Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Authorities Offer To Question Assange In London
An anonymous reader writes: Since 2012, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been holed up inside Ecuador's embassy in London trying to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces a sexual assault investigation. Now, after the case has been stalled for years, Swedish prosecutors are arranging to come to London and question Assange within the embassy. According to his lawyer, Assange welcomes this, but Sweden still needs to be granted permission from both the UK and Ecuador. "Assange's lawyers, who are appealing against his arrest warrant in Sweden's highest court, have complained bitterly about the prosecutor's refusal to travel to London to speak to him – an essential step under Swedish jurisprudence to establish whether Assange can be formally charged. [Lead investigator Marianne] Ny's refusal, they say, has condemned Assange to severe limitations on his freedom that are disproportionate to the accusations against him." Ny has also requested a DNA sample from Assange.
Neither Assange nor his accuser deny that they had sex. They just disagree over how consensually they had sex.
What, exactly, do they hope to prove from a DNA test?
Now, I suppose it would certainly put quite an interesting spin on all this if it turns out Assange didn't have sex with her, but other than that totally-out-there possibility, what other use could they have for his DNA?
Ah, that last, mostly rhetorical question brings out the paranoid anti-government side of me. What other use could they have? "Hey, check it out, we "found" his DNA in hundreds of previously-unprocessed-for-decades rape kits from the US!" And just like that, the US would have direct standing to extradite him.
Finally.
It's not like this is unprecedented. I don't know what's so special about Assange that they could not have done this a long time ago.
My guess on what's about to happen:
- Sweden interviews him and drops the charges.
- Assange steps out of the embassy and is immediately arrested.
- Assange is charged in the US and extradited within a few days.
Yeah I'm interested to see how that plays out. If Sweden drops it's extradition request, there's every possibility that the British courts may deem that that adds weight to his argument that there was no case to answer, that it was political, and that he shouldn't have had to be on bail in the first place making his fleeing of that effectively irrelevant.
But then if there is a political dimension, it may be that they'll be happy to get him on whatever they can, and they do indeed punish him for skipping bail.
It'd be interesting to see how that plays out, but it really depends what happens after the questioning that is finally going ahead.
It's interesting that Ny cites the impending statute of limitations date as the reason for the change of heart. There have been two other key events in the last 6 months that I suspect were more relevant:
1) Assange's petition to the Swedish courts to have the case dropped failed, but in the ruling the Swedish judiciary was clear that it could not understand why Ny hadn't just questioned him over here, that it was incredibly odd that she hadn't and that she must do this ASAP.
2) There has been growing political pressure to stop guarding the embassy. When £10million has been spent on guarding the embassy whilst police forces have been cut MPs have faced increasing pressure from the public and even policing unions to stop wasting time on it. Recent cuts have meant that some crimes such as car crime have become defacto decriminalised because the police no longer have the resources to pursue them. In that context it's rather galling for the police and public alike to hear we're spending millions just to have officers stood around doing nothing.
So I imagine the weight of these two events have been the key reasons for this shift rather than expiry of statute of limitations for the most minor allegations. If Ny defied the Swedish courts a further appeal to have the case dropped would likely succeed due to Ny refusing to do her job and actually pursue a prosecution. Similarly, the Ecuadorian embassy might stop being watched and Assange could flee anyway.
She's really been left little choice. At least the case is finally moving, and Ny has been forced to do her job properly rather than simply persisting with long discredited excuses not to do it (the most amusing of which is that the Swedish justice system doesn't allow overseas questioning - what a laughing stock the folks that persisted in pushing that myth have now become).
Don't interrupt the Assange circle jerk with your facts.
He's reposting the crap about Assange "fucking a sleeping girl" since 2010, that is, since about the time this was not part of the accusations against Assange. Slashdot correctly doesn't give you mod points, you don't look like a person who'd use them intelligently.
I'll add that I am curious as to whether anyone has managed to negotiate with Ecuador conditions in which they would hand him over.
I was recently pondering over a potential situation where both Ecuador and Sweden could get their sides met. Let's remember, Ecuador's side is to play up "We're protecting him from the evil imperialists in the US, and won't give him up unless we can be guaranteed that you won't honor any extradition request from the US". Sweden's is "We're not going to let someone who our courts system declared a probable rapist just walk without a trial, and nor are we going to promise to break our extradition law if a valid extradition request from the US was received, never mind that our law doesn't even allow for extradition for intelligence crimes". There's a bit of undertone of mutual disrespect in both cases. In Sweden's case, the undertone is along the lines of "We're a nation of laws, not of kangaroo courts bullied by the executive like you", while in Ecuador's case it's along the lines of "We're not your f*ing colony to order around, we make our own decisions, deal with it."
But there may be a way that both to get out of this with what they want.
Ecuador could charge Assange with a crime - say, hacking a server in Ecuador, and Assange could admit to it, providing all of the evidence they need to justify an extradition request. The extradition request could be filed concurrently with Sweden taking Assange into custody. Hence Ecuador's extradition request would have priority over any subsequent extradition requests from any third state (such as the US). The Swedish case, operating under the auspices of an EAW, would take priority. Whether he was convicted or not, whenever the Swedish legal system was done with him his extradition request would come into force before he could be set free. Normally both the UK and Sweden would have to approve an extradition request to a third state, both their courts and governments. But a consent to be extradited short circuits all of that, so if Assange consented to be extradited to Ecuador, it would be automatic. The US could file extradition requests with Sweden or Ecuador, but of course Sweden would never have a chance to serve it (having surrendered him to Ecuador in the order of precedence), and Ecuador would never honor such a request from the US.
Once in Ecuador, Assange could deny the charges that got him there and Ecuador could decide to drop the case for a lack of evidence.
It may be a bit distasteful for Ecuador to have to charge their guest with an extraditable offense, Correa might lose a bit of face for having to take that route. But I think he'd gain more face than he lost, with the means being seen as justifiable for the end.
"Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
all other communication has been through Q and A via his attorneys
They have offered from the beginning to allow Ny to either question him in London, or to do it via teleconference, both of which Swedish law allows. Even the Swedish press and non-NyD MPs have started ridiculing Ny for her stubborn refusal to do so.
Heck, one of Assange's attorneys (Emerson) all but admitted that he did it.
Why wouldn't they? Anna Ardin never accused him of rape, just wanted to force him to get tested for STDs. She has even tweeted since then that he never raped her. Why would Assange or his lawyers bother denying facts that no one disputes?
before he fled
Slight correction there - After the first prosecutor cleared him, and Ny stalled for weeks, Assange asked permission to go to London, which Ny granted (and then immediately issued an international arrest warrant to generate as much worldwide publicity as possible).
The claim that Assange was "free to go" as promulgated by BjÃrn Hurtig, a former attorney of Assange's.
The chief magistrate of Assange's extradition hearing (who originally voted to extradite) has publicly stated that he incorrectly applied a law that effectively tied his hands into approving the extradition, and would have voted against it otherwise. Unfortunately for Assange, that really doesn't matter, because the UK has chosen to interpret him seeking asylum as breach of bail - Though in some sort of alice-in-wonderland loop of logic, amusingly enough, that doesn't count as a criminal offense in the UK, it just allows forfeiture of the bail itself and taking the accused into custody pending trial. Except, he doesn't face trial because Sweden hasn't actually charged him because (as you point out) they can't charge him without interviewing him, which Ny has refused to do until now.
If he didn't legitimately fear the
By "the history", you mean "the one case a decade and a half ago where Egypt lied to Sweden and told them that two people were convicted terrorists and promised to treat them well, getting them deported on the flight that Egypt arranged with the CIA", a case that caused such an uproar that the two were given residence, large financial compensation packages, and EU extradition law in general was changed so that countries had to have a history of upholding their promises for extradition to be allowed to proceed? The case that led to such an anti-rendition backlash in Sweden that in in 2006 Sweden had their special forces disguise themselves as airport workers to board a CIA jet and stop the extradition program from going through their territory, causing a major diplomatic incident with the US? A case that was exposed by.. wait for it.... Wikileaks!
While no country is perfect, Sweden has the #1 ranking in the world for the rights of the accused by the peer-reviewed World Justice Project. They have the world's best protections for whistleblowers - it's not even legal to investigate who leaked information in most cases, let alone prosecute. Assange thought so much of Sweden that he was moving there and setting up a new Wikileaks base of operations there - that's why he was in Sweden. He repeatedly called Sweden his shield, he thought so much of them. Right up until he was accused of rape, when suddenly Sweden magically transformed into an evil US lackey. Funny how that works.
"Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
*** Yes, he did flee. The claim that Assange was "free to go" as promulgated by Björn Hurtig, a former attorney of Assange's. He tried that same line in court and got smacked down by the judge for trying to deceive the court, and then got an official reprimand from the Swedish Bar Association.
I can't confirm or deny your claim here, but the link you provide doesn't confirm it either:
Riddle was referring to testimony in which Hurtig had said he had been unable to contact Assange last year when he was sought by Swedish prosecutors for questioning.
Nothing is said about whether Assange was free to leave Sweden or not, but a court order banning you from leaving the country usually means you hand over your passport. Since the UK is not part of the Schengen Area, he would have needed a passport to enter the UK from Sweden.