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.

Comments

Popping the popcorn

[TWX]

This is going to be interesting to watch. If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.

I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden that the authorities, in a failure to interview someone that has been open to it on foreign soil, would run up against if they didn't interview him, which would basically void the ability to prosecute (and to seek extradition) if they don't take this step.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Krishnoid]

If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.

In that case, would it be good or bad if Japan was involved?

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

And they NEVER lie in extradition requests....just ask Leonard Peltier. They used the same trick on him and it worked...they got a mentally ill woman to say she was his gf and that he was involved in the crime (shooting of 2 FBI agents on indian land) and Canada rolled right over and gave him up. Now, decades later, Canada has had to live with the fact that they didn't even bother checking out the US' story, which was a complete fabrication. FYI, even the FBI admits they have NO IDEA who shot their agents but that didn't stop them for jailing Peltier.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[AK Marc]

No, the crime exists everywhere. He committed sexual fraud. Fraud is a lie for personal gain. Sexual fraud is a lie for sexual gain, which is a subset of "fraud". Most fraud wouldn't be actionable for such a limited personal arrangement. But it is a fraud. The crime is reported as "rape" because the "fraud" issue in Sweden is clear that sexual fraud is illegal. Conditional consent was given, and the conditions weren't met, so the sex was deemed non-consensual after the fact. That kind of "rape" is not illegal in most places.

Note, this isn't an issue of changing one's mind the night after. This would be the same as in the US, if you asked your partner "do you have AIDS" and they say "no" and you later found out they had it and knew it, Is that rape? Not in the US, but because AIDS is deadly, it has been pursued as a criminal offense.

That's the closest US analog I can come up with.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[AK Marc]

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?

Re: Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Bite The Pillow]

It's the first sentence of the fucking article, you retarded idiot.

Sweden asked U.K. and Ecuadorian authorities to allow prosecutors to interview WikiLeaksâ(TM) founder Julian Assange at Ecuadorâ(TM)s embassy in London before a statute of limitations in the sexual-assault case runs out this year.

Wonder no more. Anything else I can copy and paste for you, I asked knowing full well that you would need to be walked like a dog, fed like a baby, and cleaned like a shithouse rat?

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden ...

Yes, there is a statue of limitation in Sweden, and some of the crimes will be running into it in a few months. Assage is trying to run out the clock to escape trial for rape and other acts of sexual assault.

Assange recently lost an appeal to the Supreme Court of Sweden to have the warrant for him withdrawn.

The one complaining about the DA keeping the investigation in limbo, not bringing it forward by not interviewing Assange in London?
The DA is now, under the clock, wanting to do what she's claimed couldn't be done - I don't quite see how it's Assange playing to the clock. After all, the British justice system might have an issue with him stepping off into the embassy, unaffected by the Swedish SoL running out.

Any [normal, not totally politically motivated for 'other activities' ie Wikileaks] verdict he'd be facing in Sweden would be trivial compared to what he's been subjecting himself to over these years.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[AK Marc]

You're mistaken on several points. Sweden would have to get the permission of the UK to extradite Assange.

I never said anything contrary to that statement, so I fail to see how that supports your statement that I'm mistaken.

It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview fugitives from justice, which is what Assange is.

Yet, when people complained it was so unusual, there were examples posted of when Sweden did just that.

And he's not a fugitive.

"a person who has escaped from captivity or is in hiding."

He didn't "escape" from Sweden. He left with permission. He isn't "hiding". Everyone knows where he is. He just isn't going out of his way to turn himself in, after having announced his location and intentions to the authorities. I don't know what that is, but it isn't "fugitive".

They probably expect to file charges after the interview and go to trial, so there is even less incentive to go to a foreign country to interview him when the key events will all happen in Sweden.

Previously, Sweden has conducted interviews over the phone. No reason to go there. You have heard of "phones" haven't you?

Assange is getting far more favorable treatment that most fugitives that have jumped bail, and yet his defenders keep crying foul, as if he was being subjected to terrible injustice. That is nonsense. Complete rubbish.

But he never jumped bail. He wasn't under any legal obligation to remain (bail, charges pending, or anything else), and had explicit permission to leave Sweden. So your assertions of "fugitive" are once again baseless and contrary to the dictionary.

His case has been to TWO supreme courts in two different countries and he keeps losing. This has all been to avoid extradition and questioning. Not imprisonment, just questioning. That seems unusually favorable treatment.

He has requested questioning since the beginning. It was denied. Why did Sweden refuse to interview him earlier? That certainly sounds like extraordinary treatment. They are doing it now, what has changed?

How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow been mistreated or short changed? How?

I never said such things, so I don't need to defend them. Stop lying. It only proves the point that you know you are wrong, when you must lie as the only option to support your (knowingly) false accusations.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[cold fjord]

You think Assange isn't a fugitive? Yes, he is. He jumped bail in the UK and fled extradition.

Julian Assange: the fugitive

Assange spent 10 days in jail in December 2010, before being bailed to the stately home of a supporter in Suffolk. There, he was free to come and go in daylight hours, yet he says he felt more in captivity then than he does now. "During the period of house arrest, I had an electronic manacle around my leg for 24 hours a day, and for someone who has tried to give others liberty all their adult life, that is absolutely intolerable. And I had to go to the police at a specific time every day – every day – Christmas Day, New Year's Day – for over 550 days in a row." His voice is warming now, barbed with indignation. "One minute late would mean being placed into prison immediately."

Julian Assange supporters ordered to forfeit £93,500 bail money

This gets a little tedious.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken on several points.

Sweden would have to get the permission of the UK to extradite Assange. Even if it were to happen (not likely) that isn't going to happen until Swedish justice is satisfied.

Not so sure on that. Sweden apparently has two routes of handing someone over, one judiciary - when someones formally accused, and a route decided by civil servants if there's a request for someone merely wanted to assist in / be questioned as witness in another case...

Assange appears to have, an in IMHO not completely unwarranted fear that that'd be a likely development. After all, a realistic verdict if found guilty of the accusations in Sweden, should be trivial compared to the years in the embassy.
Once in US hands I'd expect they'd suddenly (totally unexpected for sure) find something to indict hm with... unless they just drop him in some black hole.

It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview fugitives from justice, which is what Assange is. They probably expect to file charges after the interview and go to trial, so there is even less incentive to go to a foreign country to interview him when the key events will all happen in Sweden.

But it's been done before as the situation required, and something Assange has said he'd welcome - yet in this case they've until now, as the clock is starting to run out, said it's impossible, can't be done... and the court has expressed its 'surprise' that no action was taken by the DA to bring the case forward..
If Assange opposes / tries to block this interview, then I'd change my view, but until then I'll say something smells rather funny on the prosecuting side.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Uberbah]

He committed sexual fraud. Fraud is a lie for personal gain. Sexual fraud is a lie for sexual gain, which is a subset of "fraud".

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.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[TWX]

Note, this isn't an issue of changing one's mind the night after. This would be the same as in the US, if you asked your partner "do you have AIDS" and they say "no" and you later found out they had it and knew it, Is that rape? Not in the US, but because AIDS is deadly, it has been pursued as a criminal offense. That's the closest US analog I can come up with.

That's part of the trouble, analogs that don't completely apply, combined with allegations that can't be proven.

Every so many months there are fairly high-profile rape or other sexual abuse violations in the news. A common thread in most of these situations is that they lack proof, and usually it's due to action or inaction on the part of the accuser. Some cases find the accuser's actions like bathing or waiting too long to have destroyed physical evidence, and other cases find documentation showing the accuser continuing to pursue friendship or sexual contact with the accused, and these are in places where the law doesn't place a legal distinction in one partner following another partner's directions or mandates before the consensual act happens. Sweden's rules that allow partners to define the conditions under which one partner consents that are binding but not documented before the act itself make it very difficult to determine what actually happened, and as in other high profile cases it sounds like there's evidence of continued contact after the act that was eventually the basis of the complaint.

If I understand the law where I live, once the choice to commence sexual intercourse is made, so long as the acts themselves are, "natural," there is no legal basis for conditional consent based on the use of contraception or lack thereof by one party or the other. The act itself is assumed to carry the responsibility that it could lead to pregnancy or other undesired ramifications even if contraception or other forms of protection are employed as that is the point of sex to begin with, so the responsibility to use protection is borne by each individual in the act for themselves, rather than on the other person, and that the ramifications for the act are strictly personal outside of the realm of conception and shared responsibility to any offspring. In short, anyone that voluntarily engages in natural sexual congress is strictly responsible for themselves and for any progeny as a result, and that the other person, within certain bounds (like your reference to knowingly lying about some fatal infectious diseases) is not responsible for the other person's well-being.

Assange might be a horrible person, convincing women to have riskier sex with him than they otherwise would normally agree to, but between the difficult nature of quantifying responsibility in an otherwise consensual sexual encounter and a lack of definitive evidence that the offense actually occurred coupled with contrary evidence that indicates a cordial relationship post-act, it's difficult to understand how there's enough to make an international case of it. After all, history is full of charismatic seducers that convinced others to have sex with them despite their original antipathy without labeling the act as a form of rape or other illegal sexual act. Calling Assange's act criminal should mean that the act of women intentionally ceasing the use of birth control to get pregnant without communicating with their partners is also criminal. It's not wise to define either that way though, and since there isn't a way to prove allegations without an admission, it makes more sense to leave the burden of responsibility on each person, for themselves, when they agree to commence the act itself.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Maxo-Texas]

It is well known that if Assange is extradited to Sweden he will immediately be extradited to the United States.

And that the real crime he committed was offending the united states intelligence agencies.

And when he is extradited to the united states, he'll disappear and not be seen again for a decade if ever..

Re:Popping the popcorn

[oztiks]

Let me float something by you. And the reasons why I feel most these allegations are a joke. Seemly _two_ women at the same time reported this crime. This whole argument of any real laws being broken stop short there for me. And you have to be very blind to think any of this situation holds any true merit at this point.

For example if it were one person making the complaint (which is like almost every other time) then this whole thing would have never of seen the light of day and the cops would have to dismiss the entire complaint based on the "he said, she said" sentiment. I.E no witnesses, no definitive evidence, so on and so fourth. Nothing to really prosecute. Just because they had two complaints, who both were really not interested in arresting him in the first place and more than anything just wanted STD tests. And understanding the draconian ways of how the legal system works in Sweden I.E in the US the victim can withdraw charges at any time and not the prosecution wielding that particular power.

The legal basis are held upon a) Forcing unwitting complainants to participate in the prosecution and b) we now know no real crime took place. Remember the law of assault or rape exist to benefit the victims. What he did after the fact may or may not be a black and white, to the letter of the law but the reasons for these laws are to prosecute based on severity of the act. I.E What damage was done? As the way I see it (which you may or may not agree) the women are more affected by the slur of press and public judgement they've had to endure over the initial fear they had of contracting STDs which has long since passed.

Now say Assange had AIDS for example and was hopping from woman to woman trying to spread the disease, then heck, lock him up throw away the key and exercise the proper use of the law. I'd say with all that's said and done, he's more than served his time for the crime, both in cost, public embarrassment and being locked away in an embassy for years. Had the Swedish not wanted to extradite him a deal could have been wagered based on a guilty plea, no conviction recorded, time spent as the penalty. And for those to say "that's not the law, that's not how things work". No that's exactly how things work more often than not as pretrial
"deals" are designed to minimize the costs on legal system to begin with, this entire debacle was the distinct opposite of this for reasons not fully revealed by Swedish authorities.
 

Re:Popping the popcorn

[mjwx]

This is going to be interesting to watch. If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.

What makes you think the UK govt is willing to step in for Assange, he's been a thorn in their side for ages so they'd be just as happy for any justification to throw him to the dogs.

I think this may be a sign that Sweden's getting sick of having this case open and just wants to see it resolved. They cant do that until they've spoken to Assange due to this outdated concept the Swedes hold on to called due process.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[William Baric]

I'm sure you perfectly know what's at stake here. It's certainly not some kind of sexual assault accusation from the feminist paradise called Sweden. So please, inspector Javert, cut the crap.

And change your signature. It doesn't fit your personality.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that everyone else was talking about the Swedish side of things. The UK bail issue renders him a fugitive from the UK, not from Sweden. Do try to keep up, these are fairly basic and obvious concepts.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

His point was Assange isn't a fugitive from Sweden. He's a fugitive in Britain, that's true, but that was after everything turned spooky when Sweden suddenly put out an international arrest warrant after him (remember, the Swedish prosecutor gave him explicit permission to leave the country and said he had no charges against him).

Re:Popping the popcorn

[91degrees]

It possibly would be a crime in the UK. At least the extradition hearing thought so. As far as I can see, it essentially comes down to how specific intent needs to be, but that would be a question for the courts to decide. The standard of proof required for extradition is a lot lower than for conviction.

Re: Popping the popcorn

[AK Marc]

The argument that passed Sweden was probably that consent given to lies isn't consent, so sexual fraud is non-violent rape, but still rape.

Re: Popping the popcorn

[AK Marc]

What are the "considerations"?

I never used the word "considerations" so I can't help explain what I meant. Perhaps you should read slower, and with less frothing at the mouth.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[dotancohen]

He didn't "escape" from Sweden. He left with permission. He isn't "hiding". Everyone knows where he is. He just isn't going out of his way to turn himself in, after having announced his location and intentions to the authorities. I don't know what that is, but it isn't "fugitive".

I believe that the term you are looking for is "refugee".

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Troed]

It isn't common for prosecutors to go to a foreign country to interview

Yes, it is. We do it all the time here in Sweden. It's standard procedure and not having done it already is outside of the norm.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[serviscope_minor]

And, if Assange is extradited to the Sweden, then extradited anywhere else

Extradition? Who said anything about extradtiton?

Why not just hand him over to some shady types, then stand by while they shove drugs up his ass and ship him off somewhere to be tortured. Oh don't be silly, you say, Sweden would never do that...

Now, why on earth would Assange be not especially keen on getting involved in the legal system in Sweden I wonder.

Re: Popping the popcorn

[Joce640k]

consent given to lies isn't consent

Yup. That pretty much covers every casual sexual encounter in the whole of history.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Joce640k]

And let's not forget that she tweeted her friends next day to come and meet her cool new boyfriend.

She was clearly traumatized, right?

(Or maybe was it the police that made that 'trauma' decision for her - I mean she must be traumatized after that, right? She's such a sweet/innocent little CIA agent after all...)

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Joce640k]

Let me float something by you. And the reasons why I feel most these allegations are a joke. Seemly _two_ women at the same time reported this crime.

No they didn't.

One of them went to the police station to ask if it was possible to force Julian to take an AIDS test. Nobody was accusing anybody of anything at that point.

The police were the ones who started all the 'investigating' and found the second girl. They interviewed her and found she had a similar experience. Result: Julian was interviewed to get his side of the story, then sent home with no charges.

A few weeks later somebody higher-up found "Julian Assange" when they were fishing in the police computer and figured they could maybe use this as an excuse to grab him and take him to the USA. The press were told he was a "serial rapist". The rest is history.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[CrimsonAvenger]

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?

So, why would the US bother to extradite Assange to Sweden when the UK is much more friendly with us and much more likely to grant extradition?

The people who think we want to extradite him to Sweden so we can extradite him further always confuse me, since they're suggesting that Sweden is the most favourable country for extradition that we can find. As opposed to our longtime ally, the United Kingdom....

Re:Popping the popcorn

[jeremyp]

He is a fugitive. He broke bail conditions from a British court and he is holed up in the Ecuador embassy in order to evade a European arrest warrant.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Ronin441]

> I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden

Yes -- "the statute of limitations on several of the crimes of which Assange is suspected runs out in August 2015."

http://www.theguardian.com/med...

Re:Popping the popcorn

[pantaril]

Assange isn't being extradited to the United States, he is being extradited to Sweden. Your example has nothing to do with this case. The women making the complaint say that Assange assault them. There isn't much room for confusion here.

Those are just excuses to get Assange out of Ecuador embassy in London. The rape complaints are very suspicious, they were filled late. Issuing international interpol warrant based on those accusations only is unheard of. This whole case is political and it's clear that he is harassed for his anti-government activity in wikileaks.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[AmiMoJo]

You must be new here. No-one reads the articles, this ain't playboy.com.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[AmiMoJo]

He has an open invitation to Ecuador, so he isn't really stateless or without anywhere to live as such.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[jittles]

This is going to be interesting to watch. If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms. I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden that the authorities, in a failure to interview someone that has been open to it on foreign soil, would run up against if they didn't interview him, which would basically void the ability to prosecute (and to seek extradition) if they don't take this step.

I do not know how the law works in the UK or Sweden, but in the US, you cannot elude capture in order to run out the statute of limitations on your crimes. Once the police file a subpoena to compel you to be interviewed, the clock stops running on the statute. I think this makes sense, in general, though of course could be abused like anything else.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[zedaroca]

From this day in Wikileaks:

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.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[meta-monkey]

Similar crimes exist in many American states. In Arizona, the definition of "without consent" includes:

(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.

(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been explained several times already. But lets do it just once more for you:

The UK will put any extradition request in front of a judge, who will ask if Assange has done anything that would be illegal in the UK, which he probably hasn't.

Assange would not be tried normally in the USA, and would likely be treated in a manner that amounts to torture. This would also make it difficult to get an extradition order past a UK judge.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

He committed sexual fraud

How on earth do you know this? Where is your evidence?

Re:Popping the popcorn

[NotDrWho]

And I'm sure Britain will send a very harshly-worded letter to Sweden afterwards.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[mbone]

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?

Because Sweden has been bought off. Any claims for respectability they might have had died with Olaf Palme.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[currently_awake]

You are assuming they intend to follow legal proceedings, like extradition. The asumption is they intent to abduct him and put him in a secret American prison. They would have difficulty with extradition because he's not an employee of the US Gov and HE didn't break American law to get the secrets, so his posession of American secrets isn't illegal.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[mbone]

No, the crime exists everywhere. Sexual fraud is a lie for sexual gain, which is a subset of "fraud".

Not in sensible countries.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[CrimsonAvenger]

You are assuming they intend to follow legal proceedings, like extradition. The asumption is they intent to abduct him and put him in a secret American prison.

Umm, they can abduct him from the UK at least as easily as from Sweden.

Again, it makes no sense for the US to want him in Sweden, since Sweden is LESS ACCESSIBLE than the UK for any purpose that we might have (other than the one we seem to have chosen - to ignore him - which I think is what really pisses Assange off).

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

The Whores he supposedly lied to are tied to U.S. Intelligence Services. One tried to back out 18 months ago.

http://www.rawstory.com/2010/1... /2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

Re:Popping the popcorn

[TheCarp]

> Sweden would have to get the permission of the UK to extradite Assange. Even if it were to happen (not likely)
> that isn't going to happen until Swedish justice is satisfied.

Permission? Really? So what punishment would they face if they didn't do that?

Its always easier to get forgiveness than permission. Do you really think if that happened he would be able to sue anyone? IF he did, do you think the USA would be all "Oh well rules are rules, you get to go back and we have a do-over".

No, that permission is, at best, an academic issue that can be debated, while he is sitting a CIA black site.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[poetmatt]

There is no US analog, because the US has no legitimate interest here. We're only involved because our government is more than happy to roll over for the MPAA.

There is no "Sexual fraud" here, and there is historical evidence of both the US being willing to break international law as needed for MPAA interests alongside the evidence that the swedish prosecutor is refusing to follow standard swedish procedures which were openly supported by Assange.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[bill_mcgonigle]

before a statute of limitations in the sexual-assault case runs out this year.

Ah, so if that's their motivation here, then he should be afraid of what will come next. It sounds like they're "gonna get him" one way or the other, and their options are dwindling.

Regardless of the facts of the case, this almost guarantees that he will be made to stand for trial on the flimsiest of charges, just to push the case along. If not they would have gone with the Prosecutor's recommendation and dropped the charges.

He may win this round, but whether it's a Pyrrhic victory remains to be seen. The trick is, with all of Sweden's statutes, I'm sure if the clock on this one runs out they can find another charge for him to start over again - evading the interview or whatever.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Coren22]

What crime has Assange committed in the US that Greenwald hasn't also committed? You do realize Greenwald still comes to the US and hasn't been arrested right?

Re:Popping the popcorn

[MachineShedFred]

The best way to deal with an egomaniac is to pretend he's not even there.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Pubstar]

He was allowed to leave the country, then they requested an interview. While I would agree that the statute of limitations should not run out if you have been officially subpoenaed in a court, in this case he was not given the same courtesy that is given to others. Someone posted a story of someone who is a professional athlete that can do a phone interview for his alleged crime in Sweden, but they have been refusing that to Assange for four years now.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[AK Marc]

Then please define "fraud" for a "sensible country".

Re:Popping the popcorn

[jittles]

He was allowed to leave the country, then they requested an interview. While I would agree that the statute of limitations should not run out if you have been officially subpoenaed in a court, in this case he was not given the same courtesy that is given to others. Someone posted a story of someone who is a professional athlete that can do a phone interview for his alleged crime in Sweden, but they have been refusing that to Assange for four years now.

Well I agree that they know where he is and allegedly he is not preventing them from conducting a phone interview. In fact, he probably is more than happen to conduct a phone interview or Sweden would be plastering that information all over the news. I would say that a reasonable judge should be able to determine whether or not his statute of limitations is running or not. The question is, do they have reasonable judges or even a process by which to make this determination?

Re:Popping the popcorn

[david_thornley]

If what Assange is accused of was not considered a sex crime in the UK, there would be no extradition. Extradition normally requires an act to be a serious crime in both countries involved. Sweden described the allegations in detail, Interpol accepted it as a rape case, and UK courts have ruled all the way up that this is a legitimate extradition.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[david_thornley]

Would somebody please present some reasonable evidence that the US wants him? All I see (besides a few politicians grandstanding at the time) is an unsupported but widely reported assertion that the US wants to get him.

Besides, the US could charge him with espionage (illegal in both countries) and extradite him from Britain directly if the US did want him. The UK has a history on being very compliant with extradition requests from the US.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[david_thornley]

If it's well known, you should have absolutely no problem posting some actual evidence.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[david_thornley]

There are allegations of sex without consent. It's possible to have consensual sex with someone and then get raped. In this case, the allegation is that he initiated sex with a sleeping woman, which is without consent. Had he awakened her and asked her, that would have been legal.

The allegations were also found to describe illegal behavior under UK law by the UK courts. It isn't just Swedish law.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[oztiks]

Thanks for the clarification. I always saw it as a sticking point as to why the two were involved at the same time. And what you're saying only makes the situation more fishy LOL.

Another thing that got me is why people are say quick to say "he should go back and face the music" and "he's paranoid with crazy view of the world" like its nothing. Meanwhile in the US (I might add the most powerful nation in the world) was calling for his assassination. Yeap, seeing that in mainstream press would make me a little paranoid.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[Agripa]

Another thing that got me is why people are say quick to say "he should go back and face the music" and "he's paranoid with crazy view of the world" like its nothing.

He was not paranoid enough.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[oztiks]

What really might upset you is that I just came back from teaching a woman's only self defense class which is focused specifically rape prevention. A program which I developed with law enforcement to distribute to the local community both at secondary schools and universities.

If anything I'm more sympathetic to the women than you are. I.E being dragged through the media about anything sexually related would have to be one of the most psychological damaging after affects of the entire ordeal. And the gist of what I am saying is pretty much that - seeing it any other way makes you a nut in my books.

So while you're on your superior and moral high horse ask yourself this. What would make you suffer more? Worrying about STD's for a few weeks/months or being splashed in tabloids all over the world having death threats sent your house daily? I'd say the damage of what cops did was far more severe than what Assange may have done, knowingly or unknowingly.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[oztiks]

Mr AC. I'm keen to ask, when the Govt pays trolls like you. Do you get a per post rate or is it per day or per week? How does it work? Just curious on how it all works ;)

Re:Popping the popcorn

[cold fjord]

There isn't any sense in which Assange is "stateless." He is an Australian citizen with an Australian passport, none of this has effected that, including the fact that he is a fugitive from justice.

For bonus points I'll throw is the same goes for Snowden. He is still an American citizen and could return any day he cares to. But like Assange he is a fugitive from justice. In time he will probably take Russian citizenship if he hasn't already.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[cold fjord]

The fact that you can find an example of something happening doesn't establish it as generally accepted or common practice.

Having had court cases make it to the Supreme Courts of two nations to challenge his extradition and losing every time would indicate to most people that he doesn't have much of a case. It also makes it more difficult to portray him as being abused by the process.

There is no need for Sweden to give any assurances to Assange. Why is he so special? He can face justice the same as anyone else. Others have pointed out that this is a guarantee that the Swedish PM could not give under Swedish law. Perhaps it is so, perhaps not, but why should Sweden have to give any guarantees about international relations to someone wanted for questioning over allegations of rape? It is too much and indulgles the fantasy that Assange could be extradited from Sweden (for which both the UK and Sweden would have to agree) instead of extraditing him from the UK (for which only the UK would have to agree) where he has been for years now.

The most likely outcome of his questioning seems to be the filing of charges (as per Swedish law) and then a trial. The clear answer is Assange expects to be convicted and so will do almost anything to avoid the comparatively spa like treatment of Swedish prison.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[cold fjord]

Permission? Really? So what punishment would they face if they didn't do that?

Refusal of their extradition requests? Does that work for you?

Its always easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Not really, no. You can have permission to walk out of a store with a coat for $50. If you walk out without paying for it and thus gaining the permission you can end up with a large legal bill, possibly jail time, a fine, or probation. The $50 cost of permission would be much cheaper and easier.

Do you think Assange now wishes he had gained permission for sex instead of assaulting a sleeping woman (among other circumstances and another woman)? It seems forgiveness in this instance is proving problematic for him with many consequences.

The US has no warrant out for Assange. Even if it did, it would almost certainly be for espionage or maybe computer crime, not terrorism. Those cases aren't ones handled by CIA. CIA has been involved in counter-terrorism. Are you going to try to claim that Assange is part of al Qaeda? You fairly often peddle bullshit in your posts, but that would be a bit much even for you.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[AK Marc]

Please define the word "fugitive". References preferred. Snowden did flee prosecution, but didn't "escape", and isn't in "hiding". So he doesn't meet the definition of "fugitive" from any definition I found.

Re:Popping the popcorn

[cold fjord]

I'll indulge you this time.

Fugitive

A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from jail, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person, can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country.[1]

Fits both Snowden and Assange rather well.

To correct you, Snowden did escape, and his location is not generally nor publicly known to any meaningful degree other than Moscow. He is basically in hiding and guarded by Russian state security*.

* State Security, the Russian initials being GB, is what used to be on the shoulder boards of the KGB. How fitting.

Never, ever, trust the British government

[Taco Cowboy]

While it is a great news that Assange is going to have his interview done in London we must not forget that England is also on board of the American spy gravy train as a full member

We do not need to look far and wide to understand England's role on helping America to spread its propaganda other than its claim that the British spies have been 'harmed' with Snowden's files being successfully decrypted by the Russian and Chinese government

The Intercept has a piece on it --- https://firstlook.org/theinter...

The British 'drama' conveniently plays out while its American partner hoarding news headline of data on millions of its civil servants' being stolen by "Chinese hackers', even after revelations that the whole thing is nothing more than an inside job

What we have witnessed thus far has been a false flag fest - false flags that play out one after another hitting out on the Russian bogeyman and the Chinese bogeyman

Even when Mr. Assange's interview is to be held in London, let us not forget that he is still being entrapped inside London by none other than the British government

Re:Never, ever, trust the British government

[dave420]

England != Britain.

They could have done this years ago

[Burz]

And I'm sure they don't have a satisfactory answer for why they dug in their heels.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[cold fjord]

I think there is a perfectly satisfactory answer in two parts:

1. It is very unusual to do so, especially in light of #2.
2. They expect to charge him, which means taking him into custody for trial.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

There are established protocols for interviewing suspects when they are outside your jurisdiction. And it's not like these provisions are uncommonly used in the EU. The only thing irregular here was the prosecutor's unwillingness to do so.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[hyades1]

"2. They expect to charge him, then ship him off to the United States so he can be shoved into some hole in Gitmo for the rest of his life."

There...fixed that for you. :-)

Re:They could have done this years ago

[amRadioHed]

It's also very unusual for a suspect to be holed up in a foreign embassy for 5 years. That doesn't explain why it needed to take them this long to accept the obvious fact that this is an unusual case and just do what they need to do.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Which are those established protocols for interviewing suspects when they are outside your jurisdiction? From what i know as a EU citizen (Greek), we had some cases where non-Greeks suspects were brought to Greek justice by the usual way: a Greek prosecutor asked some other EU country's judge to extradict the suspect (somethimes they agreed, sometimes not).

Re:They could have done this years ago

[Uberbah]

Because "justice" involves handing people over to be tortured. You trolls DGAF about justice anymore than Republicans care about perjury or affairs.

Before even seeking asylum, Assange offered to return to Sweden if they promised not to hand him over to the U.S. Sweden has refused to do so.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Wow... relax mister... i am Greek! I think i would vote for Republicans if i was a USA citizen, but my comment was made as a Greek/EU/"World" citizen as a reply for a comment about Sweden's justice - no need paint me as a "troll" because i made a comment different from "Assange is a Hero"!

Re:They could have done this years ago

[MechaStreisand]

Hey, you forgot to tell us what country you're from! How are we supposed to respond to you if we don't know what country you're from?

Re:They could have done this years ago

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Hey, you forgot to tell us what country you're from! How are we supposed to respond to you if we don't know what country you're from?

You are right fellow "MechaStreisand" Slashdoter, i had to write that i am a Greek, i.e., EU citizen (as both Swedish and English people are), so i may have a point of view different than a Chinese for example.

A couple of hours ago you replied to a comment i made with this "Just leave this site, you stupid fucking moron. " , but now you want to respond to me - you have to decide what you want from me dear Sir!

Re:They could have done this years ago

[dunkelfalke]

Gitmo is for "terrorists".

Re: They could have done this years ago

[Suferick]

Probably never, since they have diplomatic immunity. At best they could PNG them.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[Joce640k]

I think there is a perfectly satisfactory answer in two parts:

1. It is very unusual to do so, especially in light of #2.
2. They expect to charge him, which means taking him into custody for trial.

How come they didn't do that when, you know, they had him in the interview room in Sweden (voluntarily). Why did they release him with no charge?

Maybe all this only started a few weeks later when somebody was fishing in the police computers looking for "Julian Assange"? Luckily for him he wasn't still in Sweden or he'd be in Gitmo by now.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[Joce640k]

There's people in Gitmo for wearing the wrong sort of watch:

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

(clue: It's one of the most common watches in the world.)

And not just one person...there's a whole list!

http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/L...

Team America, fuck yeah!

Re:They could have done this years ago

[dave420]

I look forward to yet another xenophobic or misogynist post from you. Shouldn't you be paying taxes instead of giving the world a bad impression of Greeks?

Re:They could have done this years ago

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I look forward to yet another xenophobic or misogynist post from you.

I am here to serve fellow Slashdoters... but i already explained to you how problematic this "xenophobic/misogynist" terms are (both Greeks words by the way... and i am a -racist/sexist- Greek!)

Shouldn't you be paying taxes instead of giving the world a bad impression of Greeks?

I am Greek NATIONALIST - i always paid and still pay my (heavy this year) taxes religiously Sir.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[cold fjord]

Allow me to thank you, it isn't often that you help me to make my point. He was believe to be a member of al Qaeda.

An Innocent in the Terror Prison: The Guantanamo File on Germany's Murat Kurnaz

Before transporting him to Guantanamo, the Americans placed Kurnaz in a US prison in Kandahar after he was turned over to them by the Pakistani security forces, who had arrested him in early December 2001 on his way to Peshawar airport. The US military believed it had another al-Qaida fighter under lock and key.

When he arrived at Guantanamo in October 2002, he had no idea that he would be spending almost five years on the island and that, from then on, he was categorized as a "member of al-Qaida's global terrorism network" by the Americans, as it states in his assessment, dated May 19, 2006, which was obtained by SPIEGEL as part of its reporting project with the whistleblower platform WikiLeaks.

The fact that they were mistaken doesn't change that.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[dunkelfalke]

And this is what the problem with you people is. You believe. No matter, what facts are.
You kidnap, torture and indefinitely hold people because you believe. Breaking laws? Bugger it, we believe. Who needs knowledge when you have religion, right? And even after getting actual information and even after it showed that 99% of all Guantanamo prisoners were innocent, who cares, you still believe. You even start wars because you believe god told you so.

And you personally are also a true believer in Amerika ueber alles and won't let puny facts stand in the way of your beliefs. That's why I say fuck you, your beliefs and your taliban buddies. Beliefs belong to the church, not in military, not in politics, not in science.

Re:They could have done this years ago

[cold fjord]

Haven't you followed this closely enough to know that there were two (2) different prosecutors involved with this - a man and a woman? Don't you know that they reached different conclusions about the worthiness of the case and took different actions? Can you guess what order those different conclusions occurred?

Guantanamo Gay is used to hold people either known to be or suspected of affiliation with al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups. Are you now claiming that Julian Assange is a terrorist? Please note that I wrote terrorist, not "terrorist." Your claim about Gitmo is nonsense.

The whole "US will extradite/render Assange from Sweden because it's easier" thing is nonsense. It is a fairy tale told by Assange's supporters to explain away his reluctance to face Swedish justice over allegations of sexual assault. It also is a mark of gullibility and ignorance to accept it. To extradite Assange from the UK would only require the UK to agree. To extradite Assange from Sweden would take both the UK (under European treaty) to agree and Sweden to agree. Only in the imagination of Assange's supporters is it easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK where he has been for years.

Request for legal assistance?

[nickweller]

I'm sure that Assange is still wondering what the ladies in question were doing taking off all their cloths and climbing into bed with a naked man ref.

15 years in the embassy

[Max_W]

Jozsef Mindszenty stayed in the US embassy in Budapest for 15 years, 1956-71. But it is a large building. He could walk around, climb stairs, etc. Julian is staying in a small room. Even in prison people are allowed to walk outdoors.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Hadlock]

He's avoiding imprisonment in Sweden because Sweden has an extradition Treaty with the US, and once he walks out the front door of that embassy and walks on that plane to sweden, it's about 50/50 odds he ends up in US custody.
 
That said, thanks for the tip on Jozsef Mindszenty, I am going to have to read up on that.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Max_W]

I do not argue about legal and political paradoxes of the case. What I wanted to tell is that it is not fair to compare the immense building of the US embassy in Budapest and a tiny apartment of the Ecuador embassy in London.

If Julian is to spend more years in the Ecuador embassy, I would suggest that the London municipal council adds a small fenced yard to the embassy premises, so that he could walk outdoors for an hour or so.

It is harmful to our common human dignity that a man cannot have a possibility to walk outdoors. Even in the notorious Alcatraz prison there was a yard for outdoors time.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[hyades1]

Please don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well Assange is worried the Swedish charges are just an excuse to get him to Sweden, where he'll be turned over to the Americans.

America, as you know, is so terrified by terrorism that they hold kangaroo courts for people like Assange. It's very likely he'd wind up spending the rest of his life at Guantanamo Bay if he were foolish enough to go back to Sweden."

Re:15 years in the embassy

[cold fjord]

The UK has an extradition treaty with the US. Even if we assume that silly theory is true, things get more complicated by sending him to Sweden, not less. In the UK only 1 country has to consent to his extradition: the UK. In Sweden there are 2 countries that have to agree to his extradition: the UK that has him now (and has extradition treaty with the US) and Sweden.

The idea you are supporting there is a nonsensical Rube Goldberg legal "contraption" that makes no sense. In essence it is a lie that Assange's supporters tell to explain away his avoidance of Swedish justice for his criminal sexual conduct.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[gweilo8888]

No, he's not. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the UK in the first place, because the UK, too, has an extradition treaty with the US. He didn't enter the embassy until June 2012. That's well over a year AFTER he had leaked documents and pissed off the US government. If he had been worried about extradition, he'd never have gone to the UK in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have handed himself over to the British police.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Max_W]

If he chooses to do this then it is his call. But meanwhile he is sitting year after year in a tiny room of an embassy where he had demanded and got an asylum.

De facto and de jure he is in this embassy room 24/7. Since he is a human I feel there should be still some minimum dwelling standard. I is not difficult for the city of London to arrange it. I do not suggest a park, but a small yard or a garden near the embassy is quite doable.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Bite The Pillow]

"Marianne Ny submitted a request for assistance to U.K. authorities and a request to Ecuador" ... "The U.K. foreign office said that its ability to facilitate a meeting with the Swedish prosecutor remains limited with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy."

Is he currently in the UK as you say? Physically, technically, you could argue that. But he's not really in the UK at all, unless he walks outside.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Uberbah]

Otherwise he wouldn't be in the UK in the first place, because the UK, too, has an extradition treaty with the US.

The UK has more qualms about openly handing people over to regimes fond of torture and execution than Sweden does. Regimes like the United States, which spent a year and half torturing Manning with solitary confinement before trial.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[drinkypoo]

He is currently in the UK which has an extradition treaty with the US. From the UK only 1 country (UK) has to agree. If he goes to Sweden there are two countries that have to agree to extradition: UK & Sweden.

The argument as I understand it is that the UK has fairly serious requirements for extradition, whereas Sweden is expected to just cough him up on request.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Maxo-Texas]

http://www.city.ac.uk/news/201...

The "money" quote:
âoeIt [Sweden] collaborated with the United States on extraordinary rendition by the CIA of people who had applied for asylum to Sweden. And Assange's Wikileaks website exposed a whole range of US-Swedish cooperation that did not reflect well on Sweden's global image as âa good stateâ(TM).

That's why sweden would extradite Assange unless there is a significant change of government. He embarrassed the government of Sweden.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Martin Blank]

Embassies are not sovereign territory. Host country jurisdiction applies, but most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies.

The Ecuadorian embassy is in a building that has several other functions and was not purpose-built as an embassy. According to Wikipedia, the embassy itself uses only rooms on the ground floor. Colombia has an embassy in the same building.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Martin Blank]

The embassy resides within a structure housing other entities, including the Colombian embassy. Extending the building to extend the embassy would be up to the property owner/manager and Ecuador.

For London (as the city or as the seat of the British government) to do so would indicate acceptance of Assange's decision to seek asylum and would place the Crown in a difficult legal position in regards to his bail-jumping.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Martin Blank]

Extradition would be the only way for the US to approach it, even if they wanted to follow through on that through Sweden instead of the UK. He's far too high-profile for him to simply disappear.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Max_W]

This case is kind of returning to medieval practice of keeping people in dungeons. And it is not in obscure remote parts, but in one of the cultural capitals of humanity, in the spotlight of the international media.

A tiny reliably fenced yard or a garden adjacent to the building where Julian could walk once a day is all that is needed. I do not believe that it is a unsolvable issue for the city of London municipal government.

People do need outdoors exercise. It is vital for the biology and clear to anyone. He will get seriously ill otherwise before long.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[dbIII]

You've posted quite a lot on this topic so I'm curious about your views on a related one. What is so special about Assange that makes him so much worse than an actual convicted child rapist evading justice such as Roman Polanski? Why so much effort chasing one and not the other?
Such a vast difference in attention appears to indicate that the actual crime is not seen as important but getting revenge for the political embarrassment caused by Assange is.
Do you agree or have some different view?

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely not even on any official request.

The police picking him up from the Swedish airport will be delayed, have misread the flight schedule or similar, so the only people there to greet him will be the CIA, which just happens to have an unmarked plane standing by.

There will be an official Swedish investigation, and some people will be told that this is not how things are done, and that will be it. Just like last time.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[serviscope_minor]

It's not even about extradition. Sweden has a history for helping the CIA ship people off to be tortured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

He's not so worried about legal due process, more being cuffed, having drugs shoved up his arse, then shipped off by the CIA to be beaten and tortured in some shithole somewhere.

The thing is, Sweden lost the moral high ground completely when they did that. I am a firm believer in the rule of law, but Assange has a very good reason to not want to get involved with the legal authorities in Sweden.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[jeremyp]

Do you honestly think that would actually happen to a man who has had as much publicity as Julian Assange?

This is all about avoiding the rape charge, nothing else. Assange clearly thinks that there is a chance he might get convicted.

That last sentence is speculation, but it is a more credible story than that the UK or Sweden would collude in a CIA kidnapping of a public figure.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[moronoxyd]

This case is kind of returning to medieval practice of keeping people in dungeons.

Nobody keeps Assange in some dungeon.
He was free on bail awaiting trial (or extradition), he could have lived in some spacey condo or whatnot.

But he decided, on his own himself, to run and go to the embassy. (Thereby forfeiting the money of the sponsor who posted bail. Real classy move.)

And even there he is free to leave 'the dungeon' at any time.
It is his decision to stay there.

You implying that the UK government is to blame is ignoring the facts.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[jeremyp]

Nobody is keeping Assange in a dungeon. He could walk out of the building where he lives any time he likes. It's nobody's decision but his own to stay there. This would all be over now if he had not chosen to flee justice.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[moronoxyd]

BS. Given the attention that this whole situation has been given, they can not just disappear Assange. Not anymore.

If the British police put him in a plane and the Swedish police doesn't receive him, that would be a real problem for Sweden.

Also, they can not extradite him anymore silently, but if the US wants him they have to officially ask Sweden and Sweden has to go trough the whole legal process.
The situation is way to public for Sweden to risk being seen cutting corners.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[serviscope_minor]

Do you honestly think that would actually happen to a man who has had as much publicity as Julian Assange?

A high chance? No. A chance: yes. It's a small chance with amazingly terrible consequences.

The US government has it in for Assange and wikileaks. They used political pressure to stop the credit card companies from sending money to wikileaks--nice and easy if you don't want to bother with due process, judges or any of that crap. IT was only reversed after they started losing breach of contract lawsuits.

And, well, when it was all in the news, quite a number of different branches of the US government seemed to be gunning for him.

Is there a high chance? No. Is there a small chance with awful consequences? Yes.

That last sentence is speculation, but it is a more credible story than that the UK or Sweden would collude in a CIA kidnapping of a public figure

Sweden, not the UK has a proven track record in assisting the CIA with kidnapping people for torture.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[mbone]

Embassies are not sovereign territory.

Legal hair splitting. If you had read on, you would see

Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country, even to put out a fire. International rules designate an attack on an embassy as an attack on the country it represents. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but normally only in this broader sense.

So, they can't come in on any pretext, and if they do it's an act of war. Sounds like de facto extraterritoriality to me.

As an example, the Iranian embassy in DC is on Massachusetts Ave, just down from the South African Embassy, and across and down from the UK Embassy. It has been empty since 1979 (I believe the Swiss look after it), but it is still the Iranian Embassy and the US leaves it alone (even after what they did to our embassy).

Re:15 years in the embassy

[Martin Blank]

I did read on. You appear to have not read on in my post, because my very next sentence says, "most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies."

I also did not claim that embassies are not extraterritorial. I said that they were not sovereign territory, which the AC essentially claimed when writing that the embassy is technically Ecuadorian territory (it's not) and that Assange is technically in Ecuador (he's not).

The UK maintains some control over the embassy in that any or all of the diplomatic staff may be declared persona non grata and ordered to leave the country. The UK would still be responsible for protecting the embassy and could not order Assange out or go in to get him, but they're still afforded that small degree of control. Of course, such an action would cause irreparable harm to the UK not only because relations with Ecuador would sour but so, too, would relations with all of Latin America and probably many other countries as well, and probably trigger legal action in the EU courts.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[gweilo8888]

Sure they do, and that's why they signed a one-sided treaty that allows people to be extradited to the US for breaking a US law even though they were resident in and operating in the UK, while there is no such reciprocal right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:15 years in the embassy

[david_thornley]

Have you been following what happens when the US files an extradition request with the UK? If Assange wanted to avoid being sent to the US, he'd never go to the UK. He's trying to avoid Swedish justice.

Re:15 years in the embassy

[cold fjord]

The argument as I understand it is that the UK has fairly serious requirements for extradition, whereas Sweden is expected to just cough him up on request.

It is a nonsense argument.

If the US tried to extradite Assange from the UK the UK has to agree.
If the US tried to extradite Assange from Sweden both the UK and Sweden have to agree under treaty.

It's a fairy tale to try to explain away Assange not wanting to go back to Sweden to face Swedish justice. The fairy tale that the US will take him from Sweden is much more politically palatable than admitting Assange doesn't want to go to prison for rape. It provides cover for both Assange and his supporters. After all, Assange is already widely known to be a "dick" and his projected image as a sort of transparency and "civil rights" advocate takes a hit when you have to start with, "Assange may a dick and a rapist, but I support his civil right activism because ...."

British are tired

[Anonymous Coward]

The British have spent ten million pounds guarding the Ecuadorian embassy to ensure that Assange did not escape. I suspect that they're getting tired of paying the tab for what is really Sweden's bill, and insisted on this rather extraordinary legal process.

Re:British are tired

[umghhh]

It is not extraordinary legal process - the interview in foreign land or by video link is part of European, European Arrest Warrant which wanted him extradited to Sweden on charges of lesser rape and coercion is also part of European law. The coercion charges expire this year due to statute of limitations leaving more serious but possibly more difficult to prove 'lesser rape' charge. So I guess UK authorities may be cutting costs of course but cutting the charge because it expired is maybe also an issue. In any case it is a correct decision - why wait if one can interview the guy and indict him instead of waiting. Not sure if that changes anything but at least it looks like public prosecutor is doing something.

Re:British are tired

[coofercat]

Then why have we had to wait for so long? By whatever justification of the need to question him now, I can easily think of a counterpoint why it should have been done the moment he went into the embassy. The only reason I can think that this wasn't done sooner was in the hope he'd get pissed off and give himself up, which is roughly equivalent to the teenage ploy of "I'll piss $girlfriend off so much that she'll dump me instead of me having to do it myself". And so we arrive right back at the start - any justification for any of this is easily countered.

Re:British are tired

[spacepimp]

Why make it easy for Assange? They want to use him as an example of why you don't fuck with US intelligence agencies run amok. If they wanted to solve for this they could've done this via phone or Skype etc at any point along the way. Also the justice department in Sweden might see this for what it is likely to be.

being scared of swedish extradition

[gl4ss]

being scared of swedish extradition system is legit.
they've fucked up before.

really the effort in regards of the claimed crime is bizarre(and the victims deciding what it was, that happened, afterwards, after finding out that he was a two timer).

Re:Read he article

[Anonymous Coward]

You: "Assange started having sex with one of the women while she was asleep"

Neither has stated he had sex with her when she was asleep, Neither of them is even asking for "rape charges". The claim is lack of condom.

Your article says "They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep"."

Re:Read he article

[hyades1]

I think the "victim" must have been CF's sister or something. He's gone so far 'round the twist he's even replied to himself at least once.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a fucking idiot. He's spent FIVE YEARS locked up in that embassy. If he'd gone back to Sweden and been sentenced, he'd probably be out of prison by now.

Rei has the night off or something?

[Uberbah]

Because you are a very poor on-call troll.

Assange is in that embassy by choice. He could clear this all up by going for questioning, and possibly trial. If he is not guilty, then he goes free.

Repeating Big Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar. Before ever seeking asylum, Assange offered to return to Sweden if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States - something they have done before - an offer that has been ignored.

Re:Rei has the night off or something?

[cold fjord]

Assange is wanted by Sweden over allegations that he committed multiple acts of sexual assault in Sweden. Assange isn't wanted by the United States for terrorism which is what extraordinary rendition was used for in a small number of cases. Since Assange is wanted by Sweden for criminal acts in Sweden and not by the United States, which doesn't even have a warrant out for him, there is no reason to believe any of the nonsense about the US either extraditing him or using rendition (problematic now as your link helpfully shows) to try to take him from Sweden. There is every reason to believe he will fact questioning, probably a trial, and possibly imprisonment in Sweden.

Assange is an ordinary man, not a head of state, facing a allegation of a common crime. There is no reason for the Swedish state to offer him any guarantees regarding international relations, even if the Swedish PM could make those guarantees (which some claim that he cannot). The bizzare idea that it is easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden instead of the UK overlooks some basic facts and math. From the UK the US only has to get one country to agree to extradition: the UK. From Sweden the US has to get two countries to agree: the UK (under European treaty) and Sweden. If the UK's standards of justice prevent it from handing over Assange from the UK it will prevent them from agreeing for Sweden to hand him over. The entire idea pushed by Assange's advocates is a bizarre fairy tale.

The Big Lie is that Assange if facing anything but Swedish justice in Sweden.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a fucking idiot. He's spent FIVE YEARS locked up in that embassy. If he'd gone back to Sweden and been sentenced, he'd probably be out of prison by now.

There's the risk that he'd be extradited to the USA where they'd either kill him or lock him up forever.

Re:Read he article

[drinkypoo]

She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

And I imagine that this is the point that the defense will hinge on. Is the response "you'd better not have HIV" rather than "no" a form of consent? Because the flip side of a woman having the right to say no at any time is that she also has the right to say yes at any time. If no means no, and anything else you can reasonably assume to mean no also means no (which, by the way, I do believe) then it's equally arguable that there are more ways to say yes than "yes".

Re:Do you require help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi there! The US government has nothing to do with this. It is about Assange misusing his penis for sex crimes in Sweden. Sweden isn't a third world country, and neither is Britain. Neither has "kangaroo courts." The penalty for rape in Sweden isn't life imprisonment. Swedish prisons are the opposite of "hell holes."

Do you have difficulty understanding this matter?

True, the punishment in Sweden, if convicted, for the stated crimes, would be rather trivial - if even jail, Swedish jail aren't exactly overcrowded hellholes of disease...
Yet you don't stop to question why Asssange effectively has committed himself to a worse punishment ,these years in the embassy?
Remember, Sweden did allow 2 Egyptians to be renditioned, to be tortured in Egypt, by the US

Re:Read he article

[Shinobi]

Except that that claim is false, as proven by her own SMS history. In her own SMS's she's admitted that she wasn't asleep.

Re:Do you require help?

[RespekMyAthorati]

So says "cold fjord" who doesn't have the courage to login under his own id.

Re:Read he article

[RespekMyAthorati]

People have sex in their sleep all the time. It's entirely autonomic so nobody is to blame. That's what "wet dreams" are.
If a woman has sex with a man, and doesn't want any more, she should go home. If she is home, she should send him home.

At the very least, put your damn underwear back on or go sleep on the couch.

Hans Reiser did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hans Reiser did nothing wrong. It is his right, under the God of Deuteronomy, to kill an adulterous woman of his.

Re:Read he article

[Martin Blank]

My main issue is Assange evading justice, even at the cost of those who put up his bail having to pay nearly a hundred thousand pounds total when he refused to leave the embassy. There are enough allegations that a trial is likely the most appropriate way to handle it, but enough questions that maybe Assange will be able to walk free.

That said, rape can absolutely happen in a case of sex without consent. Someone who is unconscious whether from intoxication or just an extremely heavy sleeper is incapable of giving consent. There are cases where consent under limited circumstances such as being asleep might be implied (married couple or someone with a demonstrated, ongoing sexual history), but in a one-night stand, consent should be sought each time. It's not that difficult to nudge someone awake and see how they respond.

Re:Read he article

[Maxo-Texas]

At least one condom submitted by the lady as the one used by assange appears to have been new and not actually used.

Full text on it here, but it looks she gave them a ripped condom which she said she had kept from the incident and there was no DNA on it. The only way that could happen would be if a new condom was opened and ripped.
http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,...

I have no love lost for Assange. And I'm very against rape. But this is a very unclear situation where one of the lady's in question has suspicious ties to the U.S. government. Sex by surprise isn't rape.

http://www.rawstory.com/2010/1...

And the swedish government acted in an unusual fashion because it was Assange. (the ladies were advised to drop the matter until it was known that they were complaining about Assange.)

The only way I could see convicting as a jury would be to strongly believe the females over the male as all the activity took place in private and was indistinguishable from consensual sex (which also took place).

Re:Read he article

[William Baric]

but in a one-night stand, consent should be sought each time.

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.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Anonymous Coward]

Some years ago now, norwegian media, with some of the largest newspapers seem to have, in several instances, been insistent on characterizing Assange as insane.

I can imagine how a few inconsiderate remarks can land Assange in some psychiatric ward anywhere in scandinavia.

The trial against the mass murderer Brevik in norway showed just how unjust and wildly unfair the psychiatry practice is. The local media having pointing out obvious flaws as breaking news seem something like a farce to me.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK isn't the main factor, as he's not taking refuge in UK jurisdiction. Sweden is far worse for him than Ecuador.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting him from Sweden takes one unmarked CIA plane. Then there will be an official inquiry, some people will be told this is not the way things should be done, and that's the end of it. It's been done before.

Extradition from the UK may need to go past an actual judge. With Sweden presenting a rape case, that part is easily completed, and the UK can get him on the way to the US without anybody risking their political career.

If he had been a regular rapist, the UK wouldn't have been spending nearly that much on trying to prevent him from getting to Ecuador. Once he leaves, he'd no longer be their problem. But as it is, the GCHQ wants to see him in Gitmo just as much as their friends in the US.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[johanw]

No, actually he's much safer in Brittain (and certainly in the embassy) than in Sweden. Sweden has shown itself in the past to be even more willing to do the bidding of the US than the UK.

Re:Read he article

[moronoxyd]

but in a one-night stand, consent should be sought each time.

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.

Sure, consent is rarely explicitly given. But the other person needs to be in a position to make a decision. They need to be able to voice their objection, if they so desire. Somebody who sleeps can neither consent nor object.

Or let me put it differently: Consent needs to be given explicitly (using words or actions) or implicitly (by being able to object, but not doing so).
But lack of consent because the other person can not make any decision means you're entering rape territory.

In the situation described here the woman awoke before/during sex and did not seem to have voiced any complaint. That fact saves Assange from going to trial for rape: She was in a position to voice complaint and seemingly didn't.

Yes, I know misandrists... I mean feminists, are trying to get all the power they can against men. S

Ugh. What cave did you come out of?

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[anagama]

... if the US actually had an indictment sufficient for extradition ...

An indictment is soooo necessary to engage in extrajudicial detention or execution. /sarc

Just ask Italy exactly how much the US cares about Italian criminal law, in particular, kidnapping. Twenty some CIA employees were convicted of kidnapping -- of course they ran prior to their trial date. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Joce640k]

You have no idea how extradition works, if you are extradited to one country, and that country tries to extradite you to another, the first country is required to have an additional extradition hearing unless that move was an established pre-condition.

The Swedish wouldn't be "extraditing" him to the USA, they'd be "lending" him as part of the ongoing investigations into Wikileaks.

See: https://justice4assange.com/us...

What are the chances of the USA ever giving him back after Sweden drops its charges? Slim/none.

What would the UK be willing/able to do about it? Probably nothing. Nobody's job is on the line (they're all following the law) so, hey, bad luck Julian.

This interview in London is just ass-covering by Sweden to keep the case alive. Don't expect anything to come of it.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Joce640k]

Let's not forget he offered to go to Sweden for a second interview if the Swedish PM gave him his personal assurance that he wouldn't be transferred to the USA.

(The PM naturally refused...he knew his job would be on the line)

Re:Good.

[Joce640k]

He already offered to return to Sweden if the Swedish PM publicly promised not to hand him over to the U.S.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[TheCarp]

Yes but for all we really know Sweeden is an easier place to black bag him and move him off to one of the many secret US prisons as well, where he might even be secretly tortured, afterall, its what the US does, and has not prosecuted anyone for.

So the Bilderberg meeting...

[famebait]

...was good for something after all. Who'd have thunk it.

Re:So the Bilderberg meeting...

[Virtucon]

Listen to Max Keiser much?

Re:So the Bilderberg meeting...

[famebait]

Never heard of him. I was only joking - just found it funny how it was the very day after the meeting.

Re:So the Bilderberg meeting...

[Virtucon]

He's on Russia Today but he constantly rages about the Bilderberg meetings. He reminds me of a guy on crack; he probably is.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Anonymous Coward]

In Sweden the rules that define rape are quite strict.. From what i have read and understood (but may not be 100% accurate) what happend was that he slept with a woman, and when he woke up in the morning he "put it in" without wearing a condom... The female then wanted to force him to take a STD test, but this was apparently nothing the police/prosecutor could force him to... So what happened here, at least to start with, was that since this is considered a sexual crime it's up to the prosecutor and not the victim to decide what should be done so the prosecutor started an investigation...

Of course i think he was completely in the wrong on having unprotected sex with her without her consent, but all of this has just blown out of proportion... Why did they not want to do a telco for the interview if he was "afraid" if going to Sweden? It could have all been handled so much easier without costing us tax-payers more than a call to the UK.

Re:Do you require help?

[radio4fan]

If you need assistance just ask for help, I am sure somebody will help explain things so you can understand and be less agitated.

Can you explain why it's been impossible for these last few years for Sweden to interview Assange in the embassy as he has suggested, but now it's suddenly possible?

I've no axe to grind either way, but you must admit this is puzzling.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[91degrees]

Getting him from the UK requires one unmarked CIA plane, and we don't seem to be as concerned about human rights violations as Sweden.

Last time there was extraordinary rendition, Swedish authorities stepped in to stop it.

Re:Read he article

[William Baric]

You have sex with a woman. She gives implicit consent. After sex, you fall asleep together. When you wake up in the morning, you decide to caress her while she's still sleeping. Do you seriously believe this is sexual assault?

If a woman thinks the implicit consent she gives is automatically revoked once she falls asleep, she must either leave to go home (or asked the man to leave if it is her place) or at the very least explicitly say something like "now you don't touch me anymore" BEFORE she falls asleep. If she doesn't, it's natural to believe the consent is still valid.

As for your insult, I came from the cave of men who still have a bit of common sense.

Ecuador Called

[Virtucon]

They want their conference room back. "Please get this guy out of our embassy! He's stinking up the place!" - Ecuadorian Ambassador to UK

not quite true

[wireloose]

Actually he did NOT have Swedish authorities' permission to leave. He just fled as soon as he found out they were continuing the investigation on molestation (v.s. rape). Also, none of your second paragraph is quite correct. Timeline (2010):

Aug 18: Assange applies for Swedish work/resident permit.
Aug 20: The two women file their complaint and local prosecutor issues arrest warrant.
Aug 21: Case transferred to Chief Public Prosecutor (CPP).
Aug 22: CPP doesn't find enough evidence to substantiate rape and suspends the case.
Aug 22: Swedish Prosecution Authority continues investigation because there seems to be enough evidence for charges of molestation (different from rape).
Aug 22: Assange learns of investigation and publicly denies everything.
Aug 25: Preliminary rape investigation was discontinued by CPP.
Aug 27: Womens' attorney requested a review of the CPP's decision to terminate.
Aug 30: Police question Assange. He denies, claims consensual sex.
Sep 1: Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) overrides CPP, resumed all original investigation on rape.
Sep 27: DPP notifies Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.
Sep 27: Assange flees Sweden.
Oct 18: Sweden denies Assange's work/residence permit request.
Nov 18: DPP orders detention. Judge issues European Arrest Warrant.

As you can plainly see, the molestation accusations were NEVER dropped. And since he left even though he knew he was under investigation for molestation, he clearly paid to leave, and he should pay to return and face responsibility. Maybe he's innocent, maybe he's not. Maybe the law is unfair and maybe not. Certainly he could have gone to court like most people, faced the judge, and argued his case, and possibly won. But the fact is he's tried for years to avoid facing responsibility. And the Swedish prosecutors, along with a judge, feel they have sufficient evidence against him for his arrest and his day in court. His continued fight against this is not helping by making him look innocent, if anything he is tending to prejudice the case against him.

The only reason he has managed to avoid this so far is because of his involvement in Wikileaks, and the resultant political help from Ecquador. He's using politics and the cloud of US extradition over Wikileaks to avoid Swedish prosecution. Just like certain Wall Street execs avoided prosecution for violating laws - politics over justice.

There is an accurate Swedish prosecution timeline at http://www.aklagare.se/In-Engl...

Wikipedia info with LOTS of citations at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:not quite true

[TheCarp]

> The only reason he has managed to avoid this so far is because of his involvement in Wikileaks, and the
> resultant political help from Ecquador. He's using politics and the cloud of US extradition over Wikileaks to avoid
> Swedish prosecution

Ok, lets assume for the sake of argument this is all reasonable and correct. Wouldn't you say an individual molester getting away because of public uproar over the perception of international bad acting, including illegal detention and torture.....is a small price to pay for the powers our leadership needs to keep us free?

So what if our country has such a terrible international reputation, its the reputation our leaders built doing what they HAD to do to KEEP US FREE! right?

Sure, maybe if they hadn't inspired so many whistleblowers, he wouldn't have so much credibility and there would already be justice for his crime but.... if you want to make omlets you have to break eggs, and justice is too fragile to keep in tact in the face of terror.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[mbone]

He's a fucking idiot. He's spent FIVE YEARS locked up in that embassy. If he'd gone back to Sweden and been sentenced, he'd probably be out of prison by now.

Doesn't mean he'd be free.

Run out the clock...

[mbone]

The decision behind the timing “is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to a statute of limitation in August,”

Ecuador, from my understanding, has quite the bureaucracy. They should get back to the Swedes by the New Year or so, no sweat.

Re:Do you require help?

[NotDrWho]

Sweden isn't a third world country, and neither is Britain. Neither has "kangaroo courts." The penalty for rape in Sweden isn't life imprisonment. Swedish prisons are the opposite of "hell holes."

Why don't you ask Muhammad al-Zery if that's true?

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[gweihir]

Alternatively, he would be rotting in an US prison with a life sentence.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[poetmatt]

Please, he wouldn't have even been sentenced in sweden. They'd hold up his case in court for 5 years with no representation and then send him to the US to be awaiting charges forever.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The PM can't do that by law. To ask for something that he possibly can't deliver is just a clever PR stund from Assange that apparently works.

Ministerial rule (Swedish: ministerstyre) is the informal term for when a public authority in Sweden — including the Riksdag, or a decision-making body of a municipality — tries to influence how an administrative authority (Swedish: förvaltningsmyndighet) decides in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis an individual or a local authority, or the application of legislation. This is a violation against the Instrument of Government.[1][2]

Ministerstyre

Re:Read he article

[Martin Blank]

You're conflating a caress with penetration. They're entirely different legally and emotionally.

The primary issue I see supporting Sweden's case is that she gave conditional consent the night before. If the consent was still valid, as you claim, it seems like the condition should also have been valid. That Assange did not fulfill that condition suggests that he no longer had consent.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Coren22]

You know, they make medications for paranoia now. You don't have to live with the condition. There is absolutely no evidence that the US wants Assange beyond people making shit up. The US already has Manning, and Assange being a foreign citizen cannot be charged for treason. What reason would the US have for taking Assange? It isn't like putting him in jail will suddenly make Wikileaks close its doors, it is still running with him locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Martin Blank]

The temporary surrender argument is based on a severe misunderstanding of those provisions. This article from 2012 by someone who is clearly not a fan of either the US or UK governments explains that the temporary surrender option is not an end-run around extradition proceedings as it may be challenged in Swedish, British, and EU courts.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Coren22]

According to US law, Assange has done nothing wrong. Why would the US even try to charge him for a non existent crime? How has Assange done anything different than Greenwald? Why would Assange somehow be treated differently than Greenwald? I will remind you that Greenwald is a US citizen and has been to the US since publishing for Snowden, so Treason would be able to be charged against him, but never has. Why would the US even try to arrest Assange for a non existent crime? When were you last checked out by a psychiatrist? You seem to be suffering from paranoia.

Re:Read he article

[William Baric]

A caress without consent is legally sexual assault. The fact that it's different from penetration is irrelevant for what I'm saying.

I don't claim anything about Assange. From what I heard, this guy is a douche, so I won't try do defend him. I just fight the notion that everything a man do during a sexual relation must be explicitly consented by a woman. This notion is completely unrealistic.

I particularly fight the notion that women don't have to say "no" as I believe women should be responsible for themselves.

Re: Finally they have seen the light

[Coren22]

You can claim that if you like, but I don't see you linking to any evidence. The only "evidence" I have seen that the US wants Assange are people stating it like it is a fact in relation to the Swedish prosecutor trying to get Assange to answer to the charges of rape in Sweden. When did Sweden become the US?

Re: Finally they have seen the light

[david_thornley]

Technically, there have been some grandstanding politicians who have been calling for various unpleasant things to be done to Assange, and I suppose that's some sort of evidence. It isn't good evidence, though.

Re:Read he article

[david_thornley]

Then why did the UK agree to the extradition?

The UK Cost of guarding Assange is the real issue

[aberglas]

Probably nothing to do with statutes of limitations, as there are other charges, that is just and excuse.

The UK has been spending a small fortune providing 24 hr guard on the embassy to ensure that Assange does not sneak out. This is causing issues in the UK. So the UK will have put pressure on Sweden to resolve the impasse.

Assange would have been in and out of relatively comfortable Swedish jails by now if he was found guilty. So one must assume that he at least believes the rendition issue is real.

Also, I understand that Swedish sex trials are held in secret, with no jury, and 2 "lay" judges that are appointed by political parties. So it is likely that he would be found guilty of whatever he was charged with. That said, it would be embarrassing for Sweden if the case was too outrageous.

The fact that Assange was allowed to leave Sweden in the first place is clear evidence that the case against him is weak at best. Certainly not a case of two women screaming "Rape!" as Assange beats them up and rapes them.

Re:Read he article

[Shinobi]

Because Marianne Ny did not provide that evidence as part of the extradition request. In fact, she's tried to get that evidence deleted.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[TranquilVoid]

As in most western democracies, the Swedish PM cannot tell the courts what they will decide for any current or future case. It's not an assurance he had the power to give.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[gweihir]

I did not say that US prison would have to be on US soil or under US law. Just under US power. For the extradition, they can fabricate something, and then they can just effectively vanish him.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Coren22]

Do you often subscribe to or come up with conspiracy theories? This is on the same level as a conspiracy theory. There is no reason to arrest Assange, what he did could have been legally done in the US. If the US wanted Assange, it would be far easier to convince the UK, one of the US's closest allies to arrest him. Why go through all this trouble with Sweden, a country which doesn't particularly like the US?

Beyond some blowhard politicians, no one in the US is calling for his arrest. Just as no one is calling for Greenwald's arrest. He didn't break any laws, if you don't work with classified material legally, you have no reason to not publish it. Are we going to be arresting the Washington Post for publishing classified information next?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[gweihir]

Have you overlooked Guantanamo Bay? Even the most stupid person must be able to recognize that as an extra-legal prison where there is no due process. Even having such a concentration camp makes a state completely untrustworthy in any regard.

Re:Finally they have seen the light

[Nehmo]

In Sweden the rules that define rape are...than a call to the UK.

You don't need to be distracted by the (possible) details of the case. The timing blatantly exposes the Swedish prosecution as fake.