Slashdot Mirror

Unfortunately, in Sweden you can (their judicial system is most criticized for being too defendant-friendly, hindering the effectiveness of investigations). The statute of limitations has already been run out for three of the four charges against Assange on the original EAW.

Even while Assange was hiding out from Sweden, he was able to repeatedly legally challenge the warrants against him (in absentia) in court. He lost each time, but IMHO that's not a bad strategy... hide out, challenge your warrant repeatedly, and hope that at least one argument sticks.

The US Court system is the fairest one one the world.

Actually, the World Justice Project collects data on the rule of law world wide, and provides a web interface in which you can easily rank countries by whatever metric you are interested in.

For example, by the fairness of the criminal court system, the top five countries in order are Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Singapore. The US is in eighteenth place. The factors taken into account include: impartiality, due process protections, timely trials, and recidivism rates.

For civil cases, the Netherlands takes top place, with US placing 25th. Factors include affordability of access to civil justice, timeliness, impartiality, effective enforcement of judgments, and absence of political interference.

In general the US is nowhere near the top in these rule-of-law factors, but it's far from a dystopia; in general it's above average, keeping company with countries like France, Spain, and South Korea. It's the Nordic countries that score the best in most categories, with Singapore scoring high in measures of efficiency, security, regulatory enforcement and non-corruption but posting mediocre scores in government transparency, constraints on government, and individual rights.

Seriously, that's the best you have, a case from over a decade and a half ago? No country is perfect, but when you have to reach back sixteen years to find something to damn them for., you're really stretching.

World Justice Project (which uses a peer-reviewed methodology to rank judicial systems from around the world; there are over 17 experts just for Sweden alone) ranks Sweden the best in the world in terms of fundamental rights. Their biggest weakness in the rankings? Letting criminals off too easily. But never mind that, because there was a single incident sixteen years ago involving two people who had no legal right to be in the country (versus Assange who has no legal right to *not* be in the country) and who had been misidentified as convicted terrorists being extradited, that means that the whole country is evil and corrupt and just loves to extradite people, right?

The fact is that the UK has been told they have to not only allow him his freedom, but have to also compensate him for the illegal detention they've put him under.

By a nonbinding body (WGAD) that rules in favour of almost all plaintiffs that come before it (usually unanimously, unlike in this case). Both the UK and Sweden have stated the WGAD ruling will have no bearing on the case at hand. Assange raised it in his most recent appeal with the Swedish courts (yet another in a long row of them). He lost.

The fact is that Sweden has and can interview him in the embassy, and were dragging their feet (read:political corruption).

Read: Ecuador is demanding that Sweden sign some sort of treaty - the exact details of which have not been publicly disclosed by either side - before they'll allow the prosecutors in, something that Sweden is against. This has been a stalemate for the past 16 months. Before that, Sweden had been insisting on the interview taking place in Sweden in order to follow the standard Swedish process, which is: 1) the initial investigatory phase is carried out, including any interviews 2) if the prosecutor believes charges to be likely and the subject will not voluntarily enter custody, the prosecutor recommends to a judge that the subject be formally anklagad (suspected of/charged with a crime); 3) the judge issues a warrant and the subject is brought into custody; 4) the subject is interviewed (for a second time, if there were interviews conducted in the initial phase), with every matter they are to be charged with put be put forth to them; 5) the subject is formally åtalad (charged/indicted); this begins a time limit on when the subject must be tried (although it can be extended if there are conditions that prevent the person from being tried immediately); and 6) the subject is tried (this cannot occur in absentia). As a general rule, while investigatory interviews are conducted anywhere, final interviews are conducted in Swedish custody, so that if the person is åtalad there is no risk that they could escape trial. This was the route sought by prosecutor Ny up until 2015, when - due to the shortage of time remaining on the lesser charges, and criticism from a lower court for her not seeking less conventional options to try to break the deadlock, Ny sought an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. The deadlock on this latter issue remains to this day.

The anklagad/åtalad distinction has often been a stumbling ground in the english-speaking press because it doesn't directly map to stages in US or British legal systems, which generally only recognize one stage of charging, while Sweden has two (one to bring a subject into custody, and one to initiate a trial). However, there is significant jurisprudence that anklagad equates to being charged within the context of an EAW - whatever language one chooses to use for other contexts.

A general summary of peer-reviewed rankings of the Swedish legal system on different aspects can be found here, more detailed information about what the categories mean and how they're assessed here (extremely detailed here and here) , and more detailed information in general here.

The fact is that the UK has been told they have to not only allow him his freedom, but have to also compensate him for the illegal detention they've put him under.

By a nonbinding body (WGAD) that rules in favour of almost all plaintiffs that come before it (usually unanimously, unlike in this case). Both the UK and Sweden have stated the WGAD ruling will have no bearing on the case at hand. Assange raised it in his most recent appeal with the Swedish courts (yet another in a long row of them). He lost.

The fact is that Sweden has and can interview him in the embassy, and were dragging their feet (read:political corruption).

Read: Ecuador is demanding that Sweden sign some sort of treaty - the exact details of which have not been publicly disclosed by either side - before they'll allow the prosecutors in, something that Sweden is against. This has been a stalemate for the past 16 months. Before that, Sweden had been insisting on the interview taking place in Sweden in order to follow the standard Swedish process, which is: 1) the initial investigatory phase is carried out, including any interviews 2) if the prosecutor believes charges to be likely and the subject will not voluntarily enter custody, the prosecutor recommends to a judge that the subject be formally anklagad (suspected of/charged with a crime); 3) the judge issues a warrant and the subject is brought into custody; 4) the subject is interviewed (for a second time, if there were interviews conducted in the initial phase), with every matter they are to be charged with put be put forth to them; 5) the subject is formally åtalad (charged/indicted); this begins a time limit on when the subject must be tried (although it can be extended if there are conditions that prevent the person from being tried immediately); and 6) the subject is tried (this cannot occur in absentia). As a general rule, while investigatory interviews are conducted anywhere, final interviews are conducted in Swedish custody, so that if the person is åtalad there is no risk that they could escape trial. This was the route sought by prosecutor Ny up until 2015, when - due to the shortage of time remaining on the lesser charges, and criticism from a lower court for her not seeking less conventional options to try to break the deadlock, Ny sought an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. The deadlock on this latter issue remains to this day.

The anklagad/åtalad distinction has often been a stumbling ground in the english-speaking press because it doesn't directly map to stages in US or British legal systems, which generally only recognize one stage of charging, while Sweden has two (one to bring a subject into custody, and one to initiate a trial). However, there is significant jurisprudence that anklagad equates to being charged within the context of an EAW - whatever language one chooses to use for other contexts.

A general summary of peer-reviewed rankings of the Swedish legal system on different aspects can be found here, more detailed information about what the categories mean and how they're assessed here (extremely detailed here and here) , and more detailed information in general here.

The fact is that the UK has been told they have to not only allow him his freedom, but have to also compensate him for the illegal detention they've put him under.

By a nonbinding body (WGAD) that rules in favour of almost all plaintiffs that come before it (usually unanimously, unlike in this case). Both the UK and Sweden have stated the WGAD ruling will have no bearing on the case at hand. Assange raised it in his most recent appeal with the Swedish courts (yet another in a long row of them). He lost.

The fact is that Sweden has and can interview him in the embassy, and were dragging their feet (read:political corruption).

Read: Ecuador is demanding that Sweden sign some sort of treaty - the exact details of which have not been publicly disclosed by either side - before they'll allow the prosecutors in, something that Sweden is against. This has been a stalemate for the past 16 months. Before that, Sweden had been insisting on the interview taking place in Sweden in order to follow the standard Swedish process, which is: 1) the initial investigatory phase is carried out, including any interviews 2) if the prosecutor believes charges to be likely and the subject will not voluntarily enter custody, the prosecutor recommends to a judge that the subject be formally anklagad (suspected of/charged with a crime); 3) the judge issues a warrant and the subject is brought into custody; 4) the subject is interviewed (for a second time, if there were interviews conducted in the initial phase), with every matter they are to be charged with put be put forth to them; 5) the subject is formally åtalad (charged/indicted); this begins a time limit on when the subject must be tried (although it can be extended if there are conditions that prevent the person from being tried immediately); and 6) the subject is tried (this cannot occur in absentia). As a general rule, while investigatory interviews are conducted anywhere, final interviews are conducted in Swedish custody, so that if the person is åtalad there is no risk that they could escape trial. This was the route sought by prosecutor Ny up until 2015, when - due to the shortage of time remaining on the lesser charges, and criticism from a lower court for her not seeking less conventional options to try to break the deadlock, Ny sought an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. The deadlock on this latter issue remains to this day.

The anklagad/åtalad distinction has often been a stumbling ground in the english-speaking press because it doesn't directly map to stages in US or British legal systems, which generally only recognize one stage of charging, while Sweden has two (one to bring a subject into custody, and one to initiate a trial). However, there is significant jurisprudence that anklagad equates to being charged within the context of an EAW - whatever language one chooses to use for other contexts.

A general summary of peer-reviewed rankings of the Swedish legal system on different aspects can be found here, more detailed information about what the categories mean and how they're assessed here (extremely detailed here and here) , and more detailed information in general here.

More to the point,

1) Someone surrendered under an EAW, in order to be extradited to a third state, requires the consent of both states taking part in the EAW request, rather than just one. Being extradited under an EAW only further complicates any attempts at third party extradition.

2) Sweden is one of the few countries whose extradition treaty with the US flatly bans extradition for military or intelligence crimes, and has a consequence long been a place to where defectors and spies flee (the most famous being Edward Lee Howard, the greatest CIA defector during the Cold War period)

3) Sweden was so mad at the US extradition program ignoring their ban on use of their airspace for extradition flights that they caused a diplomatic rift with the US in 2006 by disguising their special forces soldiers as airport workers to sneak aboard a suspected extradition plane. And how do we know about this event? Why, Wikileaks of course!

4) Sweden has the world's strongest whistleblower protections, so the point where it's not even legal to look for the source of a leak, let alone prosecute them for it.

5) While no country's judicial system is completely devoid of controversial cases (Sweden included), as a whole Sweden has one of the world's highest rankings on judicial fairness according to the peer-reviewed World Justice Project. They actually use it as an example of fairness when discussing how other countries can improve.

6) Assange himself thought so much of Sweden that he was applying for a residence permit there and repeatedly called Sweden his "shield". Funny how Sweden instantly became evil US lackeys the instant he was investigated for rape, isn't it?

More to the point,

1) Someone surrendered under an EAW, in order to be extradited to a third state, requires the consent of both states taking part in the EAW request, rather than just one. Being extradited under an EAW only further complicates any attempts at third party extradition.

2) Sweden is one of the few countries whose extradition treaty with the US flatly bans extradition for military or intelligence crimes, and has a consequence long been a place to where defectors and spies flee (the most famous being Edward Lee Howard, the greatest CIA defector during the Cold War period)

3) Sweden was so mad at the US extradition program ignoring their ban on use of their airspace for extradition flights that they caused a diplomatic rift with the US in 2006 by disguising their special forces soldiers as airport workers to sneak aboard a suspected extradition plane. And how do we know about this event? Why, Wikileaks of course!

4) Sweden has the world's strongest whistleblower protections, so the point where it's not even legal to look for the source of a leak, let alone prosecute them for it.

5) While no country's judicial system is completely devoid of controversial cases (Sweden included), as a whole Sweden has one of the world's highest rankings on judicial fairness according to the peer-reviewed World Justice Project. They actually use it as an example of fairness when discussing how other countries can improve.

6) Assange himself thought so much of Sweden that he was applying for a residence permit there and repeatedly called Sweden his "shield". Funny how Sweden instantly became evil US lackeys the instant he was investigated for rape, isn't it?

By "the history", you mean "the one case a decade and a half ago where Egypt lied to Sweden and told them that two people were convicted terrorists and promised to treat them well, getting them deported on the flight that Egypt arranged with the CIA", a case that caused such an uproar that the two were given residence, large financial compensation packages, and EU extradition law in general was changed so that countries had to have a history of upholding their promises for extradition to be allowed to proceed? The case that led to such an anti-rendition backlash in Sweden that in in 2006 Sweden had their special forces disguise themselves as airport workers to board a CIA jet and stop the extradition program from going through their territory, causing a major diplomatic incident with the US? A case that was exposed by.. wait for it.... Wikileaks!

While no country is perfect, Sweden has the #1 ranking in the world for the rights of the accused by the peer-reviewed World Justice Project. They have the world's best protections for whistleblowers - it's not even legal to investigate who leaked information in most cases, let alone prosecute. Assange thought so much of Sweden that he was moving there and setting up a new Wikileaks base of operations there - that's why he was in Sweden. He repeatedly called Sweden his shield, he thought so much of them. Right up until he was accused of rape, when suddenly Sweden magically transformed into an evil US lackey. Funny how that works.

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!

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. 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, 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.

As it happens, Russia is crafting whistleblower protections right now:

Hahahaha!
Stop it, you're killing me!
All too funny.

Russia hardly even tries any more to pretend that their media isn't a bunch of scripted reports with paid actors or that they're remotely a free, fair democracy. Heck, in the last election, Chechnya had 99.59% turnout with 99.82% voting for the "Butcher of Grozny". Some precincts were apparently so eager to vote for him that they had 107% turnout. Really impressive on Putin's part! ;) It's amazing that they can still find useful idiots like you to defend them.

The funny thing being that according to Wikileaks itself, in 2006 Sweden created a major diplomatic incident with the US by diguising their special forces as airport workers and hijacking a US rendition flight to stop the US from renditioning people through their airspace. The very Swedish foreign minister that Assange rails against (Carl Bildt) is the same guy who was prime minister when Sweden refused to hand over Edward Lee Howard to the US because Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence crimes.

No country is perfect, and every country has bad marks at some point on its record, so anyone who wants to can pick attacks for any country. However, in Sweden, these sort of things are few and far between. The peer-reviewed World Justice Project Rule of Law Index ranks Sweden #1 in the world for fundamental rights of the accused. Assange on at least two occasions called Sweden his "shield" before the incident due to their having such good whistleblower protections**, and was applying for residence there. It was only after he got anklagad for rape that he suddenly changed his tune and decided that Sweden is an evil US lackey bent on his downfall. Funny how that works.

(** It's actually those very whistleblower protections that are responsible for why we know so much about the case. In Sweden, it's illegal to even look for a person who leaks documents if they consider it whisteblowing; as a result, pretty much every high-profile criminal case in Sweden leaks like a sieve)

You are aware that a lack of regulation is what allowed Fukushima to go without being upgraded to a state that would have survive the earthquake and tsunami, even though the operator had been warned, right?

Interesting the World Justice Project Rule of Law index for 2012-13 rates Japan as having slightly more effective regulation than the US.

Alleged != Guilty - Not that it matters in the court of public opinion, as you just clearly illustrated ;)

He's hiding in an embassy because he is afraid of Sweden's criminal justice system. From the World Justice Project report ranking where Sweden ranks #2 overall in the world and #5 for criminal justice:

Sweden ranks first worldwide in four of eight dimensions--absence of corruption, fundamental rights, open government, and regulatory enforcement--and places in the top 10 in all dimensions. Sweden's administrative agencies and courts are rated among the most effective and transparent in the world. The country generally observes fundamental rights. Sweden's lowest score is in the area of civil justice, mainly because of perceived delays in court processes.

If Julian Assange was fleeing from the courts of Russia, China, Venezuela, or even the United States, I could understand. But fleeing from Sweden is a major red flag. He'll get a fair trial in Sweden. I wonder if that's what he's afraid of.

Right. Once incident 11 years ago means that the entire nation of Sweden is the Central Repository of Evil.

BTW, you know that Sweden was revealed to have refused to work with the US anymore after the details of that case came out (that the people reported to be convicted terrorists were not), right? You remember who leaked that information that they stopped cooperating?

Wikileaks.

Anyway, overall, Sweden has an excellent judicial fairness rating. Number one in the world in fundamental rights, and it's lowest ranking, #7, was for letting suspects off the hook too easily.