Slashdot Mirror

The Swedish government (i.e. the executive branch) cannot make promises about extradition, as that is a matter for the judicial system. But the judicial system cannot rule on whether to grant an extradition request until one is received. If a minister tried to force their will through anyway, then that would be ministerial rule, which violates the constitution.

If an extradition request was made once Assange was in Sweden, it would have to be approved by both Swedish and UK courts due to them both following the European Arrest Warrant Act.

So I disagree with your premise that it is easy for Sweden to make such promises, when it seems to involve breaking both their constitution and EU law. It would be easier to just extradite Assange from UK directly.

The actual situation

Director of Public Prosecution, Ms Marianne Ny, has today decided to discontinue the investigation regarding the suspected rape (lesser degree) by Julian Assange. The motive is that there is no reason to believe that the decision to surrender him to Sweden can be executed in the foreseeable future.
– Almost 5 years ago Julian Assange was permitted refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has resided ever since. In doing so, he has escaped all attempts by the Swedish and British authorities to execute the decision to surrender him to Sweden in accordance with the EU rules concerning the European Arrest Warrant. My assessment is that the surrender cannot be executed in the foreseeable future, says Marianne Ny.

According to Swedish legislation, a criminal investigation is to be conducted as quickly as possible. At the point when a prosecutor has exhausted the possibilities to continue the investigation, the prosecutor is obliged to discontinue the investigation.

– At this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted. In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.

– If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately, says Marianne Ny.

As a result of the decision to discontinue the investigation, the prosecutor has reversed the decision to detain him in his absence and withdrawn the EAW.

– In view of the fact that all prospects of pursuing the investigation under present circumstances are exhausted, it appears that it is no longer proportionate to maintain the arrest of Julian Assange in his absence. Consequently, there is no basis upon which to continue the investigation, says Marianne Ny.

Translation of the decision (pdf)

Case no. in Stockholm District Court: B 12885-10

Press service
+46 10 562 50 20

If he's handed over to the British, he'll go to jail for his violation of the terms of his bail; there's already a warrant out for him for this. During this time, Sweden can decide to reopen the case, now that he's available, if they choose. The three misdemeanors (2x molestation, 1x unlawful sexual coersion) have hit the statute of limitations, but the rape filing has a couple years left before its statute of limitations expires.

I'm not in Sweden, but from other more knowledgeable sources, I'm led to believe that this is indeed legal.

Really, very little has changed. The charges have not been dropped. Rather, the case has been suspended. In fact, the official statement sounds more like Sweden is saying "there's nothing else to do unless he comes out", so they're not putting more resources into the investigation until new options present themselves.

Guess I'll have to do it. Boldfacing the interesting parts, which for some reason Slashdot didn't bother covering in the summary.

The investigation against Julian Assange is discontinued

19-05-2017
Director of Public Prosecution, Ms Marianne Ny, has today decided to discontinue the investigation regarding the suspected rape (lesser degree) by Julian Assange. The motive is that there is no reason to believe that the decision to surrender him to Sweden can be executed in the foreseeable future.

– Almost 5 years ago Julian Assange was permitted refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has resided ever since. In doing so, he has escaped all attempts by the Swedish and British authorities to execute the decision to surrender him to Sweden in accordance with the EU rules concerning the European Arrest Warrant. My assessment is that the surrender cannot be executed in the foreseeable future, says Marianne Ny.

According to Swedish legislation, a criminal investigation is to be conducted as quickly as possible. At the point when a prosecutor has exhausted the possibilities to continue the investigation, the prosecutor is obliged to discontinue the investigation.

– At this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted. In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.

– If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately, says Marianne Ny.

As a result of the decision to discontinue the investigation, the prosecutor has reversed the decision to detain him in his absence and withdrawn the EAW.

– In view of the fact that all prospects of pursuing the investigation under present circumstances are exhausted, it appears that it is no longer proportionate to maintain the arrest of Julian Assange in his absence. Consequently, there is no basis upon which to continue the investigation, says Marianne Ny.

I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.

The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.

Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law. (you can go back to lecturing the television now)

The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.
Source:(Swedish) Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny

They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly. Assange isn't a head of state, he is a fugitive from allegations of rape that should be answered in the criminal justice system like any other.

Can Assange be extradited from Sweden to the USA?

The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU. In short, the country that wants a person extradited needs to hand in a formal request to the Ministry of Justice.

Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA.

Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country.

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey for further detail on this.)

Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

(See Mark Klamberg’s blog for further information on this.)

You've fallen for a line of nonsense.

Actually he did NOT have Swedish authorities' permission to leave. He just fled as soon as he found out they were continuing the investigation on molestation (v.s. rape). Also, none of your second paragraph is quite correct. Timeline (2010):

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 and suspends the case.
Aug 22: Swedish Prosecution Authority continues investigation because there seems to be enough evidence for charges of molestation (different from rape).
Aug 22: Assange learns of investigation and publicly denies everything.
Aug 25: Preliminary rape investigation was discontinued by CPP.
Aug 27: Womens' attorney requested a review of the CPP's decision to terminate.
Aug 30: Police question Assange. He denies, claims consensual sex.
Sep 1: Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) overrides CPP, resumed all original investigation on rape.
Sep 27: DPP notifies Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.
Sep 27: Assange flees Sweden.
Oct 18: Sweden denies Assange's work/residence permit request.
Nov 18: DPP orders detention. Judge issues European Arrest Warrant.

As you can plainly see, the molestation accusations were NEVER dropped. And since he left even though he knew he was under investigation for molestation, he clearly paid to leave, and he should pay to return and face responsibility. Maybe he's innocent, maybe he's not. Maybe the law is unfair and maybe not. Certainly he could have gone to court like most people, faced the judge, and argued his case, and possibly won. But the fact is he's tried for years to avoid facing responsibility. And the Swedish prosecutors, along with a judge, feel they have sufficient evidence against him for his arrest and his day in court. His continued fight against this is not helping by making him look innocent, if anything he is tending to prejudice the case against him.

The only reason he has managed to avoid this so far is because of his involvement in Wikileaks, and the resultant political help from Ecquador. He's using politics and the cloud of US extradition over Wikileaks to avoid Swedish prosecution. Just like certain Wall Street execs avoided prosecution for violating laws - politics over justice.

There is an accurate Swedish prosecution timeline at http://www.aklagare.se/In-Engl...

Wikipedia info with LOTS of citations at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Forgot to link a reference to the statute of limitations part: link

The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.

That's straight from the prosecutor's office website. Strange how much coverage of this decision hasn't mentioned this basic fact.

I'm not missing the point - Sweden does not have to question him in the UK, that's their prerogative. And the extradition judge agrees with Sweden on this because it was one of Assanges defence teams points that he specifically rejected in their appeal.

The whole "question him in the UK" thing is nothing but a load of bollocks pro-Assange followers use to cloud the issue.

And I don't have to be naive at all - if the US wanted him, they could have had him from the UK much easier than from Sweden. So why the hop to Sweden if the final destination is reachable just as easily from the UK? That's where pro-Assange followers fail to make sense.

Even Assanges *defence* witness in the extradition hearings said that follow on extradition to the US COULD NOT HAPPEN. And yet pro-Assange followers ignore what Assanges own witnesses say!

Read the ruling, its quite informative.

http://www.aklagare.se/PageFil...

Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.

To respond to your specific comments:

The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.

I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.

There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.

My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.

Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).

I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.

If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.

The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.

Perhaps, mhenriday, you might want to do a smidgeon of research before claiming that someone else is wrong: straight from the Swedish Prosecution Authority website. The Svea court decisions are also cited in the UK trial transcripts, which you've also never read.

Since you've made it so blatantly obvious that you're just listening to an echo chamber and are so grossly ignorant on the case that you don't even know what trials there have been, why should I even bother going into the rest of your post? How about YOU inform yourself and then let me know when you're actually ready to have a serious discussion on the matter. Step 1: read that timeline. Step 2: read the three British court decisions. Step 3: read the police report: .

THEN we can have a serious talk.

The guy is not a saint, and he is a bit of an ass, but without paper guarantee that he will NOT be extradited out of sweden at any time in the future and will be allowed to leave sweden by whatever means and in whatever direction he chooses once he has faced his charges in swedish court and served any jail time or done whatever service is due because of his crime. Without that he is perfectly legitimate in being fucking terrified of going back there.

There's a number of legitimate reasons preventing the Swedish government from issuing a guarantee like that. For example, Swedish government officials are constitutionally prohibited from commenting on or interfering with individual cases. It's called Ministerstyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre

The Swedish Prosecution office has some relevant info here: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter

I am expressly not listing any elements involving the validity of the allegations themselves, but only such ones that may influence Assange that are outside the scope of the alleged crimes. There is more to be said (see links in the text), but here are the main points of swedish behaviour which are likely to trouble Assange:

• Preliminary investigation: failures to follow procedure and the probable biais of an investigating officer due to personal acquaintance with one of the defendants unfortunately put the investigation itself in a bad light.
• No case: the investigation was opened, closed, then re-opened on request of the lawyer representing the two women. The investigators themselves did not consider the evidence sufficient for court.
• Proportionality: the fact that Assange has already been held in house arrest for over 500 days and faces at least short imprisonment in Sweden prior to any trial raises serious proportionality concerns. Given this result, I believe the argument of Assange's lawyers in court, that the use of an European Arrest Warrant simply in order to further an investigation before any actual prosecution takes place is disproportionate, to be valid. However, opionions are divided on this issue.
• Questioning in the UK: there is no legal problem whatsoever for the prosecutor to do this outside of Sweden, and indeed Sweden has questioned defendants or suspects abroad in the past. This is a decision that is entirely up to the prosecutor, and that decision has not satisfactorily been explained (audio interview with Swedish prosecution authority). Only recently, one justification has been given, and it is essentially one of prestige, which is a rather poor explanation given the fears expressed by Assange and the lack of any non-extradition guarantees by the Swedish government. I would be very curious to know what the real justification was before the case blew up.
• Connections: as mentioned in previous post.
• Expected future behaviour: opinions expressed in the press by Swedish journalists and intellectuals have become virulent, to say the least. Along with the media, public opinion has swayed in disfavor of Assange, giving cause for Assange to fear a fair trial, should it ever come to one. This case would likely collapse before any trial, according to Ove Bring, professor Emeritus of the Swedish national defence college (see previous link). However, with media and public opinion and concerns of prestige being as they are, this has become less likely. Interestingly, similar reasons may be given to argue that an actual extradition from Sweden to the US has become even less probable. It would go down very poorly in the court of global, public opinion should Sweden do so after months of trying to get him to return to Sweden for completely unrelated reasons. Personally, I believe Assange's fears have alway also centered around receiving a fair trial. With time, this fear has probably become increasingly real.

He admitted that he intended to build a nuclear reactor, and accepted a summary punishment. Summary punishment is only handed out for fines and/or conditional sentences, which means he got fined and/or a conditional sentence.

Summary punishment: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecute/Summary-punishment/

Original article in swedish: http://hd.se/angelholm/2011/08/01/forsokte-bygga-karnreaktor-i/

Your entire post shows a shocking lack of understanding of the facts concerning extradition from Sweden to the US. So, I will now proceed to educate you.

From the Swedish Prosecution Authority's web site, concerning extradition:

Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations.

Concerning surrender to another country within the European Union, the Act states that the executing country under certain circumstances must approve a further surrender.

On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA.

So, there are three possible ways he'll end up in the US facing trial:
1) Legally - by being extradited directly from the UK;
2) Legally - by being extradited from Sweden, with the approval of the UK required as a condition of extradition;
3) Illegally - by being abducted from the UK or Sweden by the CIA, and brought back to the states to face trial;

1 & 2 are, effectively, identical: The UK, by international treaties, *must* approve of his extradition, either directly from the UK, or via Sweden. If Sweden refuses to ask for that approval, then they will open themselves up to - at the very least - penalties and sanctions from the UK, and most likely, penalties and sanctions on behalf of the entire EU for violating EU laws. So Sweden makes an unpopular move, and jeopardizes their standing in the EU, in return for... what? The US knocks a half a percent off a tariff for Volvo imports? Please.

3 is so far-fetched that it's not even really worth considering. If we're going to engage in illegal means to silence Assange, he'll be found dead in an alley somewhere in the UK or Sweden, a victim of an apparent mugging-gone-wrong. Abducting him and bringing him back to the states from an EU member state would incur the wrath of the *entire* European Union, and likely most of the UN as well. It wouldn't be a secret that we were trying him: it's not like nobody from the outside world gets to see the prisoners at Guantanamo, and they'd have a hell of a hard time publicizing a trial of Assange here in the states, but saying "But make sure you don't tell the Europeans we got him!" No, if silencing him was important enough to risk all of that international fallout, he'd simply be found dead in a London alley.

Frankly, Assange and his supporters seem to have a messianic complex. Would the US government love to throw charges at him and punish him for embarrassing them? Sure. Will they get to? Almost certainly not, unless the UK suddenly (and drastically) changes their tune about extradition for death penalty cases. Would any of those charges stick anyway? Very probably not, unless there's some very solid evidence that he wasn't just a "receiver" of classified data, but in fact instigated the breach and manipulated the alleged leaker, PFC Manning.

So, we won't get him legally (you even suggested that there's "no way the UK would agree"), so the only way the government would get him would be illegally, with all of the fallout that would entail - and frankly, I doubt a loudmouthed misogynist with a web site is all that important, or worth the effort to silence. Wikileaks will continue running without him, and might even - without the liability of his ego - do a better job without him.

I am undoing moderation to do this but...

The website of the Swedish prosecutors contains a statement from Marianne Ny alongside some carefully-chosen facts about how and when someone could be extradited from Sweden to the USA . Apparently it can't be done if the UK doesn't agree to it as well.

I couldn't get it either. Here's the Google cache of today's page. Nothing now about rape. (The Wayback machine doesn't post their archive for 6 months.)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r4aH7lgv3p8J:www.aklagare.se/In-English/+http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/,&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en|lang_de

This is Google's cache of http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Dec 7, 2010 17:21:50 GMT.

Statement from Director of Prosecution, Ms. Marianne Ny

Today British Police have arrested Mr. Assange. Director of Prosecution Ms. Marianne Ny has issued the European arrest warrant, due to which the arrest was executed. The arrest warrant is based on an order for arrest and detention by the Svea Court of Appeal.

Marianne Ny states:
- Apart from the arrest, nothing new has happened in the investigation, but the arrest is a prerequisite for continuing the investigation. I cannot give information on the next step, as the matter at the moment is handled by British authorities.

The prosecutor emphasizes that this matter exclusively concerns Mr. Assange as a private person.

- I would like to clarify that there have by no means been any political pressure on my decision making. I act as a prosecutor due to suspicions of sexual crimes in Sweden in August. Swedish prosecutors are completely independent in their decision making, says Ms. Ny.

Director of Prosecution

Marianne Ny

+46 31 739 41 04

I complained to the BBC that Assange was not accused of "rape", and I got the following (reasonable) response from them:

Dear sir,
Regarding the allegations facing Julian Assange, the phrase used by the
Swedish authorities and widely repeated throughout the Swedish as well
as British media is "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion".
According to the Swedish Prosecution Authority website
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/, these are the exact allegations against him.

BBC News Website.

Strangely, I just checked that URL and the page is now blank.

I will leave it to other Slashdotters to look it up on the Google cache or the Wayback machine.

The same day this was written the Swedish prosecutors website released the following: http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Arresteringsorden-om-Assange-galler1/l
The text is about Assange's appeal against the charges being rejected by the Swedish Supreme Court and that they are going to request his arrest by British authorities.
According to translate.google.com it says:

Julian Assange is in custody in absentia of rape, sexual assault and coercion.

I guess the proper translation would be that he is accused of or wanted for those charges.

It also says on the website there will be another press release about Assange this afternoon. Should be interesting.

It sounds like you've missed the latest turn in the sequence of the prosecutor flip flopping. Here's a recap:

    20. August 2010: Duty prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand decides it looks like rape
    21. August 2010: Higher ranking prosecutor Eva Finné decides it doesn't
      1. September 2010: Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny decides actually it does look like rape

Source #1: http://www.thelocal.se/28704/20100901/
Source #2: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/

Why was Mr Assanges name published?

Normally, the Swedish Prosecution Authority do not publish the names of persons suspected of crime. The authority did not in this case initiate publication. Late on Friday night, a Swedish newspaper got hold of information concerning Mr Assange's arrest. When interviewed, the duty prosecutor confirmed the facts presented.

Source : http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/

Link

And now not even under suspicion: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/