Swedish Court Orders Detention of Wikileaks Founder Assange

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is likely to be detained for questioning over his alleged connection to a rape case. The Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, has requested the District Court of Stockholm to detain Assange, claiming that they have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogations. 'I request the district court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion,' Ny said in a statement."

Comments

[frost pisst]

[Hognoxious]

"I request the district court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion," Ny said in a statement."

Assange allegedly replied, "[citation needed]"

Re:I dunno man

[delinear]

[...] (as opposed to lawful coercion?)

I think that's usually referred to as "dating".

This will never end department is right

[dkleinsc]

The powers that be want Assange captured and made an example of. So if he's not done in by these charges, they'll find something else to go after him with, and keep trying until he's in prison, killed, or the world hates him. And that's not to say these charges aren't legit. It's just awfully suspicious, especially since the first time they went after him for this another prosecutor stepped in and had the matter dropped.

I think we can also safely give Assange the title of International Man of Mystery.

Re:This will never end department is right

[Idiomatick]

Rape is publicly damning. If he got busted for jaywalking or filesharing or poor parking or something obscure like wearing pink on a wednesday in some stupid little town. Then that would put people on his side.

Re:This will never end department is right

[DES]

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

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

Re:I dunno man

[JockTroll]

"Lawful coercion" does exist: it's called "arrest" or "detainment".

"Because You're Popular, You Get a Free Pass!"

[eldavojohn]

I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape.

So you get a free pass with the law because you're a celebrity?

Justice is blind. Try not to forget that.

Hell, I would argue that people in power are often egomaniacs who think they can get away with murder, rape, fraud, cheating, mistresses, etc. If you are a popular football player or billionaire or web sensation, you're probably doing whatever you want. I think the opposite logic is more applicable than yours. But, again, justice is blind so I don't think that should even be taken into account. If the accuser is a shill, the court and lawyers should be able to figure that out. If the accuser is not a shill, however, you would basically be protecting a rapist because he runs a site you like. Let justice run its course and just try to have faith in the Swedish Justice system.

As someone who is not popular, I'm not too keen on your line of reasoning regardless of how much I like or dislike Julian Assange.

Re:"Because You're Popular, You Get a Free Pass!"

[SuricouRaven]

Justice is blind. But Justice can still hear the jingling sound of a purse full of coins.

Re:"Because You're Popular, You Get a Free Pass!"

[Yvanhoe]

So you get a free pass with the law because you're a celebrity?

No, but you get bonus doubt when you pissed off the Pentagon and are depicted as a "dangerous individual" by an organization that has used and still uses a vast network of agents and has billions of funds (trillions ?) and has an exclusive de fact right to do things that would be illegal for anyone else to do (like killing people it doesn't like, sorry, "people that threathen US interest")

Justice is blind, sure, but don't forget that blind justice is also just a theory that we are trying to implement on imperfect human societies and that some people are actively trying to gain from the glitches of its implementations.

If justice is blind, it will hear Donald Rumsfeld in an international court of law in the same time as Assange is judged in Sweden. In the meantime, I am more worried about the suspected war criminal being not brought in front of a tribunal than about a borderline rapist (none of the victims actually charged him but in Sweden, a rape accusation automatically launches a legal procedure) that happens to be a very needed journalist in the present world.

Re:I dunno man

[Anonymous Coward]

Given Assange's choice of professions, I find it highly likely that government would start making up crap about him just to detain him. I don't like crying conspiracy, but given how much he's ticked officials off in the past...

well obviously

[roman_mir]

Clearly Julian Assange has committed a crime of raping the US intelligence and military, which is punishable by every means possible. He needs to be taken care of, he is clearly a sexual deviant, coercing the innocent intelligence and military structures into an uncomfortable position with him in a room in Stockholm.

Re:well obviously

[dnahelicase]

Clearly Julian Assange has committed a crime of raping the US intelligence and military, which is punishable by every means possible. He needs to be taken care of, he is clearly a sexual deviant, coercing the innocent intelligence and military structures into an uncomfortable position with him in a room in Stockholm.

I believe the safe word was "9-11!". I think the military would have just needed to say that and I'm sure he would have stopped..."

Argghhh

[zero.kalvin]

For fucks sake, they say they want to charge him, and then they let him go. Then they say they want to charge him, and yet again they say he can go. Now this. I mean come on, either you want him or not. Either you stand in the face of the bullies who are asking you to do this, or you bend all the way, there is no I am half-way bent.

Re:Argghhh

[dbIII]

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

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

Stockholm DA's daily planner

[Drakkenmensch]

10:00 - Arrest Assange for sexual assault

10:05 - Release Assange

11:15 - Arrest Assange for racketeering

11:17 - Release Assange

13:07- Arrest Assange for littering, release him then book him right back for excessive use of cusswords

13:19 - Release Assange, change mind, grab him by the collar as he leaves the precinct

14:03 - Have Kevin Spacey explain to me how Assange is really Keyzer Soze, let him go, then run after him after finding his whole story on Wikileaks is fabricated from fragments of my post-it board

Legal response

[Anonymous Coward]

(If you're not from Sweden this might be hard to understand, but yes, it's seen as culturally ok to claim rape several days after the fact - even if it was consentual at the time)

Press release by counsel for Julian Assange

LONDON, 2pm Thursday November 18, 2010

Mark Stephens of law firm Finers Stephens Innocent said today, “On the morning of 21 August 2010, my client, Julian Assange, read in the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen that there was a warrant out for his arrest relating to allegations of “rape” involving two Swedish women.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Legal response

[Anonymous Coward]

Followup from his Swedish counsel:

(Fellow Swedes on Slashdot, make your voices heard if you feel ashamed)

Letter from Swedish Counsel Bjorn Hurtig to English co-Counsel for Julian Assange.

Note Neither Mr. Assange nor Counsel, nor WikiLeaks have ever received a single written word, at any time, in any form, from Swedish authorities on the Swedish investigation against our editor.

From: Björn Hurtig
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Jennifer
Subject: SV: Our client

Dear Jennifer,

Enclosed You will find a copy of the documents that I have would like to send to the prosecutor. I have not been able to have the document translated in detail, but I will now tell You the most important things in it.

First of all I comment the ongoing investigation and tell the prosecutor that I have asked her several times that they should hear my client so that we can be aware of the accusations. They have said no to this initially (and by this I mean for several weeks). Furthermore I remind her that I several times have asked her to give me the evidence in the case. She has said no to this also. I then tell her that I have asked my questions informally and in writing and tell her about a formal request that I made 14 of September 2010. This formal request has not yet been formally answered, which I find to be a breach of Swedish law (23:18 Rättegångsbalken). I also tell her that Sweden has not followed art 6:3 of The European Convention of the 4 november 1950, because Julian has not been informed of the accusation in detail and in his own language. Neither has he been informed of the documents in the case in his own language. This is an incorrect behavior.

I then tell her that Julian is indeed willing to participate in a hearing. But I remind her that I asked her in writing (14 of September) if he was free to leave Sweden for doing buissines in other countries and that she called me and said that he was free to leave. This is important because it means that Julian has not left Sweden in trying to escape the Swedish justice. Then I reminds her that Julian and I several times have tried to give them dates when he could come to Sweden and participate in a hearing, for example I spoke to the second prosecutor Erika Leijnefors during week nr 40 and told her that Julian could participate in a hearing the 10 of October (a Sunday) or some day the following week. The prosecutor in charge (Marianne Ny) said no to this. Other times Marianne Ny has said no to our proposals due to that one of her policeofficers were sick or because the time did not suit her. This is also important because it shows that Julian has tried but Marianne Ny has said no. I go on remembering her that Julian has suggested that he could participate over a phone line and from an Australian Embassy. She has said not to this also. Then I tell her that Julian is willing to participate through a videoconference or to make a written statement over the accusation and the questions they may have. This is of utmost importance, since it shows his willingness to participate. I remind her of a ruling from our Highest Court; NJA 2007 s.337, in which the court did not put a man in custody although he was abroad and did not come to Sweden to participate in a hearing. It was not proportional to do such a thing, since he left Sweden rightfully (just like Julian) and thus did not try to escape the Swedish justice, he was willing to participate via phone or in writing and so forth.

In the second last section of the letter I tell the prosecutor that she should think of the damage that Sweden already has done to Julian by letting his name in public. I tell her that I have heard that there is a policeinvestigation going on about the first prosecutor who let Julians name out In public, which shows that it is a serious matter. If the prosecutor now goes forward with a request of Julian being put in custody it is my opinion that the damage could be enormous; whate

Re:Legal response

[SuricouRaven]

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

By all means, question him

[gman003]

"Nobody is above the law" is the principle Wikileaks seems to be standing for. Assange should not be exempt from the laws either. By all means, if there is sufficient evidence to warrant some questions, question him.

I personally have no opinion as to whether these charges are true or not - there just isn't enough data to support any conclusion. It could be an attempt to discredit the organization, or it could be true. So, then, go get the data, and examine the evidence, and see if there's even enough to warrant a trial.

Re:Innocent

[thijsh]

I think this isn't about a conviction, but rather casting doubt at the person. Wikileaks is already being associated as 'that rapist club' by people who only casually follow the news. Some see this latest news and ask 'is that creep still out raping those lovely women?'. You analyzed right, but doubt isn't a problem here, it's what they need most to discredit him and his organization.

Defense attourney's letter in English

[grimJester]

click

Re:Smear campaign

[Shakrai]

This is an attempt to discredit the Wikileaks website

Wikileaks has discredited themselves quite well all on their own. It started out as a site for people in oppressed countries to leak out information that their rulers would rather keep under wraps. It evolved into a site that would accept leaks from anyone. It then turned into a site whose primary propose seems to be to embarrass the United States Government.

Mind you, my Government deserves to be embarassed at times but this war that Assange is waging is hardly compatible with the lofty ideas that got Wikileaks started. Some of Wikileaks own people have said as much.

Statement by Julian Assange's counsel Mark Stephen

[grimJester]

here

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

Dont believe. This is a typical gladio operation.

[unity100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

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

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

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

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

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

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

in case you forgot, wikipedia has a habit of exposing any kind of information to public, including very, very disturbing dealings of united states government and corporations. things even u.s. citizens cannot access and uncover ...