Swedish Investigators Attempt Assange Interview; Wikileaks Makes Major Release

cold fjord writes: It seems Julian Assange rates his own section (The Assange Matter) on a Swedish government website related to the investigation. It contains some FAQs on points that seem to keep coming up in Slashdot discussions. The website isn't completely up to date at the moment since it doesn't discuss the recent attempt by Swedish investigators to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Unfortunately that attempt failed since the government of Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy. That is quite odd given the years of demands for this. Concurrent with this, Wikileaks has started releasing what is reported to be more than 500,000 leaked Saudi Arabian diplomatic documents that are sure to stir up some controversies. Most are in Arabic so it may take some time for their contents to filter out.

Comments

Run out the Clock

[mbone]

Unfortunately that attempt failed since the government of Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy. That is quite odd given the years of demands for this.

Not odd at all.

The Statue of Limitations on some of the charges against Assange run out this August.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that attempt failed since the government of Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy. That is quite odd given the years of demands for this.

Not odd at all.

The Statue of Limitations on some of the charges against Assange run out this August.

Errr, no. From wikipedia, Statue of Limitations means "the maximum time after an event when legal proceedings may be initiated". They have been initiated long ago, so Statue of Limitations does not apply.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically it's in part a 'fuck you' to the swedish prosecution, they could have questioned him at any time yet they delayed it until the last possible moment.

The swedish prosecution are no more interested in clearing things up now than they were before, so why bother...

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that how Swedish statute of limitations works, but in the US if they suspect you and you run that time doesn't count against it.

Re:Run out the Clock

[AmiMoJo]

TFA mentions that they were unable to compete the necessary paperwork, but that they fully intend to and have simply pushed the interview date back a little. The Swedish don't seem particularly alarmed about this. The request was not refused, they just didn't submit the necessary paperwork.

Re: Run out the Clock

[dunkindave]

I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.

The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

No legal proceedings have ever been initiated because Assange was never present for them. If you have not been sentenced, then the statute of limitations applies.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyways, what Assange did

I didn't know the case had started, run its course, and a guilty verdict had been found, already.

Or did you, perhaps, mean to say "is suspected of", "allegedly did" or something similar to the same effect?

Just curious.

I mean, he may or may not be guilty. But we don't know, yet, do we?

Re: Run out the Clock

[DarkOx]

Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.

I think you mean what Assange is accused of having done by people who have changed their story at least once.

Re:Run out the Clock

[MightyMartian]

The statute of limitations, so far as I understand it, is a limitation on how long prosecutors can wait to press charges. Maybe that's different in Sweden, but in general, I don't think it has anything to do with sentencing. Once you've been sentenced, even in absentia, there is no limit on the amount of time that the jurisdiction that convicted can take in trying to get you to carry out your sentence (ie. there are only two ways Roman Polanski can no longer be at least theoretically held to account; either he serves his sentence, or he dies).

It's absurd to say there's a statute of limitations on how long it takes to bring somebody into court. If that were the case, then someone charged with a crime who flees would be able to return to the jurisdiction that originally charged him when the limitation was up.

Re:Run out the Clock

[jblues]

It might seem absurd (or antiquated) today, but in the past evidence was primarily organic, and so evidence would decompose at a high rate, particularly if the weather was hot or humid. This would effect the ability to conduct a fair trial, and so there was a duty to bring the matter speedily before the courts.

Re: Run out the Clock

[s.petry]

I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.

Probably something to brush up on before commenting. I'm not Swedish and don't know their laws but refuse to comment on this type of detail without knowledge. What's that old saying about "ass"uming?

Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.

I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened. I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...

To be more clear than that, US law requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for good reason. Fabricated claims are not some new novel concept any more than crimes are new and novel. Both have been around for thousands of years.

Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.

This is a pretty wild speculation without any substance. You started below ground and kept driving until you hit the bottom of fantasy land...

Re:Run out the Clock

[s.petry]

Bah, I just reread and you are correct about the Polanski thing.. just seemed to be an odd way of comparing to Assange. Apology for misunderstanding first pass.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

It's absurd to say there's a statute of limitations on how long it takes to bring somebody into court. If that were the case, then someone charged with a crime who flees would be able to return to the jurisdiction that originally charged him when the limitation was up.

That is how it works, barring severe crimes like murder.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

The only places that sentence people in absentia are fascist nations. In civilised countries, you cannot be legally sentenced until you are present in court.

Re: Run out the Clock

[mbone]

trolling or no, I'm not making this up:

Marianne Ny, who heads the investigation into accusations of rape, coercion and sexual molestation against Assange, made a formal request to interrogate him in the Ecuadorian embassy...

Ny said she had changed her mind because the statute of limitations on several of the crimes of which Assange is suspected runs out in August 2015.

Re: Run out the Clock

[mbone]

Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.

Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.

I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that old saying about "ass"uming?

Oh, that's easy: it makes an ass out of u and Ming .

Re:Run out the Clock

[Martin Blank]

That's not really the reason for speedy trials. Guarantees of a speedy trial were so that the accused couldn't sit for an arbitrarily long time in prison, or if let out, then an arbitrarily long time with travel restrictions over their head. Also, memories fade, some people move, others may die, and this affects the ability to conduct a fair trial. It was far less about physical evidence (which in the case of organic material could putrefy long before even a very rapid trial could be brought about) than it was about alibis being corroborated.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

No legal proceedings have been initiated. So far this whole charade has been a horrible abuse of legal process to keep someone illegally imprisoned. This effort now looks like a panicked attempt to try and draw out his suffering even further, and all while dispensing zero justice with zero application of any real law.

Unfortunately even if the statute expires and Julian walks free (even *with* the universal blessing of the paying public) that's no guarantee "Justice" won't be served. It can still be served from a good solid sniper munition, and it probably will be. He just has to keep himself in the headlines to make it less likely he'll disappear.

Remember folks: Never piss off the people in charge. Normal rules of social conduct and law don't apply to them.

Re:Run out the Clock

[zedaroca]

It's absurd to say there's a statute of limitations on how long it takes to bring somebody into court. If that were the case, then someone charged with a crime who flees would be able to return to the jurisdiction that originally charged him when the limitation was up.

I work in the judiciary in Brazil and can't tell how things work in Sweden, but many of these things are similar in most countries, maybe people can discuss the differences here.

Here in Brazil there are three limitations, one to accept the charges, one to give a sentence and one to execute the sentence.
The first limitation is on how long before the charges are accepted on court. The prosecutors have to press the charges and they have to be accepted. That is slightly different from the time to press the charges because the accused have to be officially informed of the charges, as he has the right to a preliminary defense before the charges are accepted. Pressing the charges by official news extends this limitation.
After the charges are received (that's the term in Portuguese), the limitation for sentencing is equal to the one to receive the charges. That is: 1. to have a judgment were all the proofs are presented and the informed defendant has the opportunity to be interrogated and defend himself or be defended by a public attorney if he flees, 2. for the judge to give a sentence and 3. for all the possible appeals until reaching a final sentence ("trânsito em julgado" - Google translates it to "res judicata").
The third limitation is on how long after the final sentence the government has to execute the sentence.

So the first limitation is about informing the person about the accusation and the third limitation is about making the person fulfill the sentence. (basically like "bringing somebody to court").
If the criminal flees (or is not found) for enough time, he can return/stay in the jurisdiction.

To give a clear and very common example I get here: the limitation for drug possession for personal use is 2 years, 1 year if he/she is under 21. When the guy was found with drugs he was living in a district with one cop doing everything. The police report takes 4-6 months to arrive at the judiciary. We have to check if he can make deals with the prosecutor by checking his criminal records, he has something on another city, we have to ask them exactly what it is (maybe he was found innocent) -> another 3-8 months depending on how many records and where they are. Then he has the right to make a deal (different deals for charged or not charged people), we set a deal hearing ->1 - 4 months (depending on the judge and world soccer schedule), and can't find him (moved away). Try to find him -> 3 to 8 months (the cop at that district only replied to our third reiteration). If he moved to São Paulo, we have to ask them to do the deal hearing, six months latter they reply that the address we gave was wrong or that he moved back. Over and it doesn't matter if he was/wasn't fleeing.

On the other hand, crimes against children have to limitations.

Re:Run out the Clock

[zedaroca]

crimes against children have NO limitations*

Re: Run out the Clock

[ShanghaiBill]

Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.

How many countries do you know of?

Re:Run out the Clock

[matfud]

In many countries there is no statutory limitation for certain crimes such as murder or rape. Although there is for all other crimes.
In the US it depends on the state.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

In sweden I have no idea. In the UK it is generally 7 years but some crime can never be absolved

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it would be according to the high court.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

But he is not wanted only for some questioning. He is in fact "hÃktad" which means he is under arrest so that charges can be brought against him. And this must be done under the right juristiction, in Sweden. This is how Swedish law works.

Re: Run out the Clock

[cold fjord]

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.

Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?

By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

Re: Run out the Clock

[cold fjord]

I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened.

Assange admits that he had sex. I don't think Assange's accusers are accurately described as "girlfriends" as it was a transient relationship. It was more of a "hook up" with a couple of his supporters. (Perhaps that is what emboldened him to abuse them (allegedly).) The long delay between the alleged assault and the investigation is due to the change in prosecutors. The first one wasn't interested in pursuing the case, the second one was. There is no mystery there.

I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...

The circumstances are a bit different here in that Assange allegedly assaulted two women on different occasions.

Re: Run out the Clock

[cold fjord]

Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.

I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden

Your story is dated 2011, and I regret to inform you that the facts seem to have changed under your feet. There have been three court cases in the UK, going all the way to the UK Supreme Court, that have upheld the charges against him as rape even in the UK.

I also think it is a bit of a mistake to rely solely upon the views of Assange's barristers/lawyers even if the story was up to date.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

Those two English court decisions have been backed by the UK Supreme Court. It's rape he is accused of, even if it was in the UK.

Re:Run out the Clock

[jblues]

Indeed when I said (jokingly) organic, I meant primarily people - testimonies, alibis, witnesses, etc. Today pretty much everything is recorded on social networks like this one, by governments, by wikileaks, so its is a different situation. Good (and still relevant) point about rotting in jail and/or having movements restricted though.

Re:Run out the Clock

[cold fjord]

Is that what you got out of the article? It looks different to me, actually pretty much the reverse of what you think it is. Let's look at the section in question. If you look at the section in bold below you see that the Swedes say they submitted a request to interview Assange at the embassy. Then we see this weighty statement from Ecuador that they will consider it in light of this and that. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry statement comes after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy which would seem to indicate that there was support for that in the embassy and Ecuador. (After all, would Assange make the demand repeatedly if he had no support for it from the Ecuadorians?) And finally we have the Swedish spokesman stating that there are "problems" with a number of the documents. It's fairly easy to see what is going on.

The Swedes made a request in good faith to Ecuador and the UK*(see below) and the government of Ecuador has decided to drag their feet and manufacture excuses to not allow the meeting to happen. They are providing cover for Assange with the statute of limitations for some of the charges rapidly approaching. What possible difficulty could there really be if Ecuador was of a mind to truly cooperate? What is this weighty decision?

This is political cover for Assange by Ecuador, plain and simple. I'm a little surprised you don't see it given your hyper-suspicion about the UK, US, and other Western countries. Ah, but there it is - Ecuador is a Leftist paradise offering refuge to Assange. No scrutiny needed there!

Fredrik Berg, press spokesman at Sweden's Prosecution Authority (Åklagarmyndigheten), did not want to comment, but said there had been problems with a number of documents that had delayed the process.

“We will do everything to ensure the interrogation happens in June or July,” he insisted.

Meanwhile, Ecuador said it was still considering Swedish prosecutors' request.

Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

Swedish prosecutors said on Monday that they had submitted a request to British and Ecuadoran authorities to question Assange in June and July at the embassy, as reported by The Local.

* Sweden may quiz Julian Assange this month

Sweden's director of public prosecution 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," a statement from her office said.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.

What Assange is alleged to have done. Please name the countries where the alleged actions qualify as rape.

Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.

All that says is you have already formed an opinion which you now need far-fetched "what ifs" to justify. Sounds like you may have made an emotional over-investment.

I can't find any reliable source of information for the reasoning behind Ecuador's refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecution team - or any source of information that indicates Assange in any way influenced the Ecuadorian decision to refuse admission. It's possible that the Ecuadoreans weren't happy with the members of the prosecution team - or the terms of the visit, it's also possible the entry was denied for reasons of political grandstanding - or a thousand other reasons, any of which might be despite Assange wanting the visit. So I won't speculate on the "real story" - it's as useful as arguing over scenarios we know to be fiction (e.g. the motivations of characters in Star Wars).

Note: I only spent ten minutes searching for more information - and I don't read Swedish, so my inability to find supporting/expanding information shouldn't be taken as evidence it doesn't exist. We could argue with no evidence to support our opinions - but as you weaseled the scenario in the first place it's incumbent on you to supply supporting information.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. You can be sentenced in a lot of European countries whether you're there or not.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.

The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.

Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law. (you can go back to lecturing the television now)

The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.
Source:(Swedish) Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny

Re:Run out the Clock

[Pseudonym]

The statute of limitations, so far as I understand it, is a limitation on how long prosecutors can wait to press charges.

Well, they haven't done that yet, either.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it looks different to you, that's one of the downsides of being a rabid wingnut, you'll never see things as they really are. I guess you'll just have to learn to live with that though.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Richard_at_work]

You should read the judgements handed down by the extradition court judges in their rulings - they assert that all the allegations against Assange in the European Arrest Warrant and extradition request does indeed qualify as rape under UK law. That Telegraph story is based on what Assanges lawyers said, not what is actual fact.

Read the original ruling here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/interactive/2011/nov/02/julian-assange-extradition-full-judgment

In all the challenges made under "dual criminality" (ie, the fact that the offences must be comparable offences under the executing member state as well as the requesting member state), the judges ruled that "dual criminality" was satisfied under UK law and Assanges challenges were dismissed. The rulings in this regard runs from page 15 to page 32 in the rulings PDF.

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I thought you had a point. That was before I read what you quoted. And only then I glanced up and saw who wrote this post.

Go cry in a corner fnord, nobody wants you here.

Re: Run out the Clock

[dunkindave]

Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law.

Personally, I think your ego needs a check. I responded to the person about how statute of limitations stops when a person flees the jurisdiction by citing the term ("tolling") to help explain what he said. Since you obviously haven't looked it up, Swedish law also tolls the statute of limitations, just like US law, but with a few differences. The issue here is that since Assange hasn't yet been charged, he technically hasn't fled the jurisdiction under Swedish law (this is a difference with US law which says it tolls for a potential crime if you leave and they can show that was a reason you left, not just after being charged). That is why the article mentions the statute of limitations issue. If Sweden were to charge him, which they still have the option of doing, then the statute would toll.

legal illiteracy ... (you can go back to lecturing the television now)

I have formally studied law. Where did you get your legal training?

Re: Run out the Clock

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law.

Personally, I think your ego needs a check.[blah blah fap fap]

legal illiteracy ... (you can go back to lecturing the television now)

I have [fap fap]

So you know more about Swedish law than Marianne Ny? I doubt it. [yawn]

You win another FIGJAM award. But nothing for reading and comprehension.

Re: Run out the Clock

[dunkindave]

So you know more about Swedish law than Marianne Ny? I doubt it. [yawn]

I highly doubt I know more than she about Swedish law, and never said I did, but then nothing I have said conflicts with what she has said either. She wants Assange to be interviewed before the pending expiration of the statute of limitations for some of the crimes of which he is suspected (note, only some of the statue of limitations expire soon) to better determine if he should be charged. She can have him charged even without an interview, but wants to get as many facts in hand as possible first. My statements regarding tolling are also still valid and correct.

blah blah fap fap

Sorry, I couldn't parse your statement. By the way, your didn't answer my question. I studied at Bolt Hall. Where did you study law?

Re: Run out the Clock

[dunkindave]

Sorry, I couldn't parse your statement. By the way, your didn't answer my question. I studied at Bolt Hall. Where did you study law?

Stupid auto-correct. That should be Boalt Hall.

Re: Run out the Clock

[MightyMartian]

There have been in absentia convictions in the US as well, Ira Einhorn's being a notable instance. He was retried, however, as part of an extradition deal between prosecutors and the French government.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man)

Wait, Eva Finne, the prosecutor who cancelled the first investigation, is now "a man"? Come on, when you make things up, try just a little bit harder. Quote a newspaper in Swedish or something. Borkborkbork. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WO...

The charges were dropped initially because they were baseless. Then some mysterious magic happened, the current prosecutor took the case and reissued the warrants.

There were no male prosecutors involved in the decision to cancel the first investigation, just unbiased prosecutors.

Now, I wonder what gave the Swedish government the required bias?

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law

Aww, come on. The English courts ruled that the allegations on the warrant for arrest would constitute a rape -- if proven. But now that we've seen what's on the police report, and what the women involved actually complained about, and the English courts have not ruled on those. In fact, the English courts resorted to legal tricks, of which they have a bag, so they don't have to rule on those.

At any rate, the English courts did long ago discredit themselves in matters of extradition. Remember another European Arrest Warrant a few years ago? Yeah, that of a General Pinochet from a South American country called Chile? Pinochet, you know, the guy who ordered tens of thousands arrested, thousands murdered and raped, allegations for which there is ample evidence and which constitute crimes against humanity. Remember what happened to him?

Yeah, he got released because of a political expediency. This is the same case, but turned around. Assange's warrant was ruled on like that because it is politically expedient for London to do so. Justice is the least concern of the courts in this case. Unfortunately.

Re:Run out the Clock

[cold fjord]

Here is what Ecuador's Foreign Ministry said, and noted in the article: "Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement."

Does that sound like they have received a request? Yes. Do the Swedes say they submitted a request? Yes. So why the holdup? What is the weighty decision to be made here? If Ecuador was really disposed towards cooperation after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy why is there a delay? Do you think it is really a "paperwork" problem? No. This is all political theater on Assange's behalf by Ecuador. I doubt there was every any intention of allowing it. And given the level of sophistication on the part of those involved, they are unlikely to come right out and say "No." There will always be just one more problem, some papers not in order, unless they suddenly fold and allow it to avoid bigger diplomatic problems. We'll see.

The most likely scenario is that they simply run out the clock and Assange never has to answer for the accusations of rape.

Re: Run out the Clock

[david_thornley]

The alleged actions qualify as rape in Sweden and the UK, at the very least. Assange fled Sweden, and the UK courts have ruled up and down that the alleged actions are rape. It seem likely that there are many countries and jurisdictions (US rape laws are at the state level) where the alleged actions would be rape.

Re:Run out the Clock

[david_thornley]

Look, I was on a neo-Nazi email list for several years (I never did figure out how I got on). At some point, the neo-Nazis started saying things I agreed with, and I found that a bit disturbing. Just because cold fjord says something doesn't mean it's false, or even slanted.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Lest I be mistaken for someone "who knows the truth", I don't have an opinion as to whether Assange did or did not commit the alleged offenses.

The alleged actions qualify as rape in Sweden

Agreed (one of the alleged actions, the others are "molestation".). I don't think the Swedish laws are wrong (nor do I buy into the "Sweden is run by feminazis" line).
To be clear - he's alleged to have committed one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape.

1. "unlawfully coerced" a woman "using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner"
2. "sexually molested" by having sex without a condom when it was the womans "express wish" one should be used.
3. "deliberately molested" Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
4. had sex with a woman, without a condom while she was asleep. (this is the rape offense)

In most countries when charged with a sexual offense where there is no evidence - just one persons word against another, prosecution will only happen if the prosecution believes they have a reasonable chance of winning in court. (IMO) There can be a number of factors behind a decision not to prosecute - win/lose ratio for the prosecutor, available resources, risk of legal action in the event of an unsuccessful prosecution, trauma to the parties involved (and possible others - I no nothing about Swedish law other than what I've read - and I'm wary of conflating knowledge of law in other countries with knowledge of law in Sweden).
In Australia an allegation of sexual offense (without evidence) should give both parties equal credibility if one claims it occurred, and the other denies it (regardless of what gender the parties are). I say should because both here in Australia, and in the UK, some judges give less weight to the evidence of the victim if it's a woman, and in too many cases even when there was some material evidence the police won't investigate. My experience is that it's very unlikely Australian police would have charge someone in Assange's position - though they should. Anecdotally, it wouldn't happen in the UK either, nor in many US states (though, IMO, it should).

Without evidence the person alleged to have committed a sexual offense should be given less credibility if more than one person makes the same allegation (the allegations are given more credibility than if only one person made them). Usually, it seems, if multiple people make the same allegations and they discussed the allegation amongst themselves prior - the allegations may not be given as much credibility as if they'd never met and discussed the alleged offenses (the prosecution normally tries to ensure they don't discuss the case to avoid the defense using it to weaken the case).

To the best of my knowledge there is no material evidence - just the word of two aggrieved parties who have discussed the claims with each other, against someone who disputes the claims. If I were the judge I'd have great difficulty deciding which claims were true. Please note I'm leaving out things which an aggressive (good?) defense lawyer would introduce to try and convince the court that Assange is being railroaded.

These are the things we know for a fact:-

1. 20 August 2010, Two people Assange is alleged to have committed sexual offenses against go to the police and ask that they find Assange and make him take a VD test. (call me an insensitive prick if you like - but unprotected sex with strangers is not a sign of respect in my book - if that occurred). OK - I have no problem with that, if my daughter was in a similar situation I'd consider legal avenues to get the other party to have a VD test instead of forcing her to wait until tests would be useful.
   The same day an arrest warrant is issued for Assange (rape and molestation). Swedish law - obviously more proactive than Australian law.

Re: Run out the Clock

[cold fjord]

Although I may have gotten a detail wrong, you've got an even bigger one wrong. Go back and read your link. There aren't two prosecutors involved here, there are at least three. (Hmm, do you think all three prosecutors were women?) Two of those three prosecutors wanted to change Assange. Doesn't that seem to indicate that isn't an unreasonable position? Speaking of bias, why do you think that third prosecutor wanted to drop changes that the other two wanted to pursue? "Who got to her" should be your question.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

You're getting all 'details' wrong, on purpose. That is, you're lying. So, again: the prosecutor who dropped the charges the first time around was a woman. The decision to drop the case was not because she was "a man", but, to quote, because Assange was "no longer wanted" and was "not suspected of rape." Plain and simple.

Subsequently, the investigation was restarted. It is quite well known now that at the time of the restart the US applied a lot of pressure in Europe to have Assange apprehended. A small country with a government of US lapdogs called Sweden apparently gave in (as they did a few years before that, when they sent some innocent people into CIA hands to be tortured) and issued an arrest warrant on trumped-up charges.

And that's all there is to it. An obvious case of 'international cooperation' to corrupt justice.

Re: Run out the Clock

[david_thornley]

Assange left Sweden knowing that there was an ongoing investigation, and did not return when asked. I believe this is sufficient cause to call it flight. I should note that this flight was not illegal, but it sure does look like an attempt to get out of an investigation.

Assange may or may not have committed some form of criminal sexual acts. The allegations look very plausible to me, and they're sufficient to have established that if true. I do not consider "very plausible" enough to say Assange is guilty, which is why I'm describing all this as "alleged". (I am willing to describe Assange as a jerk, but that has no legal force.)I don't know what the normal Swedish investigative or judicial procedure is on these. I don't know how unusual the investigation is, or whether it's a matter of sticking it to a foreign celebrity (these things happen, and aren't fair). I don't know if the Swedish investigators have other evidence they're keeping quiet about.

Assange is guilty of fleeing from the UK courts and justice system. This is illegal flight. I don't see how his actions can be interpreted in any other way, and have no compunction about describing him as guilty.

If Assange was afraid of being extradited to the US, going to the UK was a really dumb thing to do. If he was afraid of being snatched by the CIA, and thought he'd be vulnerable to that in Sweden, then going there and applying for permanent residency was a really dumb thing to do. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that the US even wants him, aside from some announcements by grandstanding politicians.

Re: Run out the Clock

[cold fjord]

So you don't contest that there were three prosecutors, two of which thought that the charges should be investigated, and now the attempt is actually being made? That's a start.

Many people will jettison logic and equality before the law to defend Assange.

Sweden has a long history of independence with regard to the US and the Soviet Union (and now Russia). Calling Sweden a "lapdog" of the United States is ludicrous. Sweden declined US requests to extradite deserters during and after Vietnam, for example. Almost 1,000 Americans fled there after desertion.

The few (what was it, 2?) that Sweden surrendered to the US for rendition we believed to be involved in terrorism, they were not known to be innocent. (A lie of yours?) Sweden is not inclined to support further renditions, and Assange isn't believed to be involved with terrorism. Or are you prepared to make a revelation about previously unknown links between Assange and ISIS or al Qaeda?

Assange is wanted in Sweden for crimes committed in Sweden. Suggestions that it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden where both the UK and Sweden would have to agree instead of just extraditing him from the UK where only the UK has to agree are sheer fantasy and a flimsy excuse for Assange not facing justice. It is as simple as that.

Sweden Angered By Julian Assange Fight, Says It Won't Extradite Him If He Faces Death Penalty

Re:Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it looks different to you, that's one of the downsides of being among rabid wingnuts, you'll never see things as we do. I guess you'll just have to learn to live with that though.

FTFY

Re: Run out the Clock

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't contest the facts: the first investigation was ended by a woman, because there was no rape involved; the second is by a woman who trumped up the charges above and beyond the leaked police report after US applied strong pressure. Too bad the facts disagree with your talking points.

   

during and after Vietnam
   

Let's try to keep things in the present century and politics, shall we? Int'l politics was a lot different half a century ago.

we believed to be involved in terrorism,

Kinda like you "believe" Assange is guilty of rape, although the leaked evidence shows otherwise? Yeah I see your point. Rather, I see his point to seek asylum.

Sweden is not inclined to support further renditions,

And a guy with a Swedish lettre-de-cachet with false accusations hanging over his head should believe you because?

Look, cold, you've bin lying here for ages. But in this small thread we're discussing one particular lie of yours, namely that Eva Finne was a man. I showed that you lied and that she's female, so there's that.

Suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that you were right, and that Assange was left off the hook because "a man" in the prosecutors' office was biased against the "raped" women. If Swedish prosecutors are so biased by their gender as you imply, why should we believe that a woman in the same office is neutral and not equally biased in the other direction?

So, you see, no matter how you twist it, it doesn't look good. Hence the asylum.

Re: Run out the Clock

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Assange left Sweden knowing that there was an ongoing investigation,

Which conveniently contradicts the "up and down" court finding you refer to - who did not find evidence Assange "fled".

I believe this is sufficient cause to call it flight.

Fortunately, courts don't rely on "confirmation bias" - they use "evidence".

I should note that this flight was not illegal, but it sure does look like an attempt to get out of an investigation.

Which is "evidence" acceptable only in a kangaroo court. You don't have evidence he even took a plane flight (and yet I don't claim that's evidence he didn't fly).

Assange is guilty of fleeing from the UK courts and justice system. This is illegal flight. I don't see how his actions can be interpreted in any other way, and have no compunction about describing him as guilty.

No doubt you imagine you are fair, open-minded, impartial and noble. But really you are a sad fucker.

If Assange was afraid of being extradited to the US

He'd have to be insane not to be. If the US can't get him with an extradition order - which the Swedes would service (the "we wouldn't because it'd cause a media backlash" is lame evidence they wouldn't) - the US would likely "vanish" or "render" him.

, going to the UK was a really dumb thing to do. If he was afraid of being snatched by the CIA, and thought he'd be vulnerable to that in Sweden, then going there and applying for permanent residency was a really dumb thing to do.

Logic fail. If he was granted Swedish citizenship they would be unlikely to grant the US extradition - they didn't so he left for somewhere he had more protection by media coverage. The UK was a logical choice - and so far has proven sound.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that the US even wants him, aside from some announcements by grandstanding politicians.

Do you mean - "I ignore US history so therefore disregard demands by US politicians someone rid me of the troublesome priest", or, are you just advancing negative proof in an appeal to ignorance (certainly you have an interesting take on evidence - any witch burners in your family tree?)
The US can, has, and most likely will bend and disregard the law (as do and have other countries) when someone's actions offends them. Likewise they will, and have, used their power to induce other countries to breach their own laws in support of US ambitions (as with Kim Dotcom in NZ). My own country is guilty too (maybe if Assange had been smuggling heroin for commercial gain he would have had more support).
Do you seriously propose the USA will treat Assange with less severity than Manning - even though he is not a US citizen (as distinct from Jefferson Davis's "there is no US citizen" defense)? When the "threat" is not real, the law of bread and circus applies (sigh, which keeps folk like you happy).

tl;dr?
Feel free to hide behind the "he's mean" (ad hominen victim) "defense". And pretend that's not exactly what you've been doing to Assange.

About time this farce is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the few remaining Assange-is-a-rapist trolls, the world+dog has known for a long time that this is just the long hand of the US. Give up, already.

Re:About time this farce is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the few remaining Assange-is-not-a-rapist trolls, the world+dog has known for a long time that that he'll go to any lengths to evade justice. Give up, already. Wow, I can do that too!

Here's the thing: Assange has *repeatedly* said that he'd be happy to talk to the Swedish investigators if they want to come to London and interview him there. Now that they've offered to do that, he's moved the goal posts - suddenly there's some OTHER reason he can't be interviewed - the charade is pathetically transparent, and just makes him look like more of a shitlord.

It's clear that he's only interested in thumbing his nose at the authorities to prove what a big tough badass he is. He never made his offers in good faith, and I look forward to seeing him lose any shred of the minimal credibility he still had after fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy.

Re:About time this farce is over

[aXis100]

One of the "trolls" here.

Early on, Swedish prosecutors said categorically they couldn't interview him out of the country either in person or over the phone. Now that it's the 11th hour it seems they can. We all knew they could, they had done it in the past, they were just being difficult.

Personally I wouldn't blame Assange if he tried to drag this final request out. They made him wait 4+ years and put the prospect of statute of limitations within his grasp.

P.S. - interesting how he was trying to "evade justice" when he was co-operative with the first two investigations into the alleged crime, which investigator #2 dismissed as having no case. The third investigation began months later, after he'd been given explicit permission to leave the country.

Re: About time this farce is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Explicit permission to leave from his own lawyer yes. Having no force measures in place does not mean "permission to leave".

Re:About time this farce is over

[cold fjord]

Unfortunately you've got some things wrong there. I suggest you read this, and follow the link to read the rest of that item.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange. .... More

Re:About time this farce is over

[Demonoid-Penguin]

[...], he's moved the goal posts - suddenly there's some OTHER reason he can't be interviewed[...]

Do you have any credible supporting information for the claim that the Ecuadorean refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecutors is in any way the result of the wishes of Assange?

Note: wishful thinking is not credible evidence. Witch burning is bad m'kay.

Re: About time this farce is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Explicit permission to leave from his own lawyer yes. Having no force measures in place does not mean "permission to leave".

He wasn't charged with a crime at the time, since they had initially dropped it as not having a case.
Unless you somehow are saying he should be refused permission to leave even though he wasn't charged with anything, his lawyer was right. You're not obligated to stick around waiting for the cops to decide if they're gonna charge you with something or not.

Re:About time this farce is over

[david_thornley]

Okay, let's assume that Assange thought himself in danger of being picked up by the CIA if he entered Sweden, and follow the chain of reasoning.

Earlier:
Fanboi: Julian, you do realize that, if you go to Sweden, the CIA is going to kidnap you, don't you?
Assange: Sure, that sounds great. I'll move there and file for permanent residence.
Meanwhile:
Evil CIA Guy: Hey, that Assange guy is going to Sweden. Let's kidnap him there and bring him back here.
US official: Meh, let's get to that sometime later.

Somewhat later:
Fanboi: Julian, you do know the history of US-requested extraditions from the UK, don't you? You do realize that the UK will probably roll over on extradition.
Assange: Sounds wonderful. I'll go there for a while.
Meanwhile:
Evil CIA Guy: Hey, if we just charge Assange with espionage, we can ask the UK to extradite him, and we'll have him here. Let's go for it.
US official: Is it all that important?

UK Courts: Julian Assange, we find this Swedish extradition request to be valid, and the allegations are rape in both the UK and Sweden.
Assange: Waaah! If I go to Sweden the CIA will snatch me and take me to the US!

On your knees, Mr. President!!

[Anonymous Coward]

more than 500,000 leaked Saudi Arabian diplomatic documents that are sure to stir up some controversies. Most are in Arabic so it may take some time for their contents to filter out.

90% of the documents consist of erotic novels where George W. Bush and Barack Obama are made to do some very kinky things for their Saudi masters. "70 Shades of Oil Dependence" is the best of the lot.

Re:On your knees, Mr. President!!

[fustakrakich]

After the Anna Nicole Smith thing in Bermuda, don't be surprised if that's all we get.

Re:On your knees, Mr. President!!

[ganjadude]

non fiction no less

So they walk up to the fence and talk

[drnb]

Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.

Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.

Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the "victim's" rights? The prosecutors can't really discuss the case in the street, can't they? Imagine journalists eavesdrop and hear it has all been about nothing all these years?

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[fustakrakich]

Soap opera... Nobody wants to resolve this as long as the story keeps the ad rates up.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[CrimsonAvenger]

Assange has no interest in talking to Swedish investigators. Just with people who will treat him as if he's the greatest thing since sliced bread....

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Because investigators don't want to talk to him, they want to "talk" to him.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[AmiMoJo]

The summary makes it sound like they refused to give permission, but actually TFA says that the Swedish simply didn't submit the right paperwork yet due to some delay and have merely pushed the interview date back a little. No refusal has been given, they simply have not applied yet.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do it via Skype, or out a window if they have to be there in person.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Xiaran]

What ads rates? Does anyone outside a small group of online geeks and like minded associates even care about this any more. i mean I live in London and keep forgetting that Assange is over there in the embassy still.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

why would the prosecutors want to actually interview him at all? As long as he is stuck at the Ecuadorean embassy he is basically under house arrest. They can practically jail him as long as they want.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[fustakrakich]

It's help Dice... a little. Try not to take that too seriously, okay? Even if not the entertainment industry, somebody is making money from this.. What reason does Ecuador have for playing along?

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we've learned a little something about yourself from this.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Martin Blank]

Because if the statute of limitations runs out, then Assange can leave. Apparently, under Swedish law, even a fugitive's statute clock still ticks. Not all of the potential charges expire this August, but some do, and I think the others will as well.

Of course, Assange still has to deal with the bail-jumping charge in the UK which involves up to a year in prison and quite likely deportation after that. In addition, if he's ever picked up on any offense in any country for the rest of his life, he'll sit in jail, without any chance at bail, until the trial is complete.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had the option, I wouldn't talk to people who are trying to ship me off to a Kangaroo court in America either.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[bug1]

Exactly, submitter is obviously biased.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Sliced bread tastes like mold suppressant chemicals. Whether or not Assange tastes like mold suppressant chemicals is only known by a Swedish lady.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[cold fjord]

That isn't really correct, is it? Sweden informed both Ecuador and the UK that it would like to interview Assange at the embassy. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry issued this weighty statement that it would consider the request in light of this and that, but didn't give permission. Really, what is this "paperwork" difficulty that is stopping things if Ecuador truly wished to cooperate with Sweden?

This is clearly a manufactured delay by Ecuador on behalf of Assange to help run out the clock on the statute of limitations.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Ralph Wiggam]

Why didn't the evil Americans pick him up when he was walking around the streets of London for a year and a half?

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[KGIII]

I watched a video on YouTube where a guy was firmly refusing to let the cops in his house to search it for someone they had a warrant for. He was well within his rights to do so and the cops were continuing to try to cajole him into allowing them to enter to search. Anyhow, this kid had a thick southern accent and was acting rather nervously. The cops asked him why he was nervous and that is when I heard one of the best lines ever...

"Y'all got a toolbelt designed to kill me. Of course I am nervous!"

I am not sure that it fits threaded here in the conversation but your post reminded me of the Just Us department and their enforcement arm. I can not remember the name of the video nor find the link. I still find it one of the best real-life lines I have come across.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[cold fjord]

Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.

Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.

Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?

That's not really going to work.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested. ...... read the rest

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ecuadorian embassy in London doesn't have a fence, or even a ground floor window. It's an upstairs flat.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[ag0ny]

You (the submitter) are a fucking idiot who has been foaming about Assange for years. I can't understand why your submissions are accepted.

Let it go already.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[rahvin112]

Paperwork? What fucking paperwork? Are the Ecuadorans Volgons?

Jesus christ, it's pretty simple. Your ambassador asks their ambassador for permission. Do you honestly think Ecuador has a form for "Interview a someone hiding in our embassy"? You people will believe anything. "they didn't fill out the right paperwork" as if that's a real excuse.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the UK is a friend of the US, while Sweden is a lapdog.

If the US wants him extradited from the UK, there's rules and procedures and judges and all that pesky legal stuff, and they'll likely need to prove that he violated Australian law (as he was in Australia at the time of the "crime" - he's only been a spokesperson since then, as he doesn't have access to the Wikileaks servers).

Where as if he was to go to Sweden, the police would for unexplained reasons be delayed on the way to the airport, so the only people greeting him would be a group of CIA agents with an unmarked jet standing by. When the police gets there, the jet will already be airborne.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had the option, I wouldn't talk to people who are trying to ship me off to a Kangaroo court in America either.

You presume there would be a court... it could be a cell on the end of Cuba with no trial, no charges, no jury, and a little 'enhanced interrogation'.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they have paperwork for "foreign authorities entering the embassy", and I'd expect it contains not just the details of who is allowed to enter, but also every item they are allowed to bring in and out of the embassy (so there won't later be allegations of stealing secrets), what time they will be allowed to enter, and the exact nature of the information they are there for.

And I can assure you that every single line is going to be triple checked for mistakes. If the wrong person enters the embassy, or the wrong document leaves the embassy, somebody is going to be in big trouble.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[david_thornley]

So why did Assange go to Sweden in the first place?

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[cold fjord]

So in your view my advocating that Julian Assange be treated like anyone else and that he face the allegations of sexual assault against him is "foaming at the mouth"? If that is the case you are probably coming from a fringe perspective, and I would like to know why you think that Assange shouldn't face his accusers like anyone else in a Western nation (including Japan)?

I'm also happy to bring some facts to the discussion that are often overlooked, or denied. Up thread here AmiMoJo is engaging in distortion, painting a false picture for political reasons. He backs Assange just like he has soft pedaled North Korea's record, that of one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth that has starved hundreds of thousands or millions to maintain its huge army and build nuclear weapons, saying in essence that they aren't so bad. I see you ridiculing religion, and asking people for evidence of their faith. Is it too much to ask that we stick to the facts and accurately discuss them on other topics? Or is Assange a secular demi-god beyond questioning and the standards of mortal men? Where is your skepticism here?

I expect the reason that many of my submissions are accepted is because I try to submit interesting stories that would appeal to the Slashdot community. If you don't like what I submit, why don't you submit more?

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[TechnoJoe]

I can't understand why your submissions are accepted.

New Snowden Doc Reveals How GCHQ/NSA Use The Internet To 'Manipulate, Deceive And Destroy Reputations'

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he is still liable for a criminal offence under English law for his breach of his bail terms. It is *possible* that with the primary case collapsed or abandoned that the English judge would discharge the liability, but that's very unlikely to happen just because the statute of limitations in Sweden has elapsed (which it will not have for the primary case, which is the most clearly extraditable one). The English court has substantial latitude on this matter, and there is no expiration date in play under English law in effect now.

The Met are still spending money and time monitoring the embassy hoping to arrest him the moment he leaves it.

If he cannot be extradited to Sweden (which he still can be, even after August), he will almost certainly face criminal sentencing on the English matter. And of course, some other place may want to extradite him too.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[rahvin112]

Baloney. I do not believe such paper work exists. It would completely halt all diplomacy if an ambassador had to sign a fucking contract every single time they talked to another ambassador. What do you think the paperwork would do anyway? You think they could sue the other country for breaking it? What you are suggesting is beyond silly.

There is no paperwork, it's an excuse and a really poor one. And this is leaving aside that Ecuador is an extremely small nation with an extremely small embassy staff.

Re:So they walk up to the fence and talk

[cold fjord]

Quoting from your link:

To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.

Where do you think that is going on?

Site.

[SuricouRaven]

Could we not link to the sort of site which also carries "The miracle that cured my son’s autism was in our kitchen" and "Elin Nordegren has Sex on the Beach in the Hamptons" on the front page?

Re:Site.

[Bite The Pillow]

The NYPost link was basically an afterthought, and that is important information. Also, I would not have clicked on the afterthought had you not brought it to my attention. Turns out, it was the beverage.

Are you a shill for the Post, trying to get more clicks?

Jeopardy History for $400: "June 19th, 2015"

[turkeydance]

when did the World Islamic War start?

Re:Jeopardy History for $400: "June 19th, 2015"

[ganjadude]

try 1000 years ago

Re:Jeopardy History for $400: "June 19th, 2015"

[CrimsonAvenger]

try 1000 years ago

Further back than that. Europe was fighting the Muslims during Charlemagne's reign (about 800AD)....

Re:Jeopardy History for $400: "June 19th, 2015"

[ganjadude]

true, 1000 was just a nice round number. but pretty much from day one its been on

Re:Jeopardy History for $400: "June 19th, 2015"

[Demonoid-Penguin]

when did the World Islamic War start?

Around 610 A.D. I'm not certain of the official numbering system, but from memory it was World Religious End-Times War Number 114.2. It was a long time ago, forget about it - there are more modern End-Times Wars now. We've moved on from fighting over ownership of Judaism (won't someone tell the Baptists?).

Google Translate

[bl968]

It works just fine on the docs. Copy and paste the text from most of them and happy reading!

Re:Google Translate

[sl3xd]

If you trust Google translate for diplomacy, you'd better be ready for war.

Re:Google Translate

[Anonymous Coward]

If you trust Google translate for diplomacy, you'd better be ready for war.

From English to Arabic to Vietnamese to English: "If you believe Google diplomatic service, you should be prepared for war." Hey, they going to release a new product soon!

Re:Google Translate

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course being in Arabic it will take some time to filter out, after all only spoken by over 200 million people and is an official UN language.
I mean it's not as common as French, German or Japanese!

Re:Google Translate

[Areyoukiddingme]

If you trust Google translate for diplomacy, you'd better be ready for war.

Oh come on. Who goes to war over "yarn lightly extra nowhere fnord"?

Google is fine with the so-called Romance languages, but it fails hard when trying to translate Asian languages to Romance languages and vice versa.

Sometimes I think there was a concerted effort by Asian users to poison Google translate's database back when it was accepting user corrections. Especially of Japanese. It never seemed to get any better, and is still awful.

Re:Google Translate

[Nidi62]

As someone who took several years of Arabic in college, translating from Arabic to English can be a bitch, especially if the Arabic isn't fully voweled.

Re:Google Translate

[matfud]

Intergalactic pot healer. P.K. Dick

Call in the

[Anonymous Coward]

Mossad.
Bush/Cheney.
Putin.

In the end, Assange(tm) will die.

The farce is claiming US handover likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the few remaining Assange-is-a-rapist trolls, the world+dog has known for a long time that this is just the long hand of the US. Give up, already.

Sorry, to describe your beliefs as tin-foiled hat is generous. The turning over of Assange by Sweden to the US is a ludicrous and desperate notion. Plus it is a massive diversion from the fact of whether a "rape" occurred (according to the Swedish definition) and the female victim of this incident is being treated unfairly by Assange's defenders, effectively saying he deserves a pass due to his work elsewhere.

Re:The farce is claiming US handover likely

[Anonymous Coward]

The turning over of Assange by Sweden to the US is a ludicrous and desperate notion.

Cold Fjord, is that you again? We all know you're foaming at the mouth about Assange already, it's been a few years. Let it go, that CIA-connected one-night stand and her girlfriend did so long ago. It is only you, the feminazi prosecutress and the American government who persevere. And the latter two are only going through the motions because it is a job for them. How is it with you?

Re:The farce is claiming US handover likely

[cold fjord]

The post you are replying to isn't mine, and your facts aren't in order. Is that a habit of yours?

Re:The farce is claiming US handover likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, to describe your beliefs as tin-foiled hat is generous. The turning over of Assange by Sweden to the US is a ludicrous and desperate notion. Plus it is a massive diversion from the fact of whether a "rape" occurred (according to the Swedish definition) and the female victim of this incident is being treated unfairly by Assange's defenders, effectively saying he deserves a pass due to his work elsewhere.

Well, I actually agree on that (it being ludicrous), *but*... why would they not simply say it then?
I mean, in all honesty if he asked them to promise not to dump a bucket of blue paint on him, or something equally silly, all they have to do is say "we promise we won't do that" and he shows up for his charges. Seems pretty simple to me - if you're not planning on shipping him off to the US then just say so, in writing, and done.

Apples to Jupiter comparison

[s.petry]

Roman Polanski fled the sentence after entering a guilty plea to raping a 13 year old. There was no question of his guilt, he told the court that he drugged the young teen and raped her

There is no limit on Polanski serving time he was sentenced to _after_ guilt was established. If you want a better comparison to the statute of limitations for Assange, try Bill Cosby.

Re:Apples to Jupiter comparison

[quenda]

Its not quite so simple. Polanski pled guilty only to a lesser charge, and fled when there was the threat of a very long sentence, despite the plea bargain.
Unfortunately the case became political, and the judge was later removed from it, after he fled.
Even the victim was , and remains, sympathetic to his plight. The guilt is not in question though. Nothing like the Assange case in that way.

Re:Apples to Jupiter comparison

[rahvin112]

He fucked a child, barely a teenager. I could forgive it if she's been 16, but not a 13 year old. The victim in this case just wants everyone to leave her alone about it. But Polanski should be in jail. The plea agreement was a get out of jail card for a connected, well respected film maker. The plea was not justice. Drugging and raping a 13 year old will get anyone else sent to jail for 20 years and put on the sex offender list for the rest of their life. He should be in jail.

Re:Apples to Jupiter comparison

[quenda]

> He fucked a child, barely a teenager.

Your puritanism is showing. Do you want to lock up her boyfriend at the time, also?
  The real crime is non-consensual sex, and I wouldn't forgive that easily at 16 or 26 either.

Re:Apples to Jupiter comparison

[MightyMartian]

Are you saying you think objecting to an adult having sexual relations with a 13 year old girl is puritanical?

Re:Apples to Jupiter comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with puritanism, but with brainwashing.

We HAVE to teach kids to believe in the grown ups, to respect the grown ups, to listen to the grown ups. It's brainwashing, but only so that we can teach them all they need to know to make a choice in what they want to do in this life.

And when you're 16, you've had over a dozen years of that propoganda, and you won't get rid of it for years to come. You've barely started interacting on an adult peer status.

You need years of seeing just how shite you are at making good choices as an "adult" to undo the programming that adults are somehow competent and better than you.

So it's not puritanism, but a refusal to allow an abuse of power relationship to work to your advantage: they may "think" they want sex with you, because you're an adult and know things and are better (and also they've been told that they're "too young to have sex" so if they have sex, they must be old enough, right?).

But even if the girl had been 21, or 50, if you have to drug the woman to get her to have sex with you, that's rape. Doesn't matter the age. And that's not puritanism either.

So two ways this isn't puritanism.

Its just fucking sick.

Re:Apples to Jupiter comparison

[quenda]

Are you saying you think objecting to an adult having sexual relations with a 13 year old girl is puritanical?

I'm saying it is a lesser issue than rape, an aggravating factor, but mostly objecting to the emotional language that equates it with child abuse. Puritans tend to see things in black and white, and accuse anyone else of condoning the crime.

NoScript

[s.petry]

Wins again!

I got a sales pitch

[s.petry]

I translated "If you trust Google for anything, you had better be ready for war." to Arabic then back to English and got "If you trust Google for anything, you may be better prepared for war."

This is all ridiculous

[spiritplumber]

if they wanted to talk to this guy, Antonio Meucci invented a very useful tool circa 1870 that would've let them do so. Since it's 2015, they could even have (gasp) video! The guy's already in protective custody anyway.

Not a pass...

[s.petry]

I have yet to see anyone claim he gets a pass because of his work. What I have seen are skeptics that a rape occurred given the facts that have been released by Swedish Officials and knowing the surrounding information. Surrounding information on both the alleged victims and the US wanting him for espionage to be clear, because you should really understand both.

From day one of Sweden wanting to "question" him there was discussion of deportation to the US. Given that the UK has no problem arresting journalists they don't like and sharing with the US who's to say he would have ever made it back to Sweden? The discussion of Sweden deporting him gained more publicity but is the most unlikely scenario.

Re:Not a pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone claims he can't be sent to Sweden for a criminal investigation because of a ludicrous possibility that he might be handed over to the US then yes, such a person if effectively saying he gets a pass because of prior activities.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

He would be better off with double jepody

[Anonymous Coward]

Get changed and sentenced for "his crimes" in a court of Law by Ecuador. Then he cannot get charged for the same crimes in another jurisdiction. He could probably even get his sentence commuted.

Stop spreading myths and misconceptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Read up on the things you comment on before you spread the same bullshit as everytime this comes up. Best regards / Sweden

Same tired propaganda

[Uberbah]

Assange offered to return to Sweden years ago if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States for "intelligence crimes", which even propagandist Rei admits they aren't supposed to do.

Sweden has never made such a promise, which is why Assange was granted asylum, and why you're an authoritarian bootlicker.

Re:Same tired propaganda

[Grumbleduke]

Sweden has never made such a promise,

Who in Sweden was supposed to do this? Who in Sweden actually has the legal power to make such a promise?

Generally legal systems with a sense of the rule of law don't like it when someone from the government tries to pre-empt a potential court ruling. In some it may even be illegal, never mind ineffective.

Re:Same tired propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodness, you really don't have a clue, do you?

The extradition to a third country can ONLY be done when the Foreign Office (or country equivalent) say so: the foreign citizen is not under the jurisdiction of the visiting country for that act, it has to be done with the agreement of the country they DO belong to. Hence Home Office.

The Judge can ALSO refuse to allow deportation. But the Judge CANNOT order a deportation to a third party. Only deportation to their home country (or, given Assange is a commonwealth resident, a commonwealth state such as the UK).

So all that was needed was the agreement by the Swedish minister responsible for issuing deportation to a third country that they would not do so.

Since that minister has the power to do so or not do so, they have the power.

Since they can agree not to, since this isn't a legal power, but a ministerial role, he can issue the promise and be bound by it and no other can countermand it. Not even the Prime Minister.

So, yes, There is someone in Sweden with the power to do just that.

And have done so before.

To the GP Retard:

"Generally legal systems with a sense of the rule of law don't like it when someone from the government tries to pre-empt a potential court ruling"

This would hve nothing to do with government pre-empting a court ruling, since the promise is not to deport him. Which the courts cannot do, since it is not a punishment available to them. Nor will it stop them from claiming Assange innocent or guilty, since this is only a promise about not deporting him, which I've told you already is not possible for the court to do.

They can send him HOME.

They can't send him to the USA.

Only the foreign minister can.

The court can refuse to carry out the order, but they can't instigate the order.

The farce is pretending emperor has clothes

[Uberbah]

Plus it is a massive diversion from the fact of whether a "rape" occurred

Then Sweden should have let it be about the rape charges and told Assange he wouldn't be deported faster than Agiza and Zery.

They haven't.

Re:The farce is pretending emperor has clothes

[cold fjord]

They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly. Assange isn't a head of state, he is a fugitive from allegations of rape that should be answered in the criminal justice system like any other.

Can Assange be extradited from Sweden to the USA?

The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU. In short, the country that wants a person extradited needs to hand in a formal request to the Ministry of Justice.

Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA.

Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country.

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey for further detail on this.)

Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

(See Mark Klamberg’s blog for further information on this.)

You've fallen for a line of nonsense.

Re:The farce is pretending emperor has clothes

[Pseudonym]

They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly.

This is correct, however it's the law in many places that you can't be deported to another country if there's a risk of that country doing something that is abhorrent. I don't know what the law is in Sweden, but it is likely that he could not be extradited to a country where he may face execution.

Yes, the large number of US politicians calling for Assange to be executed is probably bluster. However, the fact remains that the US still executes people despite it being the 21st century, and still has execution on the books for crimes that Assange could conceivably be charged with, should he ever end up in US jurisdiction. Yes, those charges may only be used to try to coerce a plea "bargain". Still, the risk is nonzero.

This isn't something that Sweden can really deal with upfront, but were he to end up in Sweden and were the US to demand extradition, that is something that may well be fought in the Swedish courts.

Re:The farce is pretending emperor has clothes

[Uberbah]

You've fallen for a line of nonsense.

Third rate propaganda repeated by a fifth rate sophist. Deporting Assange to the U.S. is not a method of punishment open to Sweden's courts, when he's accused of rape in Sweden.

Wahhabibi

[Anonymous Coward]

> Wikileaks has started releasing what is reported to be more than 500,000 leaked Saudi Arabian diplomatic documents

That's insanely dumb. Saudi Arabia decapitates people in public and Assange may be the next Marie Antoinette, without regards to what ecuadorians think about that. Furthermore Saudi Arabia would get away with that because they are a key US / IL ally and the saudi royal family is actually of ethnic jewish descent. (Their ancestors were grain merchants who migrated there in the 1730s and converted to the crescent moon faith. How sincerely they did is up to you to decide.)

Why?

[nospam007]

"Most are in Arabic so it may take some time for their contents to filter out."

Almost a billion people speak Arabic, so where's the problem?

It's probablt Ecuador

[Anonymous Coward]

They may be a bit pissed at someone or just want to use this access as a bargaining point. Maybe some of their people are being harassed or were harassed while they are sheltering Assange.

The case against him is a load of bollocks, basically, since not even the women themselves say it was rape, so any charge on that will end with the women being put forward as witnesses (even if it has to be done by his defence) and asked "Were you raped?" "No, your honour" and the judge goes "Case dismissed". Done in three seconds.

The woman says it was NOT rape.

[Anonymous Coward]

The *prosecutor* says it was. But she is ignoring the claims of BOTH women in doing so.

What the prosecutor claimed is NOT what either women claimed, even in the "asleep, woken up with sex" claim: she said she was half-asleep. That doesn't work as rape, so her quote was mined and the half- dropped off.

So the claims by the prosecutor are rape by the UK's law court rulings too.

However, the court didn't check that the claims by the prosecutor were the ones set to the court. THIS is why the EAW was always to be filled in by the JUDGE not the PROSECUTOR. Unless the prosecutor can be done cor criminal, civil and professional crimes for making shit up on the EAW.

The prosecutor says he's not wanted for arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swedish *government* say he's not wanted for arrest. ALL of them say he's wanted for questioning.

Nothing more.

Retard.

Re:The prosecutor says he's not wanted for arrest

[cold fjord]

Here you go:

Sweden rejects Assange appeal to drop arrest warrant

A Swedish court has rejected an appeal by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange against his arrest warrant for alleged sex offences.

The warrant was issued by Sweden in 2010 on two allegations of sexual assault.

Mr Assange denies the assault claims and has been living at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since June 2012.

Swedish investigators are now likely to proceed with plans to travel to London to question Mr Assange.

The Supreme Court said it saw "no reason to lift the arrest warrant", since moves to question Mr Assange in London were already in place. ......

Oh dear, what a retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

European Arrest Warrant DOES NOT mean it's a warrant for his arrest in Sweden. It's a request to arrest him IN ANOTHER COUNTRY and SEND him to Sweden.

Here's a tip for you: .co.uk is not Sweden.

You retard.

Re:Oh dear, what a retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think when he crosses the border into Sweden he won't be under arrest? You retard.

Re:Oh dear, what a retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they could arrest him, they can arrest him already. They don't need him in Sweden to arrest him. They can arrest him now. They state categorically they want to question him NOT arrest him.

*Unless* the questions implicate him in a crime.

But since he doesn't have to incriminate himself, he doesn't have to answer questions at all.

And if they don't have enough to arrest him yet (and they don't), they won't have enough to arrest him if he does to Sweden and doesn't answer their questions.

Re:Oh dear, what a retard.

[cold fjord]

They must want to arrest him since there is an arrest warrant out for him. How can they arrest him if they can't take control of him? That is nonsense. Questioning following arrest is typical, not unusual. Assange had a chance for questioning without arrest, but that is gone now. If Assange is surrendered for arrest he will probably be in custody until this is cleared up, which probably means a trial and maybe prison. Now he is a bail jumper and nobody will take a chance on him doing it again. And once Sweden is done with him he will have to face UK justice for violating his bail and becoming a fugitive. Assange will probably send several more years in that embassy to try to run out the rest of the charges against him instead of face them.

How many times do you have to be told, retard?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an EAW. A request to arrest someone in a different country. THERE IS NO ARREST REQUEST IN SWEDEN. The swedish police themselves have not been asked to arrest him. The EAW was written by someone without the power to demand an arrest.

No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved. So you refuse to bother with reality and talk more and more bolllocks. Such as "It was considered rape by the UK court!" WRONG! The UK court didn't look at the evidence at all, they only specifically looked at

1) the claim that was NOT before the court in Sweden, but proposed by the prosecutor.
2) the EAW wasn't written to require ONLY a judge, since nobody thought anyone dumb enough to try, so they looked only at whether the law prohibited a claim from some bullshitting prosecutor of claims NOT PLACED BEFORE THE COURT.

Re:How many times do you have to be told, retard?

[cold fjord]

Courts in the UK looked at many questions, including would the allegation against Assange constitute rape in the UK, and did the prosecutor have the authority to issue the EAW. Here are extracts from the magistrate's ruling:

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
(Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)

The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange

Findings of facts and reasons

I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard: ...

2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during the process. These decisions are taken by a court.

....I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority. .... I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by a prosecutor. ... Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”. ...

Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?

The Magistrates’ Court ruled (emphasis added):

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

----------

No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved.

No, I don't. I just think the question should be answered in court if the allegations are strong enough to support a trial.

If you are thoughtful, you may see some irony in this:

Sweden Angered By Julian Assange Fight, Says It Won't Extradite Him If He Faces Death Penalty

The rape allegation is the most serious and if proven in court could lead to up to four years in jail.

The lawyer for the two women stood by the allegations and criticised Assange for not coming back to be questioned.

"It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture ... It's not about that here," Claes Borgstrom told Reuters.

"He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd."

At the same time, Assange might not have that much to worry about, said