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

[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]

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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[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: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

[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]

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: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: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: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

[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

[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: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.