Slashdot Mirror
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."
Convicted rapist? The two women claim that the charges were made up.
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.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
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.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
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,
Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
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:
#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?
Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
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.