Slashdot Mirror


Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

concertina226 writes "Lawyers representing Julian Assange have demanded that he be questioned in London over rape and sexual molestation allegations. 'Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion. Assuming that the prosecutor does not have a prejudiced opinion regarding the question of guilt, and is prepared to treat the different versions objectively, it is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would benefit everybody, including the injured parties,' the lawyers wrote."

14 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Re:or stop hiding... by geogob · · Score: 4, Informative

    My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden. A compaint has been filed and he was wanted for interrogation over the filed complaint. Considering the deeper implications of travelling into Sweeden, I can understand his reluctance to do so, especially if he believes the complaint as no bases.

    Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.

  2. Re:or stop hiding... by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but the reason he's there is that the UK seemed to be about to extradite him to Sweden. He was quite happy living in the UK so long as it didn't mean going to Sweden.

    It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....

    What that other reason is is hard to tell, exactly. It might be that he is genuinely guilty-as-not-yet-charged in Sweden. Or it could just as easily be that he has an enormous ego, a superiority complex and a highly-developed paranoia that makes him see persecution in everything, whether it looks plausible to a sane person or not.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  3. Re:or stop hiding... by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assange's resistance to extradition to Sweden is I think because he believes he is more vulnerable to extradition lock away in a Swedish Jail, not because the extradition process is easier from there to the US than the UK, just that he won't be able to skip bail and the country locked away in a jail. EAW extradition proceedings from the UK to Sweden were in motion, he was out on bail when he skipped off into the Ecudorian embassy. If he had been charged in Sweden for rape, combined with the obvious flight risk someone like Assange represents, bail would have been very very high or not available. Assange's thinking is it would be at that point that the US would start extradition proceedings.

    An interesting point here is it is implicit that Assange will not stand and fight any extradition proceedings if he can skip the country. It is a strategy that has left him imprisoned in an embassy in London. Also it has effectively accomplished what the authorities of many countries wanted to achieve, he is trapped, with a progressively smaller political voice.

  4. Re:or stop hiding... by AGMW · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not sure the UK would have extradited him to the US, and if they agreed to do so it would have been _years_ of court battles before it happened (see Gary McKinnon, amongst others), and yet Sweden can, and do, just hand people over to the US, so from the US's point of view, they'd likely get their hands on Assange far quicker if he could be convinced to pop back to Sweden - at least that seems to be the argument put forward by Assange. FWIW, and having read around the subject quite a bit, I tend to agree with him - Assange would be a fool to voluntarily go back to Sweden at this time.

    Turns out that, as he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, he's already escaped the UK ...

    Swedish police have visited other countries to 'interview' suspects in the past - including murderers - and presumably will do so in the future, so it does seem a little odd that they're so reluctant to pop over to the UK to interview a suspected 'rapist' who has offered to assist countless times.

    The whole issuing of the European Arrest Warrant in the first place is decidedly odd too ... and brings into question the general use of such warrants.

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  5. Re:or stop hiding... by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you're saying his request to be treated like everybody else is actually a request to be treated different from everybody else?

  6. Re:or stop hiding... by cycler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No

    It isn't.

    And why should Sweden be more likely to hand his as over to the US when the UK has much tighter bonds across the pond??

    I call bullshit. /C

  7. Re:or stop hiding... by flagboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).

  8. Internal politics? by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There may very well be good reason for JA to not want being extradited to Sweden, but there may be other reasons than discussed previously here that explain why the Swedish authorities are acting the way they are.

    One reason is that the prosecutor in charge of the case may have found herself a useful tool that she can use to further her own ambitions in something completely unrelated: she is known to be a feminist and has stated in at least one interview that it must be possible to punish men even after a court has found them to be innocent. She is also a member of the same political party as one of the (possible) victims. Which just happens to be the same political party to which the defense attorney belongs! My conclusion is that the suspicion of internal politics cannot be put to rest until more evidence appears.

    -----------

    Just to point out a few strange facts in this sordid case:
    - JA found out he was wanted for questioning not by being told be the authorities, but by being told be the media. I cannot remember another case where this has happened.
    - the prosecutors office called a press conference to announce JA was wanted for questioning. I have never heard of them doing anything similar in any other case.
    - the two (possible) victims of rape have the same lawyer. Also this is a first: it does not matter how many victims are involved in a court case, they get their own lawyer and do not share this lawyer with anybody else involved in the same case.

    -----------

    Full disclosure: I live in Sweden and it is my personal opinion that the prosecutor handling this case at the moment is doing so for personal reasons and should be removed from her position.

  9. Re:or stop hiding... by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well he's not requesting to be treated like everybody else; he's requesting to be interrogated on Ecuadorian soil, which seems reasonable in this case. Why would a Swedish justice system prioritize a technicality over actually trying to move a rape case forward if they really gave a damn about the supposed rape victims?

  10. Re:or stop hiding... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is on British soil. Britain does not regard foreign embassies as foreign soil (neither do most countries). The Geneva Convention prohibits forced entry into embassies and grants diplomatic immunity to anyone within them. This means that people in an embassy are still covered by the laws of the host country, but the only redress that the host nation has is to deport them as soon as they leave the embassy.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Extradition from Sweden is easier by mal0rd · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm really surprised how many highly rated comments claim extradition from the UK would be easier. Extradition from Sweden to the US would almost certainly happen. Take for example this fact:

    Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy extradition procedures.

    How could anyone reasonably expect him to willfully submit to that? It seems highly likely he would end up rotting in a US jail for life, unheard and unseen.

  12. Re:He will by pantaril · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.

    Suspicious things already did happen. Interpol invovlemnt in this kind of charges is unheard of. The constant monitoring of his residence by several UK policemens is also unheard of. The whole sequence of events after the "sexual assault" case his highly suspicious (he was questioned, than he was released and told he can travel off the country, after he did it, suddenly, both of the "victims" changed their minds and he is wanted for another questioning again). All of this makes me believe that this is indeed political case and mr. Assange is right to be afraid to travel to sweeden.

  13. Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This doesn't get mentioned enough:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems that every time Assange comes up I have to paste this, so here goes. From the English High Court judgment, he is accused of 4 offences, as follows:

    1. Unlawful coercion

            On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

    2. Sexual molestation

            On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

    3. Sexual molestation

            On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

    4. Rape

            On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

            It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

    So what he is is alleged to have done (whether or not he did so) is definitely rape under both Swedish and English law.