Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swedish Authorities Offer To Question Assange In London

Posted by Soulskill on from the my-place-or-yours dept.

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.

97 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Don't take any drinks they offer you! by NotDrWho · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't take any drinks they offer you, or presents (especially ones with suspicious round holes and openings marked "mic").

    As someone who was once on the Cosby Show, trust me on this.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  2. culture trap by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a trap. A legal aussie date may be felonious in Sweden.

    1. Re:culture trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A legal Aussie date is felonious pretty much anywhere else.

    2. Re:culture trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      But only in Sweden is regret considered retroactive rape.

      No. At most universities in the US, regret can also be considered retroactive rape. See the Emma Sulkowicz case at Columbia University.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html

    3. Re:culture trap by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      F*ing a sleeping girl is to work around her refusal to consent to one's preferred form of sex - entry #4 on Assange's EAW - is rape in almost every jurisdiction in the first world. And the UK court system has - at multiple levels - upheld that all four entries on the EAW match up to equivalent British charges. And a full court hearing in the Svea Court of Appeals, including testimony from Assange's attorneys, has gone over the evidence and found probable cause on all four counts. Heck, one of Assange's attorneys (Emerson) all but admitted that he did it.

      Sweden actually has rather unusually lax penalties in this regard compared to most places. If Assange was convicted of doing that in DC then he'd be facing a 10x longer maximum sentence than in Sweden. In fact, Sweden's rape laws in general are pretty lax. There was a rape case a while back where a teenage girl was gang-raped by a group of three men; however, only the first could be charged because, having been beaten into submission by him, she had stopped resisting by the time that the other two got to her.

      Anyway, for the case at hand here, it's amazing that the Slashdot header didn't mention the actual stated reason why the prosecutor is doing this: because the statute of limitations on some of the lesser charges** runs out this year (the statute on the rape charge** doesn't run out until 2020). Thus he has to be indicted**, of which this questioning is a legal requirement (he's only been questioned on some of the charges before he fled***, all other communication has been through Q and A via his attorneys). This will pose some challenges, as in general in Sweden, once indicted**, there's a time limit on when the case must go to trial, but if he still refuses to hand himself over, he could run this out. But the prosecutor's office may be able to extend that, we'll have to see.

      ** I use here "charged" in the case of "anklagad" and "indict" in the case of "åtala". They don't exactly match up to English words, and a lot of Assange fans like to play this word game where they say he's not been "charged" and use that as an excuse for why he should be able to go free. But in Sweden, the process is that one gets formally anklagad by the processor and a judge issues a warrant (following the same sort of process as a charged person in the US or UK), and then once in custody and sufficient evidence has been gathered for prosecution, they're åtalad, which brings the case to trial. You're anklagad to get you in custody, åtalad to try to convict you.

      *** 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.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    4. Re:culture trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't interrupt the Assange circle jerk with your facts.

    5. Re:culture trap by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      You sound like you're very familiar with Swedish law - wish I had some mod points to give you.

      Question for you: under US law, the statute of limitations doesn't run if you stay out of the jurisdiction for the clear purpose of running out the clock. Same for the right to a speedy trial if you're already indicted. So, you can't just hide to run out the clock. It sounds like Swedish law is different...

    6. Re:culture trap by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    7. Re:culture trap by Rei · · Score: 1

      Forgot to link a reference to the statute of limitations part: link

      The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.

      That's straight from the prosecutor's office website. Strange how much coverage of this decision hasn't mentioned this basic fact.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    8. Re:culture trap by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    9. Re:culture trap by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    10. Re:culture trap by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Uhhh...the "sleeping girl" that testified she was "sleepy" when they started FOREPLAY and then woke up enough to have sex, go to the shops, make him breakfast AND tweet about how wonderful a night she had, THAT sleeping girl?

      Quit pushing the "Murrica fuck yeah!" propaganda you've been spewing. You wanna know how you can be 100% sure its murrica propaganda? Because the head of the embassy said "We will happy to hand Mr Assange over to Sweden on ONE CONDITION and one condition alone, that they sign a statement saying this is about a crime in Sweden and will NOT simply hand him over to US officials"...well guess what Sparky? THEY REFUSED.

      That is incontrovertible proof the whole thing is nothing but a setup for a rendition ride so that the TLAs can make an example of him. After all it it was really about rape, a state charge there, why would they give a single fuck about signing the paper? Because they know it would make them look like the USA's bitch when they signed and handed him over, that's what.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:culture trap by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Which would be relevant if this was some sort of "information gathering phase". It is not. They have a court finding (upheld on review) of probable cause of all four charges. According to the sworn statement of the prosecutor to the UK 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."

      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?

      As usual with most assange fans, you're so ignorant of the actual case that you don't even know the bloody charges. There are no rape charges concerning AA. The charges concerning AA are 1-3 on the EAW, the most significant of which is "unlawful sexual coersion", which matches AA's statements, including her most recent (late last year), referring to what happened to her as an assault but not rape. #4 concerns SW. AA's one public statement shortly after the case came out, and the many statements in the leaked police testimony (of which is just a fraction of the total testimony, more was collected after that), was that she went to the police with SW to provide support for SW's accusation of rape, but that what happened to her did not amount to rape. The charges are in line with this.

      You're also mixing up all sorts of other stuff in that statement. Her statements about what happened to her in the press and in the police testimony weren't tweets. The "tweet" thing most people talk about were tweets she made during the period in which Assange was living with her. But they're almost always misquoted. The main one misrepresented is usually the one about going to the crayfish party, where she talks about being at a party with the "world's most amazing people". The police interviewed people who went to the party. One of them, KB, testified that AA had complained to her at the party about the "violent" (her words) sex with Assange.

      Once again, I'll repeat: there are no rape charges related to AA. So it's a moot point anyway. There are two molestation charges and one unlawful sexual coersion charge related to him pinning her down and trying to pry her legs open until she agreed to consent.

      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).

      This is simply false, and Hurtig's lies about it got him both scolded by a judge and officially reprimanded by the Swedish Bar Association. You can also read the leaked SMS logs from Ny (mainly with Hurtig), it gives a good sense of the game Hurtig is playing - he keeps trying to convince the Swedish side first that Assange is still in Sweden and getting ready to meet with them, then pretends to be out of touch with him and stops answering his phone, then when it's clear that Assange is overseas he still keeps pretending that Assange will be coming back very soon to meet with them Assange is setting up long-term lodging in the UK and hiring local attorneys.

      ** 22 sep 2010 **

      13:50 Lejnefors -> Ny: Hello! It turned out that the police already had that address. Erika

      16:02 Ny -> Lejnefors: This was not something that could lead us

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    12. Re:culture trap by Slayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      *** 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.

    13. Re:culture trap by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      "F*ing a sleeping girl is to work around her refusal to consent to one's preferred form of sex - entry #4 on Assange's EAW - is rape in almost every jurisdiction in the first world."

      Except that Sofia Wilén has admitted that she wasn't actually sleeping. In fact, SMS's she sent indicated not only that she was actually awake, and that she didn't protest. Her SMS history afterwards also indicates that she didn't want to accuse him of rape or have him arrested, but was pressured by Anna Ardin and her friend, who just happened to also be the police taking up the reports. Those SMS's were later subjected to attempted deletion, but were recovered.(Same with Anna Ardins tweets from the night after she and Assange had sex, stating "Sitting here with wonderful people", including Assange in that statement. Those tweets were also recovered after the attempted deletion). Yet, despite her legal duty to do so, Marianne Ny refuses to acknowledge them, unlike the initial prosecutor.

      And that's without even getting started on the political entanglements that lies behind it all, such as Anna Ardin, Marianne Ny, Claes BorgstrÃm and Irmeli Krans all being associated with each other politically(BroderskapsrÃrelsen within Socialdemokraterna) as well as personal friendships(Claes BorgstrÃm and Marianne Ny are personal friends. Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans are personal friends).

      Despite officially being taken off the case due to Conflict of Interest, Irmeli Krans is in practice still involved in the case, as revealed by a SMS sent from Mats Gehlin that orders her to make changes to Sofia Wiléns testimony, the day after Eva Finné has dropped the preliminary investigation.

      And, if we're going to link to feminists, why not link to what actual respectable feminists have to say, rather than modern feminism extremists? You could have linked to Helen Bergman, for example.

      Or, you could perhaps have paid attention to Juris Doktor Brita Sundberg-WEitman, a former justice of the Svea Court of Appeals that you mentioned, who has herself deemed the case to be without merit, and even reported the entire case to JO.

    14. Re:culture trap by Troed · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess most of us (yes, I'm Swedish) find it much more plausible that the decision came after the court having told the prosecutor that she did not fulfil the reasonability requirement for handling the investigation.

      That happened this Tuesday.

      På tisdagen bestämde Högsta domstolen att Riksåklagaren ska skicka in en svarsskrivelse i målet. Riksåklagaren ska där förklara hur utredningsarbetet ska fortsätta – speciellt när det gäller frågan om proportionalitetsprincipen.
      Enligt principen ska olika intressen vägas mot varandra och åtgärder ska inte gå utöver det som är nödvändigt med hänsyn till ändamålet. Det kan till exempel gälla samhällets krav på säkerhet mot individens rätt till integritet.

      http://www.expressen.se/nyhete...

      Marianne Ny had no choice after this but to finally do what Swedish prosecutors do all the time - question people abroad.

      (Looking at your post history on the subject of Assange your bias is extremely visible)

      --
      it's in my head
    15. Re:culture trap by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Pretty damn funny comment, since the reason I don't have any mod points is that I had just used them up. Karma's excellent, thanks.

    16. Re:culture trap by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      Don't accept things on face value.

      My understanding is that at least one of the victims has come out and said it was not rape, and that the facts that were presented were inaccurate. She has made claims that she was coerced into her statements.

    17. Re:culture trap by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In this case the facts here have nothing to do with Assange or rape, the fact here is the United States government after recent rather lethal shenanigans in Europe ie the Ukraine, in now on the out and Sweden just wants to make this particular political eye sore disappear and move on, along with creating a bit of political distance between itself and the bas ole US of A.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:culture trap by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Probably exactly as many of the Egyptian perpetrators who were Swedish citizens.

    19. Re:culture trap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There was an investigation and he was cleared. In that case regret very clearly was not considered rape. Your link demonstrates the opposite of the claim you are making.

      What your link does show is that there are issues around anonymity for the accused and trial by media, but very clearly the university does not consider regret to be retroactive rape.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:culture trap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that Sweden prosecuted the Pirate Bay founders due to pressure from the US government, at the behest of US corporations. It's all been well documented and leaked.

      Governments are made up for many different parts, not all of them on the same page or with the same goals and values. Clearly one part didn't like US rendition flights, but another was happy to bring prosecutions and pervert Swedish justice on behalf of it. Given that the US has already demonstrated some control over the Swedish government and legal system, and given that Assange believes the charges to be trumped up like the ones we have seen against other enemies of the US, I can understand why he is reluctant to go back there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:culture trap by Xest · · Score: 1

      Oh don't even try. Rei is the most aggressive Assange hater Slashdot has ever seen because she was a victim herself once and so has decided that a man accused is a man automatically guilty, and that it's her quest to ensure all accused many are treated as such.

      She was pushing the lie that the Swedish prosecutor couldn't question him over here because Swedish law wouldn't allow it even after the Swedish courts said in response to Assange appeal that they could and that it was odd that they hadn't.

      I'm amazed she can show her face here now that this lie she pushed so zealously and so vehemently has been shredded by the very prosecutor she was defending, yet here she is, and worse, she's still pushing the anglakad lie, pretending these Swedish terms don't translate to English, even though they translate EXACTLY.

      I can't tell if there's a lot of gullible people here or if she has her own team of mod-bot accounts, but if a story says Assange in the title you can guarantee she'll show up flooding it with +5 lies, many of which have been obliterated with the passage of time and the emergence of the truth, just like in this story in fact.

  3. Never about a rape charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And ALL persons involved know this.

    1. Re:Never about a rape charge by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you saying that the CIA would trump up a fake rape charge just because someone was foolish enough to threaten U.S. interests, only for the truth to come out as soon as they got what they wanted?

      That's just ludicrous!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Never about a rape charge by Rei · · Score: 1

      No need to write the same reply again.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    3. Re:Never about a rape charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      February, 2011: Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), begins to call for a new global currency to supplant the U.S. Dollar (widely held as the current global standard, to the great benefit of the U.S. of course).

      May, 2011: Strauss-Kahn is publicly dragged off a plane in NYC in handcuffs and paraded in front of the press, in what the NY prosecutor calls a "rock solid" case of sexual assault. Strauss-Khan is shortly thereafter forced to resign as head of the IMF.

      June, 2011 Christine Lagarde is sworn in as the new IMF chief after an endorsement from U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. She mentions nothing further of any new global currencies to challenge the Dollar.

      August, 2011: All charges are dropped against Strauss-Kahn. The NY prosecutor admits that he has no case and that the accuser's story doesn't hold water.

      March, 2013: Some Slashdot jackass can't spot the obvious real story here.

    4. Re:Never about a rape charge by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      March, 2013: Some Slashdot jackass can't spot the obvious real story here.

      Jackass? More like paid hack. There are lot of rape activists in the world, but Rei is the only single-rape activist on the planet. You can see her in any story about Assange repeating the same debunked talking points, going back years. You know, the usual crap that the Swedish government can't promise Assange that he wont be handed over to the U.S. as soon as they get their hands on him.

      Rei's not too bright, though, as she made unforced error of procliaming that Swedish law prevents people from being extradited for "intelligence crimes". Except, of course, that the U.S. wants Assange for the "intelligence crime" of publishing then Bradley Manning's whisteblowing.

    5. Re:Never about a rape charge by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      I doubt that Rei is a paid shill, though. If you read her comments that are not about this, it's clear she is no fan of US foreign policy. It's just this one issue that brings out her irrationality, and my guess would be that she was raped at some point and that prejudices her towards believing any rape accusation.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    6. Re:Never about a rape charge by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Mind you, she's the kind of person who they would want to be a shill, as she's pretty anti-US government most of the time, and has a positive reputation on this board. What those who pay shills ideally want is someone like that to just drive hard for their pet causes and otherwise fit in, to make us think that maybe there's something to what the shill is saying.

      But I would be very surprised if those PR organizations have the staying power to have shills with her kind of history and longevity. That's what strains credibility here. So I think she truly believes that Assange is a rapist and I think that that is for personal reasons of her own, as the evidence (as laid out here) points towards him not being one.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    7. Re:Never about a rape charge by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Yeh, repeating lies is your specialty shill.

    8. Re:Never about a rape charge by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Are we talking of the same Strauss-Kahn who was being tried for other unrelated sex offences?

  4. DNA sample? by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:DNA sample? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      What, exactly, do they hope to prove from a DNA test?

      Nothing, it's just standard operating procedure to take your DNA whenever you interact with the police these days.

      Even innocent people reporting crimes are often asked to provide samples, supposedly so that theirs can be distinguished from the criminal's at the crime scene. Someone I know gave them his 1 year old daughter's DNA for this purpose, and she will now be on their files for almost the entirety of her life.

      Also, in this case it helps confirm that the DNA sample that the US already has for him is correct. They love collecting this stuff for your file, just in case they need it in future.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:DNA sample? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "lets grab some of his dna and plant it various places"

      yeah, this is an akbar. ie, a trap.

      meet with her behind sealed glass, if you must. don't shake hands, don't go near her or any of her party.

      and, in fact, I see no reason why this can't be done REMOTELY. if all they want to do is 'talk', we could have handled this years ago with wires. if no wires, then wet string and 2 paper cups.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:DNA sample? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't this be the reason for the request? Investigator isn't the same thing as prosecutor. For someone investigating the alleged rape it would be pretty convenient if it could be shown that the accusation is fabricated. No need to prove intent or anything, just shut down the case and move on.

      Both parties agree to the claim that they had sex. The police haven't presented a reason to need DNA evidence.

    4. Re:DNA sample? by khallow · · Score: 1

      On an American university campus, if a woman claims she has been raped, then that means she has been raped. There are severe penalties for her rapist.

      Unless of course, she wasn't actually raped. Then it doesn't mean that she was raped. And with how screwed up US campuses are these days, even a false accusation of rape can have severe penalties.

    5. Re:DNA sample? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      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?

      According to wikipedia:

      The allegations are of "non-consensual behaviour within consensual sexual encounters."[120] One of the allegations is that, during consensual intercourse, Assange ejaculated inside of one of the women against her wishes.[121] Assange denies the allegations.[122]

      So I think that would explain why they want the sample. He says he didn't, she says he did. If they find a match, then that answers the question. Or it least it could rule out his guilt. It can't prove his guilt for the same reason why the pull-out method of contraception doesn't work.

    6. Re:DNA sample? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Isn't the argument about the use of a condom or not?

      I guess if they have AssangeÂs semen they can show he didn't used one.

      And then what?

    7. Re: DNA sample? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Back at you.

  5. Finally by techsoldaten · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Finally by burtosis · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      Bollocks. The United States of America is the nexus of true freedom in this universe. They love whistleblowers, I hear they want snowmen back to apologize to him about the whole misunderstanding and return the ill gotten rights of the government, obtained by one or two bad apples, to the citizens. Furthermore the USA would never resort to underhanded tactics like that. How could you be so insulting to such great nations? I dare you to find a SINGLE real world example!!!

    2. Re:Finally by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Assange won't leave until his arrest warrant is dropped and he is guaranteed passage out of the UK, presumably to Ecuador. The UK may well agree since it's costing so much to guard the embassy and providing a source of constant embarrassment. There is basically zero chance of him leaving otherwise, he continues to have an active life and role from within.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Finally by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hear the President invited Snowden back to the U.S. for a special "We Love Whistleblowers!" party, where there will be cake. Better hurry up and get on that plane Edward, before the cake is all gone!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Finally by PPH · · Score: 2

      Why would he be arrested?

      Held as a material witness into who leaked all that stuff to Wikileaks.

      Same cell. Different colored jumpsuit.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Finally by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >>>> The United States of America is the nexus of true freedom in this universe.

      Bwahahahahahaha. Thanks I needed a laugh.

    6. Re:Finally by NotDrWho · · Score: 1, Informative

      The UK doesn't care about the cost of guarding that embassy 24/7. That's a trivial cost to them to keep their U.S. masters happy.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Terrorism. I don't think it is that hard for a US agency to fabricate documents that indicates that Assange have used Wikileaks to fund some terrorist organization or whatever.

    8. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed "what trial" ... trials aren't required for the US ... haven't you heard of Guantanamo?

    9. Re:Finally by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I hear they want snowmen back to apologize

      the snowmen are now melted; its spring time.

      can we send in rudolph the red nosed reindeer, in place of the snowmen?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:Finally by Livius · · Score: 1

      I wanted to moderate this 'Funny' but far too many people actually believe stuff like this.

    11. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone with some clue understands that the idea Sweden is more likely to extradite anyone to the US than the UK is thoroughly wrong and easily disproved using actual extradition statistics.
      Anyone that thinks Sweden would extradite anyone possible facing the death penalty (AS CLAIMED BY ASSANGE) don't know shit about the law - last I checked there are a number of murderers walking free in Sweden as they can't be extradited without guarantees of not facing death.

      (anonymous because of moderation)

      Extradition from Sweden, or the UK, would as I understand it require judicial trial. If he was facing a prosecution risking the death penalty then I do doubt Sweden would hand him over. But there's a non-judicial route in Sweden if the US wanted him for assistance in an other case (say some side-line/spin-off to Snowden's case), and that could be decided by a civil servant without judicial involvement.

      Anyone think the US might "find something unexpected" to charge him with once on US soil?

      Sweden - Oops, sorry 'bout that... (also see the case of the 2 CIA renditioned Egyptians, where Sweden "naively accepted" the Egyptian guarantee of no torture.) Oops...

      Captcha: circus [Has /. got some form of AI assigning captchas to stories, or are they doing it manually?]

    12. Re:Finally by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I think you are half right. This is the first step to dropping all charges and walking away.

      He will not be immediately arrested because, he has already been neutralized and their ability to effectively imprison people like him has been demonstrated by effectively keeping him imprisoned for years. Few people would be so lucky in his shoes, so their point is well made.

      Typically the last thing they would really want is a messy and contentious trial. They would much rather it fade away into obscurity.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re:Finally by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie

    14. Re:Finally by skaralic · · Score: 1

      I hear the President invited Snowden back to the U.S. for a special "We Love Whistleblowers!" party, where there will be cake. Better hurry up and get on that plane Edward, before the cake is all gone!

      Yellowcake?!

    15. Re:Finally by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      It is a matter of principle - A british court has ruled the EAW to be valid . Assange has exhausted all his appeals and is now a fugitive from the law. If the government were not to attempt to enforce the court's order , the home secretary will find herself in hot water with the judiciary and in the parliament. By voluntarily submitting himself to the british courts and then refusing to comply once the decisions dint fall his way , assange has left the uk no option.It was a massive miscalcualtion by Correa that has led to this situation.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    16. Re:Finally by aliquis · · Score: 1

      They like FOREIGN whistle blowers ;D

      Just like the Russians!

    17. Re:Finally by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The UK doesn't care about the cost of guarding that embassy 24/7. That's a trivial cost to them to keep their U.S. masters happy.

      It was said today that here in Sweden we'll spend ~250 million (SEK, worth 1/8.6 as much in USD) in a case on cheating with uhm... was it household assistance or something such? Worth ~11 million.

    18. Re:Finally by aliquis · · Score: 1

      UK twist:

      "He's truly sorry and have agreed to pay these £100 000 in compensation" (from the coffins of London/UK to not have to bother any more ;D)

    19. Re:Finally by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This is what they charge you with if you used a computer.

      Then Espionage and Conspiracy. The CFAA only goes up to 10 years, I assume someone would want to make an example out of him.

    20. Re:Finally by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      He will not be immediately arrested because, he has already been neutralized and their ability to effectively imprison people like him has been demonstrated by effectively keeping him imprisoned for years.

      Last I saw, Wikileaks was still alive and well.

      I really doubt this is going to blow over.

    21. Re:Finally by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      Bollocks. The United States of America is the nexus of true freedom in this universe. They love whistleblowers, I hear they want snowmen back to apologize to him about the whole misunderstanding and return the ill gotten rights of the government, obtained by one or two bad apples, to the citizens. Furthermore the USA would never resort to underhanded tactics like that. How could you be so insulting to such great nations? I dare you to find a SINGLE real world example!!!

      True story.
      In fact they are a prime example of selflessness.
      They brought so much justice and democracy to the world that nothing of it is left at home.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    22. Re:Finally by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if the down votes my parent comment got were because people thought i was serious or too pissed off at America to take any mention lightheartedly.

  6. Swedish Charges/British Charges by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's two dimensions here, first there's the Swedish charges and certainly if the prosecutors can question him in the Ecuadorian embassy then that's great, however he still fled and violated the conditions of his bail while awaiting extradition proceedings in the UK. That's still a problem for him.

    I think Ecuador is going to ship a large "diplomatic pouch" about the size of a refrigerator sometime soon because he has to be stinking up the embassy by now.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Swedish Charges/British Charges by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

    2. Re:Swedish Charges/British Charges by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The UK can either wait for him to come out and keep paying millions of pounds a year to watch the door, or they can let him leave and go to Ecuador. They will opt for the latter option, because keeping him there clearly isn't working. They can convict him of skipping bail when his is long gone, just to save face.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Swedish Charges/British Charges by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Well, the fleeing part from Sweden is actually not relevant here. He was asked to come back after the fact, which was arguably not aboveboard, but he was legally brought in for an extradition hearing in the UK. He then fled to the embassy.

      At this point, by escaping from the UK to the embassy of Ecuador, he's actually in flight from UK law.

      As they say, you may well be jailed unjustly, but escape from even an unjust imprisonment is still against the law. They could fix that in court, but guess what, now he's in UK hands and that will give the US time to make their own extradition request.

      As convenient as it is, however, I don't actually believe it was originally set up that way and it is in no way clear the US will actually try and extradite him, even if he's taken back by the UK. A lot of people assume that this is what is going to happen, but I'm not sure they want to open that can of worms again.

      More to the point, if the US government wants to shut him down, as opposed to make him a martyr, they'll work hard behind the scenes to get this rape case to stick. Bringing him back to the US just gives him a platform again. Having him as a convicted or convicted in public opinion rapist robs him of legitimacy while the US government shrugs and whistles off to the side.

      Hell, none of this even requires the rape charge to be trumped up. He could be a jerk, and Sweden has some unusual laws about rape. He might have set himself up for the fall unwittingly. Most people commit felonies at some point without even realizing it because the laws are not always obvious nor do they always match common sense. All the US needed to do was probably ensure that his unwitting felony was detected, as opposed to ignored.

    4. Re:Swedish Charges/British Charges by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 2

      I may be picking on small details, but as far as I know JA has not been charged with anything, he is just wanted for questioning. Which is intself a strange thing: the European Arrest Warrant filed by Swedish authorities is only to be used for people already charged with a crime, not for those only suspected.

      Full disclosure: I am a Swede, living in Sweden and think the entire case should be dropped by Swedish authorities. They might have been doing the right thing in the beginning, but now they are just trying to save face. Drop it and let the parties involved get on with their lives.

    5. Re:Swedish Charges/British Charges by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Yes. And in his case, they may decline to prosecute his escape in the UK.

      However, he will still be arrested in the meantime, and the fear of Assange and his supporters is that being in UK custody and unable to travel to somewhere less likely to cooperate with the US means that the US will be able to get their hands on him and have him extradited to the US where there certainly are grounds to arrest him and charge him with something, should the US government want to do so.

      It is not clear that the US actually is going to try anything of the sort, but that is the theory, anyway. A lot rides on the US government's supposed efforts to get him in US custody, but I've seen no evidence that the US is trying to do so. There's no charges pending against him in the US right now, and there would have to be in order to get an extradition.

      I personally think the US is content to just let him fall on his own face unless he makes more trouble or makes it easy on them by actually travelling to the US.

    6. Re:Swedish Charges/British Charges by rbrander · · Score: 1

      My favourite part on that is that the Interpol document with the warrant was a top-priority "red notice" normally reserved for something like a child molester at high risk of re-offending. Khadaffi got only an "orange notice".

  7. Wait, are they asking for my permission? by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm, nice of them to ask. Guess it is the Excellent Karma?
    Anyway, sure, go ahead, you have my permission.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Wait, are they asking for my permission? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Their problem is that if they wait longer the .. possible offenses are hit by the time-bar.

      As such I don't see why Assange should care all that much. Can't he just leave once that happen?

      But supposedly it wasn't for all of it (I've read "some.")

      Anyway they also claim that any court action would have to happen in Sweden so wouldn't that just leave everything where it is now anyway?

  8. The strategy against Assange has worked by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    When Assange went to hide in the Ecuadoran embassy, he had the world's attention. But now looking back, it looks like he basically put himself in prison, and not in the heroic way. If the US had grabbed him, tried him in some kangaroo court and imprisoned him, he'd stay relevant as a sort of journalistic martyr. But his embassy self-imprisonment left him just as isolated, while also looking vaguely like a fugitive instead of a martyr. Basically, he's been rendered irrelevant, without anything actually being done to him, apart from some sketchy accusation from two Swedish women. If this was some political chess match, Assange lost to a far superior opponent. I wouldn't be surprised if they just let him walk now. Either way Wikileaks has been killed without its killers having done anything that looks like a heavy-handed suppression of journalism.

    1. Re:The strategy against Assange has worked by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the US had grabbed him, tried him in some kangaroo court and imprisoned him, he'd stay relevant as a sort of journalistic martyr.

      Well that's marvellous and all, except he's got way more freedom in the Ecuadorian embassy than he would have in some solitary cell in gitmo or whereever he wound up.

      Also, his stay with the Ecuadorians comes with 100% less torture!

      It is massively in his favour to be where he is now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:The strategy against Assange has worked by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      From where he is now, he got Snowden into Russian asylum safely. I'd hardly consider that irrelevant.

    3. Re:The strategy against Assange has worked by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Also, that could be what he'll be charged with if he tries to leave-- aiding and abetting Snowden.

    4. Re:The strategy against Assange has worked by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      If the US had grabbed him, tried him in some kangaroo court and imprisoned him, he'd stay relevant as a sort of journalistic martyr.

      Yes, Chelsea/Bradley Manning is having a great time of it.

      It's really cool to be a journalistic martyr and have all the accolades. I'm told the suicide watch time period of his life was his/her favorite part.

      Either way Wikileaks has been killed without its killers having done anything that looks like a heavy-handed suppression of journalism.

      And yet, leaks still happen.

      Stopping wikileaks was about as successful as plugging a failed river damn with half a square of toilet paper.

      The US may have gotten its childish revenge, but this kind of treatment only pushed a future whistleblower like Snowden to work for our enemies.

    5. Re:The strategy against Assange has worked by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Nor will they bother. They will simply abduct him. Laws be damned. That's the naked reality behind the US government's smarmy rhetoric about "human rights." It all stops, when US officials are threatened.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  9. Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not the claim in court, however. They'd had sex, she says in her testimony (one of the two women) she was sleepy when he started foreplay, and waking to full arousal, they had full sex. She never claimed she was woken by intercourse.

    Moreover, after that morning's sex, she went out to the shops, did some shopping, came back and made breakfast for them both. Later she tweeted about how great Assange was and the sex was good.

    This does not sound like rape.

    Unless you're trying to work out how it MUST be rape, either

    a) because the accusation cannot be allowed to be questioned, since that's telling a woman who claimed she was raped is wrong.
    b) because Assange must be evil, because WL only exposes hateful things done by the USA, not any other country.

    False rape allegations happen a lot.

    Rape is, in the overwhelming number of cases a case of he said/she said. Allied to "innocent unless PROVEN guilty", this means that the available evidence cannot often support the allegation.

    In this case, the claim is complete fiction. Even the women involved claim it wasn't rape and withdrew their complaints when they found out that was the charge being made. One of them wanted Assange tested for STDs because he'd had sex with another woman at the same time, however, this

    a) isn't required by law
    b) wouldn't be of any use anyway, since it wouldn't matter if he DID have STDs, all that matters is does SHE have them from intercourse with Assange?

    it was made to shame and discomfit Assange. Jailed for rape wasn't what she wanted.

    1. Re:Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Once again, Assange fans demonstrate their total ignorance of everything related to the case.

      Not the claim in court, however. They'd had sex, she says in her testimony (one of the two women) she was sleepy when he started foreplay, and waking to full arousal, they had full sex. She never claimed she was woken by intercourse.

      "They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her." - SW's testimony

      "After that, SW told HR that she was feeling worse and worse. She said that the problem was that Assange had had unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping. SW also said that Assange had nagged her and tried to have unprotected sex with her during the night, but that she had made him wear a condom. SW had told Assange several times to wear a condom. SW also told HR that Assange had spoken so strangely, as though he wanted SW to become pregnant. He said things that sounded like he wanted to make women pregnant. He reportedly said that he preferred virgins, because then he would be the first to make them pregnant." -- HR's testimony (friend of SW since childhood)

      "SW had said that Assange wanted to have sex with her, and that SW had said that she did not want to have sex without a condom. SW also said that, when she was half asleep on her side, she had been aroused from slumber to feel that Assange was inside her. SW had then asked him what he was wearing and he had replied, “I am wearing you”. The witness said that SW did not believe that he had entered her; rather, she had been aroused from slumber when he was already inside her." - KS's testimony (close colleague of SW)

      "He learned about what had happened from SW and his mother. The latter had said that Julian had sex with SW without a condom and against her will as she slept." - KW's testimony (SW's brother)

      "Then Sofia said that she had been raped by Julian Assange, in that he had initiated unprotected sex with her while she lay sleeping." - SB's testimony (old friend and one time boyfriend of SW)

      Where does your ridiculous "she was just sleepy" claim come from? It's an echo-chamber morphing of a claim from Assange's attorney, which was based on the "half asleep" line in KS's testimony. But KS continued, "she had been aroused from slumber to feel that Assange was inside her."

      Moreover, after that morning's sex, she went out to the shops, did some shopping, came back and made breakfast for them both.

      False. There was shopping and breakfast - but it came before the reported assault. Here's the descriptions of that from the leaked testimony:

      "Earlier, she had fetched some condoms and laid them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom, although he muttered that he preferred her to latex. He no longer had an erection problem. At one point when he took her from behind, she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what had she to smile about. She did not like the undertone of his voice. They fell asleep, and when they woke up they may have had sex again; she does not really remember. He ordered her to fetch him some water and orange juice. She did not like being ordered about in her own home, but thought “what the hell” and fetched the liquids anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She did not want to leave him alone in the flat — she really did not know him very well — but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was fiddling with one of his telephones. Before she left she said, “Be good'”. He replied: “Don't worry, I'm always bad”. When she returned she served him oatmeal porridge, milk, and juice. She had already eaten before he awoke, and had spoken with a friend on the phone." - SW's testimony

      "While sleeping on the night of the episode, MT was awakened by an SMS message from SW. MT's recollection of that message is that it was not positive — that the sex was not goo

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    2. Re:Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Unless you're trying to work out how it MUST be rape, either

      a) because the accusation cannot be allowed to be questioned, since that's telling a woman who claimed she was raped is wrong.
      b) because Assange must be evil, because WL only exposes hateful things done by the USA, not any other country.

      False rape allegations happen a lot.

      The girl has not accused him of rape. She wanted him to have a STD test, and asked the police if they could force him. A Swedish DA decided to take the case and press rape charges, though the girl denies being raped.

    3. Re:Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      The claims of her being sleepy comes from her own SMS history.

      Sofia Wiléns testimony was edited by Irmeli Krans by order of Mats Gehlin, as shown by SMS's sent from Mats Gehlin to Irmeli Krans. Irmeli Krans also being a personal friend of Anna Ardin, and politically tied to Marianne Ny, Claes BorgstrÃm and Anna Ardin, as part of BroderskapsrÃrelsen within Socialdemokraterna.

    4. Re:Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by phayes · · Score: 1

      The girl has not accused him of rape. She wanted him to have a STD test, and asked the police if they could force him. A Swedish DA decided to take the case and press rape charges, though the girl denies being raped.

      No. She did not initially accuse him of rape. Rape victims are very often in denial and the law allows for people to change their minds. It's how the great majority of child rape cases are prosecuted as children are very reluctant to blame adults. It only becomes rape if in addition to the accusal, conditions & the relevant laws are satisfied.

      That won't stop some of Assange's cheerleaders from continuing to claim that she never accused him of rape as in their eyes, the man can do no wrong.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    5. Re:Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by alccode · · Score: 1

      Take your echo chamber info and believe whatever you want. But you're not an f'ing court of law. There's one place for this to be resolved, and that a court of law. Which requires an end to this run from the law.

      It certainly appears that you have researched this case quite a lot, which is fine and interesting (I wonder what your motivations are for this). I just wanted to point out, however, that the comment you made above applies to you as well. You cannot judge the guilt of JA any more than the "echo chamber info" people, and should preface all of your comments in this regard with a disclaimer along the lines of, "this is my prejudiced and biased opinion". Having "researched the facts" does not mean that you have an objective, cool view. If anything, it seems you have the opposite. You are quite passionate about it, and thus likely ill-suited to judge the guilt or innocence of the defendant (using derogatory phrases like "Assange fans", etc. etc.).

      Let's leave this to the judges and stop pretending we've already condemned Assange, alright?

    6. Re:Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      If between 6 and 13% of all men have committed a rape, what's your proposed solution? Lock up between 22 million and 48 million people?

      What happens when you let them out? You've just created between 22 and 48 million people who are now on the sex offenders list and cannot get a job or reintegrate. What do you think they are going to do now?

      Oh, so you want to kill them or lock them up for life? What do you think 22 to 48 million men will do when you come for them with the intention of giving them a sham trial and murdering them?

    7. Re:Yes, that's the claim of the prosecutor. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      You are so obviously biased, I wonder if you are a paid shill for the US. I don't know what axe you have to grind against Assange, but your tissue of mis truths and distortions is blatant. The charges are ridiculous, and a reflection of how political influence cab be used by a government to blacken the name of a good man.

  10. He should refuse by rockabilly · · Score: 2

    According to TFA, the statute of limitations on the charges runs out in August of this year. On September 1 he can walk out of there a free man cleared of all charges.

    1. Re:He should refuse by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      On September 1 he can walk out of there a free man cleared of all charges.

      Yeah, he could walk right out of that embassy into a U.S. extradition request on other charges.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  11. So, Sweden disccovers Skype, phones and air travel by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since clearly, they knew of none of these things years ago when Snowden was first sequestered.

    As Snowden has correctly stated, it's a ruse to allow the USA to take him into custody. Apparently Sweden will do its questioning, probably drop the case for lack of evidence and the USA can go twist in the wind.

    What this really says is just how the USA's power position in the world has changed. Sweden has read the writing on the wall. They'll respond to pressure from the US state department just as much as they need to, which is now apparently, not much.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  12. Telephone? by superdave80 · · Score: 2

    Swedish prosecutors are arranging to come to London and question Assange within the embassy

    Sweden still needs to be granted permission from both the UK and Ecuador.

    The phone, motherfuckers, pick it up and CALL HIM WITH YOUR QUESTIONS!!! I am constantly amazed at how people in charge of important things can make simple tasks so convoluted.

  13. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I believe Ecuador will agree to this.

    But the best thing about this is, if the UK says no, then it clearly shows that they want to sell him out to the Americans.

  14. Not necessiarly by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It is still a crime to flee bail, regardless of the merit of the original charges. So the UK may still want to prosecute, particularly since he has flaunted it for years staying in an embassy. They can decide to drop it, of course, but they may not. They don't want to encourage the idea that it is ok to skip bail and run if you think you are innocent. You still need to obey the police.

    1. Re:Not necessiarly by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's still a crime, that's not in dispute, but we do have the concepts of extenuating circumstances and public interest in British law.

      I can't see what the public interest would be if it turns out there are no charges to answer, it's not like anyone and everyone can just get an embassy to put them up in order to skip bail, even Ecuador very nearly didn't take him. It's not like people are going to start running to embassies left and right under the assumption they'll get given protection- Assange was an extreme exception because of the politics of his case.

  15. Re:Swedish Authorities Offer To Question Assange I by gavron · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't.

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    E

  16. Re:Mod Parent: Bullshit by GrandCow · · Score: 2

    And as we all know, jezebel.com is definitely a non-biased site and always presents facts in a 100% neutral light, with no spin whatsoever. Just like FoxNews.

    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
  17. Assange Accuser CIA ties .. by DougPaulson · · Score: 2, Funny

    "the farcical rape charges have once again been leveled against the Pentagon’s Public Enemy Number One. Julian Assange now stands accused of: (1) not calling a young woman the day after he had enjoyed a night with her, (2) asking her to pay for his bus ticket, (3) having unsafe sex, and (4) participating in two brief affairs in the course of one week" ref.

  18. Re:assange hasn't been condemned by anyone.... by Falconhell · · Score: 2

    You're an idiot, who doesn't know there are no charges.