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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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.

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: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: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.