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

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

[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.

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?

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: 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

[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

[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.