Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange To Be Interviewed In London After All
mpawlo writes: The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Ms Marianne Ny has submitted a request for legal assistance to the English authorities and a request to Ecuadorian authorities regarding permission to interview Julian Assange at Ecuador's embassy in London during June-July 2015. Back in 2010, a warrant was issued in Stockholm, Sweden for WikiLeaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange. Ever since, Assange has found refugee at the embassy of Ecuador in London.
And I'm sure they don't have a satisfactory answer for why they dug in their heels.
Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden.
And, if Assange is extradited to the Sweden, then extradited anywhere else (the US may not extradite him directly, but may bounce him around, if they can, to find the most favorable place to extradite him from), what will you do? Eat your hat?
The level of "must extradite" is unusual. There must be some other reason that they didn't interview him before now. They have done this with others, and didn't have an issue with a remote interview. He isn't asking for unusual treatment. He's asking for standard treatment. Sweden won't give it to him. Why?
Learn to love Alaska
It's also not common to let somebody leave the country that you want to interview. He had permission from the authorities in Sweden to leave because there was no substance to the accusations. After he left they decided that they should interview him and since then he's refused to go back. Hell, they're even expecting him to pay for his flight to answer the questions.
I can't blame him for not wanting to return, he might be a world class asshole, but that doesn't make the procedings any less suspect. This whole affair has set the cause of fighting sexual assault back by quite a bit as it's hard to take accusations seriously that are based upon revoking consent after the fact.
I know that reading the article is unpopular here, but at least read the headline. Assage has no problem with the questioning, he just has the problem with the location of the questioning. This recent activity just validates the idea that the prosecution in Sweden is not interested in justice or the "rape" charges. The Swedish prosecution is a puppet for someone else's agenda that has nothing to do with rape or justice. It was simply a lure, and now that the lure is expiring and they are not going to get what they originally wanted out of this, they are now pretending that they are actually interested in moving forward with the case. In doing so, they render their lure useless, which is why they waited until the edge of expiration to do this.
I put "rape" in scare quotes because the definition of rape, as understood in the rest of the English speaking world, does not mean anything like what is alleged in this case. In fact, it is insulting to rape victims to use the same word to describe this.
So much time do you think women should serve in prison if they lie about being on the pill? Since fraud is fraud, and all that.
This is pretty much the view of a prostitute who's charging for each ejaculation.
In real life, consent is rarely explicitly given. When I'm caressing a women, just before penetration I do not ask if I can. As long as she doesn't say "no", I infer she accepts. If I pull out and then start a cunnilingus, I still do not ask for consent. And if after the cunnilingus I start again with penetration, once again I do not ask for consent. I just do it.
If after spending the night with a woman, I wake and feel like caressing her in the morning so she gently wake up, I still don't ask for consent. I don't wake her up first. Since we had sex, since she accepted to sleep with me after sex, I infer the consent is still valid. In real life, sex is based on implicit consent and normal expectations. In real life, once consent is given it must be explicitly revoked, or at the very least there must be valid reasons to believe the consent was implicitly revoked.
Yes, I know misandrists... I mean feminists, are trying to get all the power they can against men. Sorry, but their idea of "consent" is simply a way to abuse men. Feminists can go to hell.
A Swedish sports player will be able to testify via Skype regarding assault allegations as to not miss a game on the same day. In contrast, Swedish prosecutors have refused to question Julian Assange using the same methods for over four years.
So no, asking to be questioned over there is not asking special treatment. The fact that this was not done like the norm is the special treatment.
How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow NOT been mistreated or short changed? How?
He also said that he would go to Sweden for questioning if they could give him some guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, something Sweden refused to give.
Like you pointed out, it's supposed to be just questioning, how could it be such a problem? It is pretty clear that the questioning is not the problem.