Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

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."

Comments

Sounds reasonable

[kthreadd]

But still not great.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes this happened yes it was bad. Can someone fill the class in on what the aftermath of it was? I only have vague recollections, but the conclusion was it won't happen again or maybe more accurately the UK is about a billion times more likely to do something than Sweden.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

Re:Sounds reasonable

[luckykaa]

This article probably covers the basics. Not sure if it's totally neutral but probably more so than you'll get from Slashdot commenters.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't needed, but you may need a cockpunch: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11976-2004Jul24.html

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

But still not great.

Yep. No legal system on the planet is ever going to reward being a fugitive just for being a fugitive.

And that is what Assange is - by definition. He's hiding from a legal proceeding, thus a fugitive.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Rei]

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.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[JaredOfEuropa]

What does Rand or her followers have to do with this?

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:Sounds reasonable

[Rei]

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 before he got famous. Even whistleblowers he's worked with for Wikileaks have accused him of sexual aggression. This is a guy who wrote on his own blog 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:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive how you cherry-pick the facts of this case.

Yes, Sweden has done some great things in the past. Nowdays, we join forces with the UK in stopping any EU inquiry into US/UK/Swedish wiretapping, we push for EU data being handed over to the US en masse, we ignore the ruling of the highest EU court saying that mass surveillance is incompatible with human rights, etc.

In short, the picture you're painting of Sweden is really just a bunch of cherry-picked factoids.

Moreover, there are lots of irregularities in the handling of the case against Assange. Just to name one example, Swedish prosecutors have said that charges of assault aren't serious enough to extradite over, but sexual misconduct is? Swedish prosecutors travel abroad to interview someone about a tax issue, but the prosecutor in this case won't because she claims it would not be in her interests? Not to mention that the regular prosecutor dismissed all these charges, but they were then reopened by the current prosecutor who works at a national unit for exploring legal boundaries.

That last one might require some explanation. What that means is that the initial prosecutor decided that according to traditional interpretation of the law, what Assange did was *not* criminal. Then, a special prosecutor somehow gets wind of the case (likely through connections that one of the women have) and decides this would be a good test case to see flimsy a case you can have and still get a guy convicted.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

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 Sweden is MORE friendly to the USA than the UK is....

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Rei]

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 leaked cables. Then you should talk to the hundreds of US military deserters and other fugitives living in Sweden protected by Sweden's extradition law. For starters.

Concerning questioning, from the sworn statement of the 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."

It's pointless. He can't be åtalad outside of Swedish custody, and the prosecutor is already ready to åtala him, and has the Svea Court of Appeals' formal court findings against Assange of probable cause for rape as backup. So yeah, she could do this little embassy stunt, but why?

Not to mention that the regular prosecutor dismissed all these charges, but they were then reopened by the current prosecutor who works at a national unit for exploring legal boundaries.

Surely you know that about one in 8 cases in Sweden are reopened in exactly the same manner as this one was. It's a very good thing that Sweden has a process for victims to appeal a decision not to prosecute to a higher prosecutor. And are you seriously going to claim that Finne's handling of the case was proper? Heck, I find it bloody hilarious to see Assange's defenders pointing to Finne as a defense of him when in the beginning they were the ones who were bloody furious at Finne, first the info about him being under investigation leaking on her watch, then her issuing a warrant for him when he hadn't yet refused to cooperate. And then just the opposite, she dropped the SW-rape charge (but I should add, the AA charges were *never* dropped) in order to cancel the warrant after the (very justifiable backlash). Not to mention that the victim statement wasn't even in the computer system yet when she did that. Do you really think her handling of the case was appropriate and didn't warrant review? That's a bloody stretch.

Then, a special prosecutor somehow gets wind of the case

This doesn't even remotely resemble the actuality. The case was brought to Ny via an appeal from Borgström.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[AmiMoJo]

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. Given that the US wants him I can see why he is not willing to risk his life on the promise that he won't fall into their hands if he returns to Sweden.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[TangoMargarine]

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: Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

while he had no problem being in the UK with only the UK between him and the US.

Really? The last I checked he was stuck in the Ecuador embassy: https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/t...
And Sweden won't promise to not turn him over to the USA.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, he's a typical 'type A'... Predation and ambition go hand in hand. Some people are more clumsy at it than others.

However, here we have regret being converted into rape. Please, don't try to tell me these girls didn't know exactly what they were dealing with. Everybody plays their part in this little game. It is nothing but looking for the best position in the herd. And your damn lawyers are nothing but monkeys writing Shakespeare with that gibberish.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post made me horny enough to go rub one out in the bathroom. I'm at the office.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascists lying apologists are fascist lying apologists.

There is precisely one case

There is precisely one case which was picked up by journalists and that's why we know about it. It is quite unclear how many other people did the US snatch in the same way, but we also know there are at least several hundred people, kidnapped all over the world on behalf of the US, many kept in a certain prison in Cuba. It is not very unreasonable to suspect that some of them have been snatched by the same procedure. It is no wonder the US still keeps these cases secret and those people depraved of basic rights. No trial, no judge, no shit.

. And they weren't surrendered to the US, they were surrendered to Egypt via the US.

Oh, my, aren't we smooth. Nope. They weren't surrendered to Egypt, they were surrendered to the US. That US outsourced torturing to Egypt is just another crime against humanity perpetrated by your government and assisted by Sweden.

After receiving bogus information from Egypt

Funny how they did not bother to check that "information", but promptly kidnapped those people instead. Is that how you imagine "justice" should work? Then don't complain about some American dimwit in Syria being beheaded -- ISIS followed exactly the same playbook as the CIA, no difference.

Here's the aftermath of that:

Let me bring you up to date on the "premath" of that: Sweden had rules that should have prevented this before it happened, and they ignored these rules under pressure from the US authorities. There is significant pressure now to have Assange, for no other reason but scaring other people like him. Are you beginning to see the pattern? It happened once, it will happen again, given enough pressure. And the US can and does apply illegal pressure, we've seen a bit of that in all those diplomatic telegrams that were released.

There's a reason why Assange was applying for a Swedish residence permit a

Yep, and that reason got invalidated by the way the Swedish authorities dealt with Assange when they concocted the "rape case" against him. On behalf of we don't know who.

Funny how Sweden suddenly turned from "shield" to "evil US lackey" when...

... when they started a case by pressuring women to testify about things that didn't happen, then closed the case, then re-opened the case with the 'right' prosecutor, then "questioned" Assange, then let him go, then told him he could leave the country freely, then used a procedure meant for terror suspects to try to get him out of the UK on a criminal case for which there are currently no victims. Yep, on the face of it it all looks legit.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Troed]

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:Sounds reasonable

[guises]

That is indeed funny, since he repeatedly said that he would return to Sweden for trial in they promised not to extradite him. Given there are several items on that list which should, in principle, make extradition impossible, this should have been a dead easy promise to make. And yet they refused to make such a promise.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[blippo]

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 terrorist suspects, it's hard to tell how the details where presented. The swedish ambassador made some effort to ensure a due legal process in Egypt, but I think in retrospect, everyone can agree that it's was a naïve approach.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[vakuona]

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 him or not based on the agreed rules/laws on extradition. If Assange was in Sweden, and he met the criteria for extradition, then he would be extradited.

And what exactly is Assange bargaining with here? Usually, a deal to avoid prosecution is made when you have something to bargain with. If Assange wants to bargain, he needs to offer something of value to Sweden. Now if he has some yet-to-be-leaked documents, Sweden might be willing to make a deal.

The man is simply using the extradition as a smokescreen. He is right up there with Polanski in my opinion - a fugitive from justice.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country.

Exactly. But we know from numerous sources that there is an active investigation and he was threatened even by US senate members with retribution, without him being formally charged. I.e. the US has already made it clear that he'll be punished outside of the 'legal process'. Like the few hundred unlucky folks in that military base not in the US.

The man is simply using the extradition as a smokescreen.

Actually, it is the other way around, it is the US using the 'rape' case as a smokescreen.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Ralph Wiggam]

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:Sounds reasonable

[Shakrai]

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 Sweden is MORE friendly to the USA than the UK is....

The problem here is you're using logic and they're using emotion. He's a hero to them, David standing up to Goliath. It's the techie version of the rabid sports fan who refuses to believe his team's star player might just be capable of rape.

I've tried to explain numerous times in these stories that the judicial precedent in the United States almost certainly precludes charges from being brought against him. The United States has no Official Secrets Act; a normal citizen (i.e., a reporter) who comes into possession of classified material can do whatever the hell they want with it. Only those that have a duty to protect said information (e.g., people with security clearances) can be held accountable for the leaking thereof. So long as Assange simply received the information he is in the clear, just as the New York Times reporters who published the Pentagon Papers were in the clear. If Assange actively encouraged Manning to break the law he could have a problem but I've seen no evidence of that. The chat logs with Manning and Lamo left me with the impression that Manning came up with the idea without any outside influence.

In one of these stories I had the privilege of reading a rather lengthy summary of the Swedish legal system. The author of this post did no editorializing for or against Assange, they simply explained the process of how charges are brought and disposed of in Sweden. In any other context it would have been +5 informative but because it was in an Assange story it was -1 troll. Emotion drives these discussions and facts no longer matter.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not facing allegations of rape, you lying shit.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Shakrai]

and he was threatened even by US senate members with retribution

If you knew anything about our political system you'd know that US Senators have zero power to actually make good on those threats. They can't go after him judicially, that's the job of the Executive Branch (via the Justice Department) with checks and balances from the Judicial Branch. Nor can they go after him extra-judicially (*); intelligence agencies are also under the control of the Executive, with checks and balances from the Legislative Branch (that's the Senate). The Legislative can rein in the intelligence agencies if they so choose, via the oversight and funding process, but they can't issue them marching orders.

(*) They could actually go after him extra-judicially, in the same manner as any citizen could, i.e., walk up to him on the street and put a bullet in his head. I rather doubt any of them have the stomach for that, much less the time they'd get to spend behind bars for such an act....

Re:Sounds reasonable

[schnell]

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 Vanuatu.

Apply Occam's razor (gently). Just maybe this is a guy who had sex with women in Sweden when they didn't want him to, and this is a crime in Sweden, and they want him back there to put him on trial... in Sweden. Just maybe.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Znork]

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 significant changes in judicial interpretation is done, and that would, lacking actual changes in law, stretch the interpretative ability of the courts quite a bit.

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.

The STD aspect was the sole reason she felt bad at all, as far as the initial statements took it. And in the light of this case it's quite amusing that the Swedish government is most likely to remove the information requirement on HIV infectees so it will be legal to have sex with someone without first informing them about being HIV positive. When people like SW feel possible HIV exposure is a far worse violation than what a feminist prosecutor for political purposes wants to claim is rape, that's really going to go down well when someone like SW finds out they've been exposed without being told...

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, we've seen quite a bit since 2006. What lengths the US will go to, to get what they want. International Treaty? EU law? Sorry, but the US honors those on a case by case basis. If you think the US wouldn't use 'extraordinary rendition' to get Assange, or any other methods we haven't heard about, I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

Assange is smart to distrust both the UK, and Sweden. He is probably, despite not being on the FBI's most wanted poster wall, one of the 10 highest valued international targets for the US. Not because he is an actual terrorist threat, but because he severely embarrased the US Government and Military . They will not forgive, and will not forget, that fact!

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

There were numerous threats by (very prominent) US politicians, including death threats. The US Attorney General confirmed that there was an active investigation against him. There were reports of a grand jury investigation and of sealed (i.e. sikrit, so that useful idiots like yourself can pretend they don't know about it) warrant, but it looks a lot more like lettre de cachet given that we don't know what's inside. Only a few months ago an Australian newspaper dug up documents that this "investigation" is still going on.

You don't need to apply Occam's razor gently. Just inform yourself better, and you'll see that there are, in fact, 'judicial proceedings' against him and from what's being said they are instituted under an act from 1917. That's the one against German spies in WWI, FYI.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Mr_Wisenheimer]

If the US thought they had enough evidence to move forward with a federal prosecution, they would have had their best allies (the Brits) hold him in custody while they filed the proper paperwork for an extradition. If the US had enough evidence to prove conspiracy to steal classified information in the US, then they almost certainly had enough evidence to file for a proper extradition from the UK, especially since the UK has an official secrets act (unlike the US).

Assange behaves as if he is above the law and cites paranoid fantasies that this is part of some grand conspiracy against him. Guess what Assange; the US government IS powerful and if the Attorney General thought he could prove a case against you in federal court, he wouldn't engage in some silly conspiracy. He would simply have had the British police arrest you in the middle of the night and have quickly extradited you to the US to face federal charges.

If you are going to bum around Europe raping women, it is best not to piss off the world's most powerful governments, because they are going to make sure you are held accountable for every wrongdoing you commit, whether it be not filling out your taxes properly or putting your dick where it doesn't belong.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[AutodidactLabrat]

At which point his legal rights under U.S. law would have engaged, he would be free to stand silent, the Government has not even claimed it has knowledge of Assange suborning espionage and that, children, means NO COURT WOULD HOLD HIM.
BUT, let Assange disappear into one of those special rendition camps and everyone who ever dared tell the truth about Collateral Murder will be in a dungeon somewhere within a month.
This is a terror tactic used since the Patriot Act was signed, and that is the purpose.
FUD
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt

The tools of the American Terrorist empire.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[aaaaaaargh!]

Your biased assessment would make more sense if Anna Ardin didn't work for the CIA...

Re:Sounds reasonable

[aaaaaaargh!]

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:Sounds reasonable

[Znork]

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:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Two of the women were contacted by the third, were asked if they unprotected sex with Assange and did they ask if he had any STD's. They all did not know the answer so convinced by third after being unable to contact Assange. They went to the police station to make inquires. As under Swedish law failure to inform your partner of your STD before have unprotected sex is classified as form of rape, as you taken away their right to refuse the risk of contacting a STD.

As with any inquiry the witness have to a interviewed about the events, which is why we have quotes in the EAW about the sexual events. The first two said there statements have been used out of context and had been miss quoted in the interview report so have redacted them. The third has made no public statement that i have read.

That is where the 1 charge - 1 charge - 2 charges come from as the third women made a second charge which she did not tell the other two about before or during their visit to the police station.Tthey have stated that they feel betrayed by the third because it was only their intent to make Assange to answer the question of having STD's, that is why the charges where reduced.

I do not know if Assange has broken the law or not and also being subject to a international conspiracy. But if he is guilty of having unprotected sex and failing to inform his partner of his STD's. Then he should be prosecuted along we every other person guilty of this crime. Sadly not many country's have this calcification of rape but they should.

Sweden should just give him his non-extradition agreement for the trial and if guilty the incarceration period plus 30 days. So the interview, charges and trial can go ahead.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Archtech]

"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 found to indict you. ("Shucks, awful sorry, wish I could be more help, just too busy tracking down terrorists...").

US senators have an awful lot of power, but most of it lies under the surface. They know people who can get a surprising number of things done (or not done, as the case may be) and they are among the world's leading experts at trading favours for favours. The law is so immense and complex that almost anyone can be charged with crimes that would lead to extremely long prison sentences - the main thing that protects the normal, innocent citizen is that the police have no particular reason to want to frame them up. Try reading (for instance) Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent".

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at what happened to Kim Dotcom in NZ. Or the Russian guy that got "extradited" in Maldives.

The long arm of the USA is long and strong indeed. The US Senators might not be controlling it, but that sure doesn't mean Assange is safe from it. Those US Senators could be delivering a message from whoever is controlling the arm.

intelligence agencies are also under the control of the Executive, with checks and balances from the Legislative Branch (that's the Senate). The Legislative can rein in the intelligence agencies if they so choose, via the oversight and funding process, but they can't issue them marching orders.

Why can they lie to Congress AND more importantly get away with it?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article...
So who really is in control here?

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Shakrai]

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 found to indict you..

This is patently false. Prosecutors love to take down high profile political targets. Have you heard the name Rod Blagojevich? Tom DeLay? Duke Cummingham? Those are just from memory. Want a whole list? Here's a list of Federal politicians. Here's one for State and Local politicians.

The law is so immense and complex that almost anyone can be charged with crimes that would lead to extremely long prison sentences - the main thing that protects the normal, innocent citizen is that the police have no particular reason to want to frame them up. Try reading (for instance) Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent".

I've read it; I've also read the US Federal Code and my own State's Penal Law. I don't commit three felonies a day. I don't commit one felony per day. That claim is massively overstated, just like everything else you've rambled about.

The most effective way the Feds have of getting the "innocent" is by jamming them up for obstruction. They ask you an incriminating (or just embarrassing) question that they already know the answer to, you lie to a sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and presto, you're under Federal Indictment. This technique ensnared Martha Stewart, amongst others. Thankfully it's easily avoided by invoking your right to remain silent; alas, many people are too arrogant for that and think they'll get away with lying to the Feds. Repeat after me: "I do not wish to make a statement without consulting with counsel. Am I free to leave now?"

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Rujiel]

"He's a hero to them"? The only dominant "them" I see in this thread is a bunch of ACs crying "rapist, rapist" and a bunch of people such as yourself whining about Assange as if he's a cult figure worshipped by others--a huge fabrication. 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.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew anything about our political system you'd know that US Senators have zero power

I like it how you lying US apologists skip the important part, namely:

But we know from numerous sources that there is an active investigation

and choose instead to beat a straw man. Okay, I'll repeat it bold: Eric effing Holder, the Attorney General admitted at the time there is investigation. Details about it have surfaced repeatedly, and from them we can infer it is still ongoing. This is the real problem. The death threats from US politicians of various political plumage just enforce the impression that there will be little preventing the US state from freely abusing Assange's rights once they get hold of him.

Like it or not, the US government is one of the dirtiest in the lot, and this is to a large extent because you let it happen.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Shakrai]

"uber-feminist country?" Do you know a damn thing about Sweden or any of her neighbors? Have you ever visited or even bothered to peruse the internet on the subject of Swedish culture, customs, or her legal processes? It's awesome that you're willing to shit all over the criminal justice system of a country that I suspect you know nothing about, a country that Mr. Assange thought was just lovely until he happened to be accused of a crime by some of its citizens.

Frankly I don't know if he is a rapist or not. I do know that he's received due process of law in both Sweden and the United Kingdom and that there appears to be enough evidence to warrant a trial. I also know a thing or two about the judicial systems of the Nordic Countries; were I accused of a crime I didn't commit in one of them I would be willing to surrender myself and believe that I would receive as fair of a shake as I would get in my own country.

Re: Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wont sweden dismiss the idea of extrditing him? Even though he is charged with no crime and apparently not a criminal according to us precedent. Remove asange justification and clear this all right up

Re:Sounds reasonable

[david_thornley]

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 standards she was raped.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

... Where does this keep coming from?

Let's see. The US government has called him a traitor despite him not having any duty towards the USA. The US government has also demanded his execution.

Then the Swedish government kept changing their mind. Lastly, the UK, USA, Swedish, Australian governments repeatedly refuse to protect him from extradition to another country. Now if the legal process works so well, why can't these countries wait for this trial and sentence to finish before hitting him with more charges? A better question; if delivering justice in Sweden is so important, why is Sweden demanding the option to extradite him to another country?

He has not been charged with any crime in the US ...

Neither have those prisoners in Guantanamo bay or the secret US prisons around the world. More important, the last Australian detained by the USA was kept in Guantanamo bay for 7 years without trial until they made a law he could plead guilty to.

At the very least there are over-zealous bureaucrats taking short-cuts. Let's ask Kim DotCom what that means.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[AK Marc]

The US has abused that tactic enough they England makes the US follow at least a few of the laws. Part of an extradition hearing is essentially trying the case and seeing if it has merits. If the US doesn't prove the merits of the case, then extradition should be blocked. But allowing a CIA kidnapping from Sweden has no such legal requirements. It was presumed a non-extradition extraction would take place. Perhaps a deportation to Australia with a stop in NYC (not necessarily the most direct route, but not an insane one), and in NYC he misses his plane.

The conspiracy theorists point out this is the first time in history Sweden knew the location of the suspect and refused to interview them at that location. Until Sweden can explain the uniqueness of this situation, it seems there must be some hidden agenda. If the agenda wasn't hidden, it would follow the previous times where interviews were conducted over the phone, video, or in person with Swedish officials who traveled abroad. Assange was never "in hiding". That was McAfee, who was at unknown/undisclosed locations. Assange gave Sweden his number, and they never rang, then complained that he didn't contact them.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[AK Marc]

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 tentative consent, just not informed consent, it's not "rape", just a sexual misconduct without a legal analogue in the US, as lying for sex is called "sex", and lying for personal gain is a good thing.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[AK Marc]

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 explanation is the more complex one, as the simple one fails all basic logic.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[AK Marc]

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:Sounds reasonable

[AK Marc]

Nope, the only thing standing between him and the US is the UK. It's standard practice to "invade" embassies. The only requirement is that you give sufficient warning (so that they can evacuate official personnel). As Assange isn't an official attache, he'd be arrestable the moment the embassy recognition from the UK ran out.

That's been done before. Argentina closed the UK embassy after the UK invaded the Malvinas.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[AK Marc]

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 the end of the proceedings for the pending Swedish charges, regardless of any intervening actions from any other governments.

Reasonable, and not unheard of.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[shutdown -p now]

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:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the only thing standing between him and the US is the UK. It's standard practice to "invade" embassies.

Nope. And you know it isn't, otherwise you wouldn't have put it in "quotes".

The only requirement is that you give sufficient warning (so that they can evacuate official personnel).

Nope. What the fuck does "sufficient warning" legally mean. Show us, in any the Vienna Conventions, or in any UK law.

As Assange isn't an official attache, he'd be arrestable the moment the embassy recognition from the UK ran out.
 

Nope on the "embassy recognition" bit.

That's been done before. Argentina closed the UK embassy after the UK invaded the Malvinas.

What has the severing of diplomatic ties of the foreign nation as a protest against the host nation got to do with the host nation "invading" the foreign nation's embassy?

Just idiotic, your entire post.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Shakrai]

Consent was given. It was just conditional. Lying to meet those requirements is perfectly legal in the US

Are you sure about that? Here's New York State's law:

S 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent.
[snip]
2. Lack of consent results from:
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching, any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor's conduct; or

S 130.55 Sexual abuse in the third degree.
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;

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Znork]

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:Sounds reasonable

[Znork]

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 point; if you feel you are getting raped, you have to tell the person you think is raping you in such a clear way that there is no possibility of misunderstanding.

Sleep is incapacitated and if she had objected upon waking, or failed to wake up (oddly deep sleeper, or more commonly, due to drugs or alcohol), there would have been no question that she had been raped. She did wake up, and by not objecting even when it was clear he wasn't wearing protection, moved that sex into the standard wake-up-sex category which is not generally considered rape under current laws.

And no, they're not my standards, they're Swedish law. Personally I'd prefer a mandatory contract and video taping, just to get everyone to shut the fuck up about the whole debate. It wouldn't cost me anything as I consider thorough negotiation part of any sex I'm willing to engage in, and if someone can't even talk freely and explicitly in detail about exactly what they do and don't want, I sure as fuck am not going to take them to bed.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You got to be shitting me! Telling someone you love them so they will have sex with you is not fucking fraud!
Any women who believes such an obvious lie when meeting someone for the first time in a bar with drunk people does not get the right to say no afterwards.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

He committed what the conservative media calls "rape" by committing fraud for sex.

Thus the sex was (At the time) unconsented.

Strictly, that can be called rape.

But because there was tentative consent, just not informed consent, it's not "rape"

You can't even make a single coherent point in your own post, and you accuse others of lying and distorting events?

Let's agree on some definitions. The FBI defines the term "rape" as:

“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Can we agree that's a reasonable definition of rape?

Working from that: did Mr. Assange allegedly "penetrate the vagina with any body part or object of another person, without the consent of the victim"? Allegedly, yes, he did. If consent is given "conditionally," as you assert, then violating that condition means that no consent - or even expectation of consent - was given.

Here's a hypothetical. You and I are partying at your favorite gay club, and you take me home because I'm a hunk and word is, I'm a true cocksman. The following scene plays out:
"Hey AK Marc, can I fuck your ass?"
"Well sure, AC, but only if you wear a condom."
*I sodomize you without a condom*
"WTF AC, I told you use a condom, you asshole!"
"Hey bro, relax, it was just fraud. You gave tentative consent, it just wasn't informed consent!"
"Oh okay then, thanks for giving me AIDS! No harm done, I guess!"

If you have sex with someone and they did not consent to it, then you have *raped* someone. It is not "sexual misconduct with no legal analogue in the US," it is *RAPE.*

Stop trying to twist the words to mean something they clearly do not, and admit that the crime Mr. Assange is accused of is *rape*. Not "tenatively consented sexual misconduct." Not "fraud to obtain sex." Not any other twisting of the allegations to paint Assange in a better light. You may choose to believe that he didn't, that he would NEVER, rape someone... but continuing to deny that the allegations against him constitute allegations of rape by any reasonable definition of the word just makes you look like a fucking loon.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Swedish Penal Code states, on rape:

A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.

This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.

"in a helpless state" == "unable to give consent." That is the ENTIRE point of that second paragraph.

Try again, Skippy.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[vakuona]

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:Sounds reasonable

[AK Marc]

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:Sounds reasonable

[TangoMargarine]

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:Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone leaked highly sensitive documents. Of course there was going to be an investigation.

This is an investigation of a journalist who published the leaked documents. On top of it, outside of any US jurisdiction, as Assange was never close to the US in the process. This is a crass attempt to threaten people for using the freedom of speech.

Doesn't prove that they definitely wanted to extradite him.

The US doesn't have a legal leg to want to extradite him. Judging by the reaction of various officials, they'd rather use the other routine, the one with the kidnapping, drugging and delivering him to a territory in which torture and extrajudicial executions are the norm.

At worst, Assange is like a spy

No, Assange isn't 'like a spy' in any way of that word. He's a journalist who made a scoop. The worst that happen to him, though is to be kidnapped and delivered into a Star Chamber somewhere, like we've seen the US do to so many people all over the place -- from Abu Ghraib all the way to Guantanamo.

Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Live down to expecations, Slashdot.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you need apologetics for something that has not happened? It is pretty clear the 'victims' where paid by a foreign secret service to file a false report.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[NotDrWho]

This wasn't a rape, it was a CIA setup. Anyone remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief who made the tragic mistake of challenging the U.S. dollar? 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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't a rape, it was a CIA setup. Anyone remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief who made the tragic mistake of challenging the U.S. dollar? 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.

interesting. Do you have any proof of this, or are you just spouting conspiracy theories.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you know, he sexually assaulted people. It happens. Look at Bill Cosby.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[mrchaotica]

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.

And this part of the story should have been an even bigger media circus than the initial accusation, but mysteriously wasn't. Hmm....

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[stephanruby]

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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably just an incredible coincidence.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[NotDrWho]

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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Do you shill here for money, or just troll for fun? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/report-new-york-prosecutors-to-drop-charges-against-strauss-kahn/

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

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. 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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[joe545]

Well, it counts as a prosecutable offence in both the UK and Sweden as the courts have repeatedly shown.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[NotDrWho]

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.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[silas_moeckel]

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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

If she says "not unless you are wearing a condom", and you lie about wearing one, technically that IS a no. So, by having sex with her anyway, well, we do have a word for sex after she says no...

However, as far as I recall, in the Assange case, it was a broken condom, not lying about wearing one. Or am I just remembering the other woman (there were two)?

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just surprised that Edward Snowden hasn't been accused of being a child molester yet.

It's probably because Snowden is a U.S. citizen, and so the CIA is limited in how far they can go with him. With Assange and Strauss-Kahn, they could do pretty much anything.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Lying about sexual practices may be punishable - but doesn't make it rape.

Rape (sex forced by violence or threat of violence) is very bad. If all sorts of smaller things are to be called rape, then the smaller things don't become as bad as real rape. (Even though that is what someone is trying to achieve.) Instead, the meaning of "rape" gets watered down - it becomes as innocent as the stuff they try to put under the "rape" umbrella.

Lying about a condom? Having a law for it is silly - this is so easily checked. Just look! Then make a decision.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[pellik]

The mere fact that 90% of discourse about government wiretapping has turned instead into a discussion about Snowden himself shows that trumping up bogus charges against Snowden is unnecessary. Instead the powers that be will silently get their revenge once all the hype dies down and the story about Snowden gets old.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[cold fjord]

Yes, sometimes proposing a new currency to replace the dollar will turn people into rapists.

Well "NotDrWho," since you are apparently new to this dimension I'll take a moment to explain a few things to you. In this dimension it sometimes happens that rapists and abusers of women happen to be accomplished practioners of some useful trade. Some people will even overlook their abusive behavior towards women due to the fame or power that they achieve in their trade. When they finally get called out for it some people will invent excuses and apologize for the rapists. You seem to be getting information from that sort. You should reconsider that.

Perhaps it wouldn't occur to you, but rapists and other abusers to women might at times do other things, such as leak juicy documents you have an interest in, or forment monetary policy.

When will you be journeying back to your home world / dimension? It might not be safe for you here, you seem susceptible to rabid ideas.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[The Grim Reefer]

Snowden is a U.S. citizen, and so the CIA is limited in how far they can go with him.

Since he's no longer on American soil, it appears they really aren't that limited. Except for whether or not the country he is in can/will retaliate in a meaningful way.

"Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down from WWII, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear and logical the United States Citizenship alone does not make such citizens immune from being targeted," - Eric Holder

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, probably just an incredible coincidence.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Rei]

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:

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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.

#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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[swb]

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 it was actually a viable alternative. Euro market weakness and the risks of default in some Euro countries mostly rules out the Euro, the lack of Chinese transparency and currency manipulation rules out the Renminbi. Beyond those two alternatives, there aren't any global currencies with enough depth and market adoption able to replace the dollar.

Further, if dropping the dollar was a profitable idea, why wouldn't global markets just do it? I'm sure many countries would LOVE to stick it to Uncle Sam and our banks, but it seems like they like profitability even more.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[cold fjord]

Law of large numbers. You abuse or rape enough women and eventually there is likely to be consequences even if not perfect justice.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we get the Slashdot Social Justice League to show up in these Assange stories? This is an actual case of a sexual molester and rapist, hiding from law enforcement. This should be the perfect place to attack misogynists and sexists as they defend a sexual predator!
Instead, this thread is filled with people insisting that Assange is the victim of CIA undercover (literally) operatives in Sweden, and there will be a story up within 3 hours about how the US is pure evil because someone else with an amateur understanding of statistics found something to complain about.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the courts have NOT shown this.

The courts have ruled that the alleged crime - rape - is basis for extradition.

*No* court has ruled whether what Assange did is, in fact, rape. He's *not* convicted. He's wanted because the Swedish prosecutor want to put him on trial, and for some reason she can't (or won't) do it in absentia.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Your DSK "character assassination" conspiracy theory is nothing short of ridiculous. His being a depraved sex fiend had been the subject of jokes for years when the rape case happened. If anything, the case was suspiciously dropped, and I guess that's because he still had enough clout and blackmail material to cause damage.
As for Assange, that guy is obviously a complete sociopath and misogynist. Which makes him being a rapist a lot more likely than not.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Assange and Strauss-Kahn probably raped tens-of-thousands of women. So, statistically, someone was bound to come forward 3 months after one of them made a speech proposing a new currency to replace the dollar and the other leaked U.S. classified documents. It's basic math.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no charges outstanding against Assange

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. Under British law, according to every British court he appealed the EAW to, he would be considered "charged" with a crime - the specific claim of "lack of charges" is because of the way due process works in Sweden.

The two women he has alleged to have raped deny that they were raped.

Yeah, funny how the law works, isn't it? In criminal law, the victim doesn't get to say "Ha, but no, seriously, I don't want to proceed with an investigation and charges," and dismiss the entire proceeding. Once the report of the crime is made, the police may proceed with the case regardless of whether or not the victim is "willing" or "unwilling" to proceed. This is specifically aimed at eliminating further intimidation and coercion of the victim - when the legal system believes that a crime has been committed, the prosecutor absolutely has the right to file charges, regardless of whether or not the victim wishes it. In this case, it's as equally likely that the women have been so intimidated by the intensely misogynist smear campaign against them that they simply want that treatment to stop. I mean, what's a little rape compared to years of neckbeards hounding you with insults, threats, and harassment?

The Swedish Chief Prosecutor investigated and closed the case.

Well, since we're high on conspiracy theories, how do we know that Swedish Chief Prosecutor Finne isn't biased in favor of Mr. Assange, and thus motivated to downplay the seriousness of the charges? Oh right, conspiracy is only possible when things aren't going the way you want them to. Never mind that every court that has reviewed the evidence against Mr. Assange has ruled against him - the only possible explanation is that he's being railroaded. It's completely impossible that he might have actually been a rapey asshole!

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sure, just make sure you tell every woman you're ever with, "I only consent to fucking you on the condition that you are on birth control, or wearing a female condom." That way, you know, your consent is predicated on the other person doing what they said they would.

You see, it's not *just* about not wearing a condom - it's about the fact that the women gave consent to specific things with specific conditions, and Assange "allegedly" proceeded without satisfying those specific conditions.

And sorry bub, but... lack of consent == rape.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that is the claim of the *prosecutor* and not the claim of the women actually involved.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape (sex forced by violence or threat of violence) is very bad.

Yes, it is - we can agree on that. But you seem to miss understanding that sexual violation is a far more traumatic and intimate violence than "being punched in the face in a bar fight." That's why we have specific laws against it, and don't just lump "rape" under "physical assault." A person who is raped loses their sense of physical sovereignty -- that is, they are used and violated in a profoundly intimate manner that is far worse than the physical bruises they may sustain. In fact, the important part of what makes a rape... well, rape... is that it violates the *consent* of the victim.

I hope you'll agree with me that getting your wrist broken in a bar fight generally constitutes a lower degree of trauma than being forcibly sodomized?

If all sorts of smaller things are to be called rape, then the smaller things don't become as bad as real rape.

Smaller things like - having sex with someone against their will? Because I'm sorry, but if you really think that the only way for something to qualify as "rape" is for the victim to emerge battered, bloody, and broken, then you're a fucking sociopath.

Instead, the meaning of "rape" gets watered down - it becomes as innocent as the stuff they try to put under the "rape" umbrella.

It sounds like you see rape as primarily about physical assault - if so, why do you believe it's necessary to have a separate rape law at all? Why isn't rape just considered run-of-the-mill physical assault in your book?

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, all that timing stuff is just a coincidence. Stop being paranoid and have some fun for a change! Stop worrying about this stuff and go play some videogames. Dragon Age Inquisition and GTAV for next-gen came out this week. And the new Hunger Games movie is opening at the theater. People need to stop looking at all this boring news stuff and go enjoy some fun. Get out of the house and stop worrying and asking all these questions, people! Enjoy some fun instead!

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Besides, the idea that someone would challenge the dollar is just ridiculous. How could anyone question the dollar? It's what everything costs. And for only 60 of those dollars, you can go buy Assassins Creed Unity right now. That's dozens of hours you could be enjoying yourself instead of watching the news and doing all this talk-talk-talk stuff. Why are you wasting your time listening to silly conspiracy theories when you could be having fun in old-timey France instead? Lighten up folks, and have some fun instead!

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[fustakrakich]

Yes, the man is a predator. Find me a successful politician who isn't. The IMF is one thing. He was also running for president(?) in the French elections. Dirty politics abound. He was thrown under the bus by his fellow rapists. And from what I can gather, he's still living pretty well.

On Assange, I put forth the question, where's his money coming from? I wonder if he has a maid :-)

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

He raped no-one. This was a CIA setup. If anything Assange was guilty of being male.

A woman associated with the CIA offers for him to stay at her house while she isn't going to be there, returns early and seduces and sleeps with him, then arranges for him to sleep with another girl, then tells the other girl he slept with both of them, and they should go to the police to get him to take an STD test.

She sees HER FRIEND the police officer, and they try to trump up a charge that is dismissed by the Prosecutor on duty.

Then another of HER FRIENDS - a corrupt prosecutor politician running for election with association to the CIA through a right wing newspaper - raises it in another city and immediately leaks it to the press.

Your either incredibly ignorant, or actually being paid to spout misinformation.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair, I've heard one more theory -- that this was more of a political favor to a certain French president with Hungarian roots than a purely US action. The flare of investigations in France that began about the same time and were subsequently dropped in a year or two once that guy lost office seems to suggest...

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[dave420]

He hasn't been convicted of anything, which shows you are either woefully ignorant of this case, or don't understand the concept of due process. Either way you don't exactly look like a budding Einstein for posting such blather for all to see. You complaining about amateurs wading in is priceless. You are what you despise, but your arrogance can't let you see it.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Theaetetus]

This wasn't a rape, it was a CIA setup. Anyone remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief who made the tragic mistake of challenging the U.S. dollar? 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 totally into it? The guy who then said the torn rotator cuff in her shoulder was because she really liked rough sex? No, he's totally credible. You just have to pick which of his many contradictory stories you believe.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Theaetetus]

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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

BINGO. And people calling this rape over a broken condom deserve jail themselves. Inattentive scum slandering a man.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[ScentCone]

Where did he say he was convicted? Specifically.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[stephanruby]

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.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Frosty Piss]

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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[stephanruby]

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 it is currently being enforced, and I'm not opposed to going after those perpetrators internationally through extradition treaties, but my problem comes from the fact that Julian Assange seems to be treated very uniquely in this regard and I just can't accept this as being a random coincidence.

Had Julian Assange not faced this threat from being imprisoned in a US gulag for his entire life, or worse, you and I both know that he would have just gone back to Sweden and been exonerated (fairly or unfairly, but that would have been the outcome for sure). I've been to Sweden and I can promise you it's not the feminist utopia you think that it is.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[david_thornley]

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 was undergoing due process through the Swedish justice system. They have asked for his extradition from Britain, and that has been granted. What's unusual about this, aside from Assange being somewhat notorious and having some extra resources to evade the legal process?

And why do you think there's a real threat of being imprisoned in a US gulag? Why do you think any such threat would be worse in Sweden than in that notorious US lapdog, the UK? If Assange was concerned about being extradited or special-renditioned, what would be the sense in going to the UK?

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[AK Marc]

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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[AK Marc]

He was never even accused of "rape" but a lower sexual misconduct. He lied to obtain sex. In the US, that fraud is perfectly legal, but in Sweden, it's a crime. The sex was consensual, but it had conditions that were not met.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

I'll reiterate:

"Learn how the Swedish legal system works, and you'll understand why."

His original interview was with police as part of their investigation. Before the prosecutor can file formal charges, he MUST be interviewed again, by the prosecutors.

As for why he's not being interviewed in London? It simply sets a ridiculous precedent, where the accused starts dictating the terms of when and where he'll subject to due process.

Thought experiment - let's say Swedish prosecutors come to London and interview Mr. Assange there under terms of Mutual Legal Assistance. They then say, "We find that there are sufficient reason to lay charges," and formally charge him. At that point, they'd have to submit an EAW anyway - am I correct to assume that you'd be *completely* okay with the UK extraditing him to Sweden at that point?

Or would you just find a new reason to shriek like an ignorant-ass retard about the case?

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth noting that without that episode, DSK would probably have been president of France today. So there are more potential interests at stake, in that story, than the US treasury. France is a big country, and its president is a very powerful figure.

Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[TangoMargarine]

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:Rape Apologetics Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

As for why he's not being interviewed in London? It simply sets a ridiculous precedent, where the accused starts dictating the terms of when and where he'll subject to due process.

Incorrect. Such things have happened several times. It's just that in this case it's suddenly not possible, for some reason.

Or would you just find a new reason to shriek like an ignorant-ass retard about the case?

Ah, no. That way of expressing yourself won't win you any arguments.

Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1) Trump up charges
Step 2) ???
Step 3) Profit!

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mr Assange, thanks for answering our questions. There will be no charges, you are free to leave. I think that the black van waiting before the building is your transport to the airport. Have a nice day."

Re:Swedish Puppets

[cold fjord]

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:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Police almost everywhere have the power to "bring someone in for questioning". In civilized countries, they then have to bring the charges or let him go.

Many places also allow the suspect to "remain silent", but he cannot refuse being questioned. (I.e. brought to a police station, hearing the actual questions, and get an opportunity to answer. Possibly with a lawyer present.)

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

And what does the Swedish legal system say about extraditing criminals to the U.S.? Do they need a formal charges for that too, or do they just throw his ass on a plane to the U.S. the second he's stupid enough to set foot on Swedish soil?

Re:Swedish Puppets

[cold fjord]

Before you go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole perhaps you could explain why the US would wait to extradict him from Sweden in the indefinite fututre instead of extradicting him from friendly US ally Britain now? You believe nonsense.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Rei]

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 point is to åtala him.

Neither Assange nor anyone else will ever be "charged" with rape in Sweden because, it should go without saying, "charge" is an English term and the Swedish judicial system uses Swedish. This may sound like pedantics but it's a key point. The two terms in question here in Swedish law are "anklagad" and "åtalad". Look them up in a Swedish dictionary - there's about a dozen different ones online. Each word can mean "accused", "charged", or "indicted" - but there is a difference in a legal sense.

Being formally anklagad is the first stage. The prosecutor brings said charge to a court of law, where a judge issues warrants for the accused's arrest. The accused can appeal being anklagad to have the warrant overturned and have a court hear their case. They can even appeal that ruling, all the way up to the Swedish Supreme Court. What it doesn't lead directly to is a trial. That is what being åtalad is for. In fact, once åtalad, the accused *must* be tried within a matter of weeks, by Swedish law. Being anklagad is to attempt to get the person in custody so that they can be åtalad. Being åtalad is to attempt to convict the person.

Assange *has* been formally anklagad. The prosecutor took the case and evidence to a judge, who reviewed it and issued warrants for his arrest. A EAW was issued because being anklagad is legally considered equivalent to being charged for the purposes of a warrant. Assange appealed to the Svea Court of Appeals, where a full court hearing was held, including testimony from his lawyers and a full review of all of the evidence. [i]He lost[/i]. The court found probable cause that he commited 1 count of unlawful sexual coersion, 2 counts of molestation, and 1 count of rape. He appealed to the Supreme Court. They refused his appeal, having found nothing wrong with the lower court trial.

Assange, is of course, pretending that only being åtalad means being charged. But he *can't* be åtalad until he hands himself over to Swedish custody. In short, he's using his very run from the law to justify his run from the law.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Court also noted that it is the task of the prosecutor to carry the investigation forward and that there are no problems conducting the interview abroad. Indeed, Swedish prosecutors have in other cases travelled abroad to conduct interviews. But in this case, though Assange is so very wanted, they have chosen not to. Assange has repeatedly stated that he's willing to talk with them - just not in Sweden. Doesn't look to me that they're trying very hard...

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole perhaps you could explain why the US would wait to extradict him from Sweden in the indefinite fututre instead of extradicting him from friendly US ally Britain now? You believe nonsense.

The UK authorities cannot seize him while he is in the Ecuadorian embassy. That's why he cannot leave. The US wanted his credibility and his mobility destroyed before extraditing him from anywhere, hence the alleged rape.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it looks very much like the main motivation is to get him to Sweden and that the actual interview is irrelevant.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[mrbester]

Nothing has stopped the prosecutor from travelling to UK to question him, something that has been requested for *years*. Yet the prosecutor could travel to Prague to question a suspected murderer. But then, that guy wasn't famous. Funny, that.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[dave420]

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:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

Beer and whores are cheaper in Prague than London.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[cold fjord]

If they plan to change and try him after the formal interview it doesn't help if he is in the embassy in the UK instead of Sweden. In fact leaving him in the embassy in the UK thwarts justice.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[cold fjord]

If they plan to charge and try him after the interview then he needs to be in Sweden, not in the embassy in the UK. Funny? Not so much.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

If they plan to charge and try him after the interview then he needs to be in Sweden, not in the embassy in the UK.

Ecuador has stated they will kick him out of the embassy if Sweden actually files charges. Ecuador wants Sweden to treat this like a legitimate criminal case, which Sweden would have no problems doing if it actually were a legitimate case.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[david_thornley]

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:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

And what does the Swedish legal system say about extraditing criminals to the U.S.?

Well, if you're ACTUALLY interested in seeing what the Swedish law says about extradition to the US, you could start by familiarizing yourself with the actual Swedish-US extradition treaty that's been in force since 1963.

After you've read through that, if you're STILL interested, you can go read the Swedish government's publications on what the European Arrest Warrant program entails. There's some good links there where you can actually read the EU's legislation about EAWs, as well as some factual information from Sweden about surrender to and from Sweden under EAW.

After that, you can go read the UK Magistrate Court's decision about the validity of the EAW, in which they upheld the validity of the EAW and ordered Mr. Assange surrendered to Swedish authorities. A little further digging will help you find both the UK High Court's decision as well as the UK Supreme Court's decision on his appeals related to the validity of the EAW.

After you've read all that, if you're REALLY interested in understanding how things work, you can go read even more of the full review of the details of the case, as well as a cogent, well-written piece by a real lawyer in the UK who talks about why Sweden doesn't just "come interview Assange in London."

do they just throw his ass on a plane to the U.S. the second he's stupid enough to set foot on Swedish soil?

Oh, you weren't ACTUALLY interested in learning anything about the ACTUAL facts of the case. You were just trying to repeat a pro-Assange soundbite. Silly me.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[cold fjord]

Ecuador is playing games. They know how the Swedish legal system works and are exploiting people's ignorance of the order in which the steps occur. First comes the interview, then the charges. They know that. Like I wrote, Ecuador is playing games if they actually stated that.

Re:Swedish Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you think the US should set a precedence for other countries that they can violate Embassies whenever they feel like it, hmmm, not sure US ambassadorial staff would be behind that idea

he's in his own prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the fool himself realizes this.

Re:he's in his own prison

[TangoMargarine]

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:he's in his own prison

[Anonymous Coward]

The statute of limitations depends on the age of the victim (the clock does not start ticking until the victim turns 18).
The statute of limitations is 10 years (15 years for aggravated rape; group rape, etc). In Assange's case I believe the statute of limitations is 10 years for the rape charges. He may be charged with perverting the course of justice in England though.

Re:he's in his own prison

[Anonymous Coward]

At least 10 years, but at most 15.

Stop hitting yourself!

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Stop hitting yourself!

[cold fjord]

Assange is wanted in the UK as a fugitive from justice.

Re:Stop hitting yourself!

[Rei]

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.

Re:Stop hitting yourself!

[Anonymous Coward]

No he's not.

He has yet to be charged with anything.

Re:Stop hitting yourself!

[cold fjord]

He is wanted on a warrant and jumped bail, fleeing police custody. As I wrote, he is a fugitive from justice.

Re:Stop hitting yourself!

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know your stance on it. Have you considered not being the enemy of people some time?

Re:Stop hitting yourself!

[cold fjord]

Doesn't that work both ways? Maybe you could make a suggestion that the Slashdot editors post a notice about what views will be considered acceptable for any particular discussion. They should also post what the music will be since that will be choir practice, not a discussion. How often do you learn things from a choir? There are many people that share my views, just not many that post on Slashdot for its international audience.

the NERVE of them swedes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe all convicted rapists should be forgiven after three years holed up in an ecuadorian consulate.

Re:the NERVE of them swedes!

[h4x0t]

Convicted? Gotta catch him first.

Re:the NERVE of them swedes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange has not been convicted or even charged with rape. He is wanted for questioning.

Re:the NERVE of them swedes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently not even the victims seem to be convinced that they were raped. The guy may be an asshole and an attention whore but this does not make him a rapist. OTOH in Europe police departments seek to increase conviction rate (saw an article on bbc lately so UK at least is aiming high). Obviously there is not enough rapists in prisons - the interesting question is how many rapist there are actually but I guess that is less interesting than increasing conviction rate.

Re:the NERVE of them swedes!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 conditions for, well, publishing materials about the cynical way in which the U.S. commits human rights violations and orchestrated murder for fun and profit.

Re: the NERVE of them swedes!

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be very damaging for Swedan in the future. I can not support those who do not support my rights or the law, instead using underhanded means to attack both my rights and the law. I will not forget this Swedan.

Re:the NERVE of them swedes!

[Anonymous Coward]

No he's not. He's wanted for questioning in Sweden.

Re:the NERVE of them swedes!

[caseih]

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 getting him in Swedish custody paves the way for extradition to the United States where the current government wishes to punish him severely for exposing their sins. There's near certainty that's why the Swedes have pursued him thus. And that's why he's fighting this extradition tooth and nail.

It's kind of like how the mob bosses in 1930s Chicago were brought down. They never could make actual charges of murder stick, so they got him on tax evasion. Means to an end for the US government.

Re:the NERVE of them swedes!

[david_thornley]

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.

Strange...

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have mod points that expired yesterday. ???

Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's still a criminal.

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What did he do?

Re:Why should they?

[DivineKnight]

There are no innocents, only people awaiting prosecution.

Pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

What is being done to this man is Utterly Pathetic.

The POTUS responsible for this "Exile" is the same president who removed whistle-blower protections from change.org

Right after he had this man put into Exile.

The POTUS is a POS...

Julian leaks vital material

[Anonymous Coward]

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..., 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.

Re:Julian leaks vital material

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

What a rapist. This is misogyny. He deserves to go to Guantanamo for this alone along with all the rest of you nerds who refuse to go bald and and become white knights.

Re: Julian leaks vital material

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a woman or just stupid? If you don't want to get AIDS, don't sleep with a whore(monger), period. Unless he hit you in the head, put a gun to your head or drugged you behind your back it's not rape.
Take a bit of responsibility over your own bodies or be treated as the brainless Swedish fleshlights that you are.

You are behind the times. These days, the trend is towards this: if the wind changes or the curtains rustle or a different program comes on television while having sex, then it's rape. If she feels like calling it rape, then it is. Get with the program comrade. All men are rapist. You need to assimilate Andrea Dworkin and her misandrinist, anti-heterosexual, hate-filled propaganda.

Moderator and AC are MORONS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Convicted rapist? The two women claim that the charges were made up.

Re:Moderator and AC are MORONS!

[AchilleTalon]

Interesting, however there is still a possibility these women are under pressure to step back from the initial accusations given the reaction of Julian Assange's supporters. This kind of game is played by both sides. Plots are not unidirectional, if any.

Re:Moderator and AC are MORONS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, did you make this post because you are under pressure to defend US hegemony because there is some dude from the CIA holding a gun to your head making you type this logged in as yourself? Possible. Plausible. Highly likely.

Re:Moderator and AC are MORONS!

[Rei]

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 said she was not raped, but there are no rape charges concerning her. She has however said that she was a victim of a sexual assault, and reaffirmed that on her blog earlier this year (after being silent since the incident). SW told several people she'd been raped, according to the testimony collected by the police, before she went to the police. The fact that her goal of going to the police was not to press charges doesn't translate to "she says she wasn't raped"; the testimony is quite clear to just the opposite, she had been telling close friends and confidants that she had been raped, right after the incident. Also frequently distorted is the end of her interview, which Assange fans often misstate as her "refusing to go on". It actually very clearly states that the interviewer thought she looked shaken and decided to terminate the interview (it was nearing the end of the shift anyway). SW is then asked if she wants a legal representative (not exactly an attorney, it's a state employee who pushes the case forward for you), and she said yes (her representative, Clæs Borgstrom, was very aggressive about pushing the case forward, although AA, who he initially also represented, felt that he was more in it for attention for himself later fired him and chose another). SW was also asked if she would do a rape kit and she also said yes.

There've been subsequent interviews since then, but they haven't leaked, so we don't know what they say.

Re: Moderator and AC are MORONS!

[vpness]

Lame reference. It wasn't close to being an independent review. And I stopped reading well before I found the claim that the charges were created

Redefining the term rape goes here

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how disrespectful it may be to victims. I'm sure it's perfectly acceptable for the same term to mean anything from "displeased a woman after the fact" to "forcefully assaulted"

He can rot

[Anonymous Coward]

In the ecuadorean embassy, it's like a prison cell - so we win twice.

Re: He can rot

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA, as far as I am concerned, is a criminal actor. This state of affairs / this government does not speak for me. They have no respect for the law, therefore I have no respect for them. We need people like Assange to even approach accountability for these criminals.

Re: He can rot

[david_thornley]

WTF does the NSA have to do with any of this?

sex crimes are the worst crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

worse than wmd on credit genocide murder torture endless deception etc...? more press for sure?

Re:Shows you

[weilawei]

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.

disgraceful lawyering

[joe545]

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.

Re:disgraceful lawyering

[pellik]

Unlike a trial there isn't such a straight-forward course of action to appeal being wanted for questioning. Likewise, he can't fight extradition to the US from Swedish holding until he's already being extradited. Assange is screwed until he decides to enter the labyrinth, and he's probably twice as screwed when he does.

Re:disgraceful lawyering

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice words in support of every draconian government in the world. You know those people in North Korean prison camps? That's just the consequences of breaking the law. The refugees that escape to the US through China from those camps? They should just accept the consequences, and be sent back.

That is exactly what you are arguing.

Meanwhile, virtually nobody outside the US - not even in Sweden - believes that Assange is going to be charged with anything, if he ever sets foot in Sweden. There won't be time for that before he will be put on the next CIA plane. The only reason he is hiding in the first place is that governments are breaking Swedish, UK and EU law to appease the US government.

Re:disgraceful lawyering

[sociocapitalist]

If you choose to piss off the powers that be then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.

FTFY

Re:disgraceful lawyering

[joe545]

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:disgraceful lawyering

[Anonymous Coward]

oh bollocks.

What you don't seem to get that Assange was told he was FREE TO LEAVE SWEDEN and the moment he did an arrest warrant was put out on him.

He is being railroaded pure and simple, and was about to be rendered to who knows where when he sought Asylum (a legal avenue for individuals that are being persecuted extra-judicially). This is about taking legal protection for himself against countries ignoring their own laws.

If we want to talk naïve, we don't need to look further than your comment.

That is if it's not your job to post such nonsense.

Re:disgraceful lawyering

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real question we should be asking is: Does Assange trim his bush, or even shave it all off?

Re:disgraceful lawyering

[david_thornley]

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.

Jello Pudding Pops

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof lies therein, the eating thereof.

Re:Shows you

[cold fjord]

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:Shows you

[weilawei]

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?

It was never about the costs

[Trachman]

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...

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:It was never about the costs

[Richard_at_work]

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:It was never about the costs

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It was never about the costs

[jittles]

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:Shows you

[cold fjord]

Questioning the accused is the next step in the Swedish legal process before charges can be filed. A trial would follow that.

Re:Shows you

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't had mod points in years despite excellent karma.

Re:Moderator and AC are FATHER RAPERS!

[Anonymous Coward]

With an 8x10 color glossy picture at the bottom of a pile of litter as proof.

Testify!

Criticisms of Femi-fascism Go Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Drive out the toxic bullies Slashdot.

Everyone is all over Bill Cosby right now

[jfdavis668]

But Julian gets a pass. Bill has done far more good in his life than this guy. If you have a standard, apply it to all.

Re:Everyone is all over Bill Cosby right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill is innocent - just like OJ

Re:Everyone is all over Bill Cosby right now

[dave420]

Seeing as the women are saying Assange didn't rape them, and the accusers of Cosby are sticking to their claims, it seems you are not applying your own standard.

Re:Everyone is all over Bill Cosby right now

[Mr_Wisenheimer]

The women testified under oath that he did rape them. That is why the Swedish government intends to charge him.

Re:Everyone is all over Bill Cosby right now

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why the Swedish government intends to charge him.

If they intended to charge him with a crime, they could have done so a long time ago. If they intended to question him, they could also have done so a long time ago. (foreign-soil depositions are commonplace)

Obviously, their intentions lie elsewhere.

WRONG!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden allows someone who is being deported to be deported to ANY OTHER COUNTRY that wishes to prosecute a criminal case against them, no matter the wishes of the person being extradited without court order.

There is no such ability in the UK, therefore he has to be explicitly extradited and, as a UK national, he has the right of appeal right through the court system, including a right of reply to any evidence to be used.

Please note that this is ALSO why Sweden won't actually arrest him, since once they arrest him, they have to pursue their own criminal investigation that, if it finds him guilty, would have to have him in a Swedish jail before extradition, or if it finds him innocent (which it will, since this is why he was let out of the country in the first place by the court), they can no longer deport him to where they want.

So your claim is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Re:WRONG!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden allows someone who is being deported to be deported to ANY OTHER COUNTRY that wishes to prosecute a criminal case against them, no matter the wishes of the person being extradited without court order.

BULLSHIT.

BULLSHIT.

BULLSHIT.

Go read the treaties. The temporary rendition clause that exists in the treaty between the US and Sweden ALSO exists in the treaty between the US and the UK. Furthermore, the rules of the European Union, of which both UK and Sweden are members, prevent ANY further "temporary rendition" or extradition of an extradited suspect without the express approval of the legal system of the country the suspect was extradited from.

In this case: UK extradites Assange to Sweden. Sweden must then seek and secure approval of the UK before turning him over to the US.

Easier case: US just asks UK to extradite Assange directly. No need for conspiracy, and no need for Sweden to sully its reputation.

Your alarmism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law actually works - no surprise, but still, disappointing.

Your claim is *absolutely, demonstrably, provably* wrong.

Re:WRONG!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier case: US just asks UK to extradite Assange directly.

Nope, it isn't easier in any way, shape or form. Assange is an Australian. That makes him a foreigner in Sweden, but a commonwealth national/citizen in the UK. It is quite natural to expect that the public reaction and the level of protection he'd get would be somewhat different, and higher.

But this is all beside the point. The real issue here is that it takes a measure of effort and arm-twisting to setup an extrajudicial kidnapping operation in Europe even for the US. While Assange was in Sweden, the US made the effort there. When Assange moved to the UK (after Sweden denied him residence and amidst the 'rape' scandal), it would have been very hard to move him extrajudicially to the US without a massive negative PR effect.

So, instead, they let the police rules work (the extradition proceedings from UK to Sweden did not concern the substance of the allegations) and the only thing that stopped Assange from ending up in some Guantanamo-like facility was the asylum he received by Equador.

Re:WRONG!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it isn't easier in any way, shape or form. Assange is an Australian. That makes him a foreigner in Sweden, but a commonwealth national/citizen in the UK.

No, the extradition treaty between the UK and US makes absolutely NO distinction between a citizen and a foreigner. The nationality of the person for whom extradition is requested is *irrelevant* to the proceeding.

You may want to consider the following facts:
https://www.gov.uk/government/....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...–US_extradition_treaty_of_2003#UK_cases_where_the_Act_has_been_applied

Specifically: independent review has found the extradition treaty to be fair and balanced; AND - from Jan. 2004 to Dec 2011, 33 UK citizens were extradited to the US under the treaty. That doesn't seem to indicate that citizenship gives any real expectation of "better protection."

The real issue here is that it takes a measure of effort and arm-twisting to setup an extrajudicial kidnapping operation in Europe even for the US.

No, the real issue here is that you're a fucking retard who insists on seeing a conspiracy where there is none. It would be EASIER for them to extradite from the UK directly; Sweden has absolutely nothing to gain by collaborating and reneging on its own obligations under the EAW program as a member of the EU.

the extradition proceedings from UK to Sweden did not concern the substance of the allegations

Absolute and utter bullshit, once again. The UK Supreme Court specifically upheld that the "substance of the allegations" met the dual criminality standard, and upheld the validity of the EAW. The first extradition hearing upheld that the allegations met the double criminality standard and therefore were extraditable offenses. To argue that the substance of the allegations was not considered completely disregards the entirety of his extradition hearings in the UK.

the only thing that stopped Assange from ending up in some Guantanamo-like facility was the asylum he received by Equador.

Well sure... that - plus the fact that the US isn't engaging in some vast conspiracy to kidnap him and send him to Gitmo - is all that's protecting him right now!

Re:WRONG!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK Supreme Court specifically upheld that the "substance of the allegations" met the dual criminality standard, and upheld the validity of the EAW.

Nope, the UKSK specifically ruled that they are only considering one claim, that of the meaning of 'judicial authority' in the 2003 Act. Even where the judges made comments on the case, they were limited to the procedural aspects of the issuing, as they appear on the books in Sweden and we know how much what's on the books matters when pressure from the US is involved -- not much. People are drugged, tied, delivered on the plane and exported to places where torture is standart 'judicial practice'.

In other words, you're ignorant of the UKSC decision, but that doesn't stop you from lying about it.

Re:WRONG!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the UKSK specifically ruled that they are only considering one claim, that of the meaning of 'judicial authority' in the 2003 Act.

You understand what an appeal is, yes? A request to overturn the decisions of a lower court? By declining an appeal, the court is expressly upholding the decision of the lower court.

From the actual text of the UK Supreme Court's decision:

83. The point on the meaning of “judicial authority” taken in this case has been technical, in as much as there has been no lack of judicial consideration of whether there is a case that justifies the prosecution of Mr Assange for the offences in respect of which his extradition is sought.

In other words: This appeal was filed on a technicality, and UKSC sees no reason to think that insufficient judicial consideration has been given to the substance of the charges against Mr. Assange.

However, it isn't necessarily so

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know she said that at the time?

She claimed, remember, that a condom was used but broke and the one put forward as evidence

a) had no Julian DNA on it
b) had no evidence it had ever been used in a sex act

If we go on who said what, then when Julian says it was consentual, then we MUST ALSO CLAIM it was consentual. I.e. not rape.

Re:Shows you

[dhasenan]

There is a huge number of rapists in the world (1 in 16 college men, according to Lisak and Miller, 2002, will admit to having raped someone if you ask them anonymously and don't use the word "rape"), and I have no particular reason to doubt the accusations leveled against Assange.

I'd like to know

[fustakrakich]

Who's paying his room and board, and how can I live so easy in somebody else's house?

Re:Shows you

[Anonymous Coward]

He was already questioned after he turned himself in for questioning in Sweden back when, instead of arresting him, the police illegally informed the tabloids that there was a warrant for his arrest.

After arriving in London following prosecutor #2 telling him he was free to leave the country, he discovered that prosecutor #2 had sent Interpol after him, so he promptly turned himself in again. But the prosecution refused to question him and has been refusing ever since.

Re:Shows you

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell it will. the reason why the swedes are dragging their feet is that they KNOW they can't charge him with anything, and that any trial will completely vindicate Assange.

This is about a US sponsored politician running for election punishing on behalf of the US because he DARED to be independent media and told us the truth about the nature of our governments so that he'd get US support.

If there was any doubt we're no longer a democracy but rather a corrupt oligarchy this farce took care of that.

Re:Shows you

[weilawei]

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:Shows you

[weilawei]

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:Shows you

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read up on why rape is one of the most under-reported crimes. Women who are raped (and then publicly persecuted, as these women were), often retract their accusations.

Stop calling it Sexual Assault.

[Anonymous Coward]

See title.

The Irony Is. . .

[Mr_Wisenheimer]

. . . 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.

Extradition

[phorm]

Well, let's put it this way. If he didn't want to be charged with a fairly serious CRIME, then don't commit the crime. The problem here is that they do have a legitimate case against the guy for the crimes in question, but he's trying to get off claiming they're actually out to get him for something else (which doesn't mean he's not guilty of the original crime).

Re:Extradition

[Archtech]

"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:Extradition

[cold fjord]

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.

For some reason that presumption rarely seems to be honored for the people that Assange steals or traffics in secrets from. Same goes for Snowden.

Re:Extradition

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason that presumption rarely seems to be honored for the people that Assange steals or traffics in secrets from.

That is because a tax funded government branch that is working against the people isn't considered to be people.

Re:Extradition

[david_thornley]

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:Extradition

[cold fjord]

Sorry, but no. Those claims are often made against specific people, so where is that presumption of innocence?

Re:Extradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange steals or traffics in secrets from

Who did Assange 'steal' from, exactly? If 'trafficking secrets' is an offence, why aren't all US journalists in jail again, little fascist?

Not interesting, or remotely likely.

[Rujiel]

You're implying that they're somehow afraid of anyone who's sympathetic with assange, which is totally laughable. Same old paid troll garbage.

Paid Trolls Go Here.

[Rujiel]

The story of every Assange thread. This is what happens to enemies of the state, be it Greenwald or Assange.

Re:Shows you

[aaaaaaargh!]

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:Shows you

[cold fjord]

The investigation was continued by another prosecutor at the insistence of the women. The charges are the same.

He doesn't want it to end

[stevez67]

Because then he becomes even more irrelevant than he already is.

Re:Shows you

[AK Marc]

He has been questioned on those charges, so where's the trial?

And Sweden regularly questions people over the phone or internationally where convenient, yet refuses to do so for this case. Why?

Re:Moderator and AC are FATHER RAPERS!

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a case of bliiiiiiiind justice?

Re:Shows you

[cold fjord]

He hasn't been questioned by the current prosecutor. The trial, if any, would follow charges, and those would follow questioning by the current prosecutor. Not complicated.

Why bring him back to Sweden? You don't suppose it could be due to the likelihood of going forward with a trial, do you? That's hard to do if Assange isn't there. I also seem to recall someone posting that a clock starts ticking once he is actually charged - speedy trial and all that - and Assagne could run out the clock by staying in the embassy.

conditional consent and one night stands

[fonske]

Courts trying to rule in this matter is as pathetic as participating in a one night stand.
One night stands are all about high risk behaviour.
I always make clear I want at least three weeks of relation and want to get to know family.
Yeah, I once got thrown out after exactly three weeks of pussy eatin'...because my penis was not big enough for her.
Go on talking about conditional consent anyway.

Re:Shows you

[cold fjord]

It doesn't matter how thin you slice that, it is still baloney.

The boring truth about those Julian Assange smears

If any of these bozos did twenty minutes of research, they might have found Ardin's blog - "my feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, Swedish politics and Cuba from a political scientist, Christian left and long distance runner" - and read her post, with the help of a Scandinavian comrade or Google Translate, "Våldtäkt en del av mäns makt" - rape [is] a part of men's power. Or they would have seen this article from Ardin's days at Uppsala University, where she, in her role as some sort of equality watchdog, denounced the tradition of singing ribald student songs, which included "references to genitalia and serious sexual content," as "offensive and stereotypical." She is, in other words, rather sensitive on gender issues. Or this blog post on how one can exact "legal revenge" on men who have been "unfaithful." According to The Guardian, sources close to the investigation claim that she filed a complaint because Assange didn't wear a condom during sex. So the boring truth is that Assange didn't come up against a CIA conspiracy, but the rather broad Swedish conception of what constitutes a sexual crime.

Target acquired...

[jennatalia]

Fair skin, fair hair, likes to be on the giving side of a rape. He'll do well in an American prison...

Re:Shows you

[AK Marc]

Trials in absentia are common. Does Sweden not perform them? Does Sweden guarantee a speedy trial? In the US, the rules around it allow for defense delays, but not prosecutorial. So holding back trial because the defendant is evading arrest is a valid reason to delay a trail indefinitely.