will turn people into rapists. Happens all the time. Hey, maybe something similar happened with Assange. Leaking U.S. classified information transformed him into a vicious sexual predator.
Fucking with the U.S. government is kind of like a werewolf bite, I guess. One minute an upstanding citizen, fuck with U.S. government, next thing you know you're raping every strange woman who shows up at your hotel room door offering sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And this part of the story should have been an even bigger media circus than the initial accusation, but mysteriously wasn't. Hmm....
Re: (Score:2)
Think about how much dirt the CIA has or can easily get on people. Would you rather have one story or years of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the rape setup was a squeeze play perpetrated by the maid and her accomplice. DSK was a habitue of sex clubs/prostitutes, making it seem not unlikely that his aristocratic privilege and sexual appetite would have led him to be vulnerable to that situation.
On top that, the idea of replacing the dollar with another currency was hardly some new idea, it's an idea that has floated around for a long time. It doesn't seem plausible that a conspiracy against one man would be enough to suppress this idea if
Re: (Score:3)
This wasn't a rape, it was a CIA setup. Anyone remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn [wikipedia.org], the IMF chief who made the tragic mistake of challenging the U.S. dollar [guardian.co.uk]? A few months aftr he started proposing a new global currency to replace the dollar, he suddenly became a rapist. They dragged him off a plane in New York in handcuffs and everything. Prosecutor announced it was a rock solid case. His political career was destroyed, he was ousted as IMF head. Then exactly three days after his successor at the IMF was sworn in, suddenly the prosecutor dropped the charges and admitted that the case was bogus.
DSK? The guy who was accused of forcing a hotel maid to give him a beej against her will? The guy who said he never met the maid and has no idea what anyone's talking about? The guy who then said yeah, he met her when she cleaned his room, but the door was open and nothing happened? The guy who then said, yeah, the door was closed, but nothing happened? The guy who then said, well, he was naked and the door was closed, but nothing happened? The guy who then said, well, she gave him a beej, but she was total
Re: (Score:1)
Probably just an incredible coincidence.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you live under a rock, or are you willfully ignorant? You are being disingenuous. It may not be a CIA setup, but it is politically motivated, and all the signs point to the US.
The allegations are fictitious [paulcraigroberts.org]. There is an arrest warrant without charges. How much more obvious does it need to be that this is a sham?
There are no charges outstanding against Assange. The two women he has alleged to have raped deny that they were raped. The Swedish Chief Prosecutor investigated and closed the case.
Do you have even the slightest bit of conscience?
Re: (Score:2)
Learn how the Swedish legal system works, and you'll understand why: charges cannot be formally filed UNTIL he is given the interview for which the extradition request was filed.
It was described as the only time in history where Sweden knew exactly where someone wanted for an interview was extradited, rather than interviewed. Also, he was interviewed. Then let go, only to be re-interviewed, of they require an interview before charges, and he's been interviewed already, why do they need to do it again?
Re: (Score:3)
And you'll note the date on that article: July 5, 2011.
I wonder what else happened on July 5, 2011. Oh yeah, I remember now [buenosairesherald.com].
Re: (Score:2)
As for Assange, that guy is obviously a complete sociopath and misogynist. Which makes him being a rapist a lot more likely than not.
"obviously"
Geez, I hope you never get called for jury duty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here
Live down to expecations, Slashdot.
If allegedly lying about wearing a condom counts as rape after the fact and justifies extradition, then we should designate all women, who ever allegedly lied about not wearing a female condom, or who allegedly lied about being on birth control, as rapists as well. After all, it works both ways.
I guess we'll have to wait until a woman republishes embarrassing US State secrets for that to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it counts as a prosecutable offence in both the UK and Sweden as the courts have repeatedly shown.
Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here (Score:5, Informative)
If allegedly lying about wearing a condom counts as rape
It doesn't, and that's not why he's anklagad for rape. The charges section in the EAW is filled out thusly:
#4 has the checkbox for raped ticked, and #4 alone. #1 is unlawful sexual coersion and concerns AA. #2 is molestation and concerns AA. #3 is molestation and concerns AA. #4 is rape and concerns SW.
Given that you're so ignorant of the case that you don't even know the basic facts of what he's actually charged with (really, how much less about the case could you possibly know than that?), mistaking a minor molestation accusation (#2) for the rape accusation (#4), perhaps you should think before spouting off publicly about how the guy's clearly innocent and the accusers are just lying sluts?
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps you should think before spouting off publicly about how the guy's clearly innocent and the accusers are just lying sluts?
Using that word "sluts" to call those women says a lot more about you than it says about me. I assume this means you were raised in a place where most of the people around you still hold puritanical beliefs.
My personal problem with the non-condom related rape allegations is that the women continued their relationships with Julian Assange and even bragged publicly about having sex with Julian Assange.
Now granted, I'm not opposed to reclassifying the legal definition of rape to make it slightly broader than i
Re: (Score:2)
The impression I got was that both women were planning to have sex with him, but on their terms. This doesn't mean they can't be raped.
Rape and sexual assault victims vary widely in what they will do after the crime. Some victims in fact deny to themselves that the assault ever occurred, and try to go on precisely as before. I don't think this is a healthy reaction, but it happens.
As far as Assange goes, in what way is he being treated oddly? There were credible allegations of sex crimes, and he wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that is the claim of the *prosecutor* and not the claim of the women actually involved.
Wrong. These charges were the result of specific complaints by both of the ladies involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here Live down to expecations, Slashdot.
If allegedly lying about wearing a condom counts as rape after the fact and justifies extradition, then we should designate all women, who ever allegedly lied about not wearing a female condom, or who allegedly lied about being on birth control, as rapists as well. After all, it works both ways.
I guess we'll have to wait until a woman republishes embarrassing US State secrets for that to happen.
I don't think any woman in history has ever lied about not wearing a female condom... You've never actually seen a female condom, have you? Lying about wearing one would be like an amputee lying about having both legs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any woman in history has ever lied about not wearing a female condom... You've never actually seen a female condom, have you? Lying about wearing one would be like an amputee lying about having both legs.
Diaphragm was actually the word I was looking for.
Stop hitting yourself! (Score:1, Funny)
the Court of Appeal considers that Julian Assange's stay at the embassy shall not count in his favor since he can himself choose to bring his stay there to an end.
This is the "grown-up language" version of "Stop hitting yourself!".
At this point the UK should just tell Sweden to stop abusing the extradition treaties and let Assange go.
Re: (Score:2)
Every level of the UK court system up to and including the Supreme Court has affirmed the Swedish legal system's actions concerning Assange. So try again.
By the way, you apparently don't even know that what's being discussed here is surrender, not extradition. And if you think there's no difference, you're quite wrong, the two terms are absolutely not interchangeable.
the NERVE of them swedes! (Score:2, Funny)
I believe all convicted rapists should be forgiven after three years holed up in an ecuadorian consulate.
Moderator and AC are MORONS! (Score:3, Informative)
Convicted rapist? The two women claim that the charges were made up [paulcraigroberts.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, if paulcraigroberts.org says it, then clearly it must be true!
It's a reprint of a Pilger article, Pilger being one of Assange's main misinformation spreaders. First off, there's not even rape charges (yes, they're on the EAW as charges, in the charges section, enumerated as charges, and ruled by the British court system to be equivalent to charges) concerning the "women" plural. There's a rape charge (singular) concerning one woman (SW) and three lesser charges concerning the other woman (AA). AA has
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
He is not convicted. He is not even accused. He is wanted for "questioning", and the presumed rape victims are not interested. Sweden refuses to do the questioning in the embassy, and Sweden refuses any guarantee that they will not hand him over to the U.S.A. once their questioning completes (or even starts) without leading anywhere, to be treated to watersports in Cuba and, should he not suffer an unfortunate decease from some doubtless preexisting condition, hole him up for three decades under inhuman
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you're trying to be funny, a falsehood is still a falsehood. So kindly please stop saying things that we know are untrue. Assange has neither been charged with nor convicted of rape. He is innocent until proven guilty, no matter what we know about his actions and lifestyle.
The swedes want him for questioning in regards to two (if I recall correctly) alleged rapes. However it's unlikely that if he did return to Sweden that they would even be able to charge him let alone convict him of rape. But ge
Re: (Score:2)
Is it your opinion that somebody should be immune from questioning until convicted? The Swedish courts have decided that there's enough of a case to go forward.
Nor do you give any shred of reason why it would be harder to get Assange from Sweden than the UK, if the US in fact has any plans concerning him, which seems to be baseless (if not entirely implausible) speculation.
Julian leaks vital material (Score:1)
One of the things the alleged victims claim is that he tore one condom and insisted on continuing, and in the other case kept insisting on *not* using a condom.
The article about this in The Guardian, at http://www.theguardian.com/med... [theguardian.com], is pretty damning. Even if the women quoted there did not consider it rape, he's an *amazing* jerk and I'm stunned they didn't kick his ass right out into the cold night air, preferably without his clothes.
disgraceful lawyering (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that lawyers aren't exactly known for being honourable but some of the arguments Assange's lawyers have used have been a best naive and at worst disgraceful. They complained to the UK courts that the cost to to "guard" the Ecuadorian embassy (£10000/day) was not a justifiable use of money and therefore they should just let Julian go. Or to the Swedish courts that he has spent so long trapped in the embassy that to prosecute and potentially jail him would be a double punishment.
If you choose to skip bail and hide in an embassy then you have to accept the consequences.
It was never about the costs (Score:3)
It was about keeping him (and others for that matter) in line. And making example of him being grounded, cuffed, locked, deported, tried and all of it televised.
If you let one disobey, more of those will appear, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Either way, system win. Assange's statue of limitations ends in 2022, which is, what, 10 years being locked in one room?
If he does survive, he will be an example for others. Actually he already was an example, which keeps giving.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no statute of limitations in play here, as his case is actively being pursued and he is acting as a fugitive to that pursuance. He can stay in the embassy for 50 years and the case could still be taken up in the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there is no case. He is not wanted for any crime by Sweden. He is wanted for questioning. In nearly any other western country, you could tell the police to piss off, but not Sweden. They can arrest you just to talk to you, but choosing to not talk to them is not a crime. The UK has made the bogus claim that, because he doesn't want to be arrested for such a thing, means that he is a fugitive of UK law. How preposterous. If an Englishmen in America didn't want to talk to the police of Mozambique that does not mean in itself that the Americans can reasonably arrest him for being a fugitive of US law.
They can take you into custody to question you in the US, also. You don't have to answer any of their questions, but they can definitely take you into custody.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, you are confused by the different jurisdictions. In Sweden you have the right to a speedy trial which puts timeframe limitations on when you can be charged. You can also only be charged following a formal interview. Assange is being disingenuous when he asks to be interviewed in London as he knows that the purpose of the interview is to charge him afterwards - and if Sweden do that then he can sit tight in the embassy and have the case dropped due to the speedy trial rules.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if in Sweden you're wanted for questioning, you can get all charges dropped by hiding for long enough? That doesn't sound right.
Re: (Score:2)
If you choose to piss off the powers that be then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.
FTFY
Everyone is all over Bill Cosby right now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The women testified under oath that he did rape them. That is why the Swedish government intends to charge him.
The Irony Is. . . (Score:2)
. . . a Swedish prison is probably NICER than the place he is staying now and his time in custody would count toward any sentence he might receive.
Assange is truly living in a prison built by his own mind, locked in his cell not by jailers, but by his own paranoia and megalomania.
Re: (Score:1)
He is not even charged. That is the insanity. They have not lodged changes, they just want to question him. Insane that they can issue an arrest warrant without associated charges
Re: (Score:1)
He is not even charged. That is the insanity. They have not lodged changes, they just want to question him. Insane that they can issue an arrest warrant without associated charges
Under the Swedish legal system ( like some others on the continent) he has to be questioned by the prosecutor before formal charges can be filed. They are attempting to do this now. Assange refuses to cooperate.
Re: (Score:2)
For someone who thinks they know so much about this, it's pitiful that you don't recognise that he's in a foreign embassy in the UK. Seriously, the fact you didn't know that speaks volumes of your hubris. Didn't God say something about not bearing false witness? Or is that fine when it's for a good cause?
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think a foreign embassy would keep the CIA out? They might try, but if the US wanted to do any extraordinary rendition they wouldn't let a little thing like that stop them. It's only Ecuador, after all, not a country the US has to respect. As far as extradition to the US goes, the US could have filed that while Assange was in the UK and before he headed for the embassy.
Re: (Score:2)
From the sworn statement of the Swedish prosecutor to the British courts: "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
The questioning is indeed a legal requirement to move the case forward, don't get me wrong. But it's not the point. The p
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I wish I had mod points, but Slashdot seems to give me them about once a month these days, despite Excellent karma.
+1 Insightful. This is character assassination.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is character assassination.
We won't know until the trial, will we? Perhaps there is a reason Assange refuses to go to trial to clear his name.
Re: (Score:2)
Trial? What trial? He's not being charged with a crime. Since he's not being charged with a crime, why do they need to question him in person?
Re: (Score:2)
Questioning the accused is the next step in the Swedish legal process before charges can be filed. A trial would follow that.
Re: (Score:2)
The investigation was formally closed after the two women retracted their allegations as false.
What exactly do you propose they want him for now?
Re: (Score:2)
And Sweden regularly questions people over the phone or internationally where convenient, yet refuses to do so for this case. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we know, because we know that Anna Ardin is more or less working for the CIA or at least various institutions that have a proven connection to the CIA - it's clear to anyone who can add 1+1.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no reason to doubt them, except for the fact that the two women who made the allegations retracted them as false and the investigation was formally closed.
Also, flamebait? Really mods? This is pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no innocents, only people awaiting prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
How long is the statute of limitations on rape in Sweden?
Yeah, I know it's a crass question...and presumably even if he hits that point they (the U.S.) will still manage to grab him somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does the NSA have to do with any of this?