Slashdot Mirror
Time Runs Out On Sweden's Sexual Assault Charges Against Julian Assange
As the Guardian and many other sources report, the clock has run out on the three 2010 charges of sexual assault on which Swedish authorities had hoped try Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange has been waiting out those charges since 2012 in London, inside the Ecuadorian embassy, claiming that he feared extradition to the U.S. in connection to this Wikileaks work if he were first extradicted to Sweden. He was recently rebuffed after suggesting that he'd be interested in living in France as a political refugee. The linked Guardian story notes that the expiry of the Swedish prosecutors' time doesn't mean that Assange is no longer under scrutiny, as does CNN.
Does anyone actually care about this guy's legal troubles?
I've never understood why people simply assume there can't possibly be any basis in this story, just because he gave us Wikileaks. It reminds me of how some people refused to believe Hans Reiser might've indeed been guilty of killing his wife, apparently just because he gave us ReiserFS.
#DeleteChrome
I'm not aware of Swedish laws on obstruction of justice, but I'd have to figure that would be a factor.
Amazing he gets away with this stuff.
It was clearly just a setup by Microsoft.
Im sure its comfy in that embassy and youre just itchin to get out. Well let me tell you, the US has a lot more dirt than just a one night stand to throw at you, Assange. Remember that time you bought falafel and a soda and then accidentally dropped garlic sauce on the pavement? looks like someones getting a warrant for littering. And that other time, remember when you bumped into that old lithuanian woman on the train? thats a heck of an assault you perpetrated.
Good people go to bed earlier.
IANAL - especailly not a Swedish one, but can't they get a conviction in absentia, assuming they have enough evidence? Not that I'm rooting for that, but I guess it sounds to me like they really don't have much on the guy.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Now is a good time to remember that since Assange was accused, we had Snowden release a bunch of documents, including one on JTRIG, GCHQs attack dog for perverting the course of justice in the name of national security:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
"the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) "...
"...JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable."
"..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)..."
An additional alleged incident of sexual molestation will be "time barred" - that is, time will have run out to question Mr Assange - on 18 August.
The Swedish statement also said an allegation of rape was due to expire on 17 August 2020, but that investigation would continue.
So those lucky Ecuadorian diplomats might have the pleasure of his company for another five years.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
While I love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone here, I recently watched and highly recommend this documentary if you haven't already seen it. It was quite an eye opener for me. Assange certainly seems to have made some tactical mistakes due to personality 'flaws.'
We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks
The curious thing is the sticking point. Equador wanted one of their diplomats to be present at the interview, Sweden refused that condition...
You can see Marianne Ny, just didn't want to interview him in London in the Embassy. She only started the process in June because the court pressed her to act. It didn't matter what the issue was, she was never going to act in good faith.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/13/julian-assange-wikileaks-swedish-prosecutors-london-interview
"“My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorian embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview, and that he would need to be present in Sweden in any case should there be a trial in the future. This assessment remains unchanged,” Ny said in a statement."
See, interview in London..... bad.... interview in Sweden..... good. The GPS location totally changes the questions and answers....
Are there provisions for tolling the statute of limitations in the relevant law? I've got briefs to write this A.M., but any of the lawyers on /. want to offer up some commentary?
That just conflates Manning (the leaker) and Assange (the reported).
Curiously, Manning is also getting a lot of unprofessional bullshit at his prison:
"Medicine misuse" (In small print he had toothpaste that was past its expiry date!
"Prohibited property" (Books and magazines)
"Disorderly conduct" (Swept crumbs from his dining table onto the floor).
"Disrespect" (Showed contempt when told about his crimes above)!
The maximum penalty for these crimes is LIFETIME IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT!
http://boingboing.net/2015/08/12/chelsea-manning-threatened-wit.html
Or rather it is professional, its designed and planned to keep him in solitary confinement.
There was a time when you could take pride in your country, and think that "your" intelligence agencies were working for freedom.
That time is long past. Long, long past. Intelligence agencies are, simply, the enemies of decent people everywhere. Those who expose them do humanity a service, and those who join them are traitors to any concept of freedom.
Since when, and in what two-bit penny ante legal system, does a statute of limitation come into effect while the subject is a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE?
They will NEVER let him go. They HAVE to make an example of him to maintain power.
A statute of limitations is there so you don't spend more of your life in hiding and being paranoid than you would have spent in jail.
Best Slashdot Co
With whether or not Assange is a dirtbag rapist.
Best Slashdot Co
All it says is that only after the preliminary investigation do they charge. However, there's no reason to wait until he answers questions to have the investigation complete, after which they can charge him.
It is also very unusual to issue an EAW if you're not ready to prosecute and issue an indictment (arrest)
So the only difference with Sweden is that they have to investigate evidence and decide to start a court case indictment before the arrest, not whilst they are under arrest.
NOTHING about having to question the suspect first.
Please explain this omission.
QUOTE DOCUMENT:
The preliminary investigation follows the general features of an inquisitorial model, in that the suspect is not considered to be a party to the investigation. The inquisitorial model is expressed through – inter alia – the requirement of objectivity on the part of the investigator. It is explicitly stated in the statute that the investigation should take into account not only circumstances that are disadvantageous for the suspect, but also those circumstances that speak in his/her favour. In this sense, the suspect can be seen as an object of investigation in a process that aims at the establishment of truth. However, the suspect may also be seen as a participant in the process – without being a full ‘party’, in the adversarial sense – in that the suspect may contribute material to the preliminary investigation and he/she may also request the chief investigator to undertake certain investigative measures or to comment in general on what measures are necessary for the investigation. The rights and privileges of the suspect are discussed in more details in section 5 below.
ENDQUOTE
NOTE: The suspect may or may not DECIDE to offer information to their benefit. Nothing says they have to offer proof of guilt, or even offer proof of innocence. The preliminary investigation doesn't require their input, and when that investigation is complete, the arrest can be made if it is known at this time there is a likely case to answer.
Of course, at that point, a prosecutor with NOTHING to back up the case who goes ahead anyway will be severely fucked over professionally.
This guy spent 3 years in a building unable to leave? Sounds an awful lot like prison to me. Think of the tax dollars Sweden just saved!
I've wondered if at the top levels of the US government if they may not really have a desire to get Assange extradited to the USA to face charges that a good lawyer will at the minimum will argue aren't a violation of US law because he's not a US citizen and he was working in another country at the time. I'm not saying such a defense would definitely work but I'm also not saying it has no chance either. Consider the case of former World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer. Fischer, who apparently had a really tenuous grip on sanity apart from being a genius at playing chess, violated US law by agreeing to a 20th anniversary rematch with Boris Spassky in Yugoslavia in 1992. The violated a Bush executive order on economic activities in Yugoslavia. In July 2004 Fischer was arrested in Japan before boarding a plane at a US request and was imprisoned for about 6 months while Japan offered various excuses for continuing to hold him. In the end he was deported to Iceland and basically the US, Japan and Iceland agreed to let Fischer renounce his US citizenship and become a citizen of Iceland. The US had little desire to bring him to the USA and was quite content to have him stay in jail in Japan to send a message. Similarly, it may well be that the US doesn't really want to go to the trouble of bringing Assange here and is content to have him confined to the Ecuadorian embassy for a few more years to come, at which point it may quietly back away or even announce that he's not the subject of any possible US extradition request. Even if the US said that, I have a feeling that Assange would still refuse to leave. He may well stay there for the rest of his life.
Oh shut up.
Well, Sweden has handed over people to the CIA efter requests from USA. Sweden blindfolded two egyptians (turned out to be innocent) and drugged them, and handed over them to CIA. Why wont Sweden do it again with Julian Assange?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery
"...In January 2009 it was claimed that the United States had threatened to impose trade barriers on the European Union if the two men were not transferred...
The Human Rights Watch published a harsh criticism of both the deportation from Sweden and the trial in 2004 in Egypt of Ahmed Agiza..."
There are also (wikileaks) lot of leaked email from diplomats, etc showing that Swedish government takes orders from USA. That is the reason Piratebay founders got hit bad in Sweden, because of USA. This is in Swedish, but you can google translate.
http://falkvinge.net/2010/12/25/det-kom-en-julklapp/
No, I would not trust the Swedish government.
He's afraid of being extradited to the US without grounds to oppose it, (as even unconvicted prisoners in Sweden can be extradited without a hearing), and then get tortured into insanity.
How on Earth was this ever voted +2 Insightful?
Same way Hitler got voted into the Reichstag. The usual tail of Morons and Naive Idiots cooperating in plastering their shit everywhere, and staying "loyal" to the cause helping out their "brothers". Back then it was the "Jewish conspiracy" which was the threat, now it's the "Muslims".
the truth hurts; there are entire muslim countries with the situation so described. there is also Saudi Arabia where the Saudi royals get a blanket pass to rape, murder, molest, etc.
...
Nobody here is denying that the law in some Muslim countries is bad, and that it really doesn't protect women, but that doesn't say anything about Muslim immigrants. Before believing that, I'd like to know what country the OP was referring to, and some verifiable examples of what he or she says.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This isn't about sexual assault. If he walked out of the embassy next week, the Americans would nab him on 'assault charges' but instead of taking him to Sweden, they would ship him to the United States where he would be treated like a traitor and war criminal (even though he isn't American, and hasn't been to war). The would make up any extra-legal charge and would stick to it. They would hold him, black-site him, waterboard him, and hold him Gitmo-style while they come up with something (anything) else, and if nothing else comes up, they would hold him on pending evidence, and that evidence would be examined, then the next pending evidence would be the hold (and that would repeat to about 5 minutes after Bradley Manning -now Chelsea Manning- gets released).
Strawman.
Nobody mentioned muslim countries (many of which are indeed despicable places - as are other countries).
I've seen that one - funny as hell, lol... & The rest of his videos on YouTube also, & imo, see my subject-line above.
* :)
He's given NEW MEANING, & reality, to what Charlie Sheen said to his father (Martin Sheen, his dad in real life also ironically & in the film too) regarding Gordon Gecko/BlueStar:
Charlie: "To be a pillar of society, you've first got to have the means to effect good change Dad! At least I've got the BALLS to stake my own claim..."
Martin: "I never judged a man by the THICKNESS OF HIS WALLET!"
APK
P.S.=> McAfee's hit that point - he CAN, has, & STILL DOES decent things for a better world, money be damned (PRETTY much, the man's got loads of ca$h/The "HOLY dollar") - he speaks his mind, & IMO, it's largely truths... why? HE CAN AFFORD IT, & DOESN'T "kow-tow" to the 'powers that be'/'wannabe masters of the universe' out there that *THINK* they know how to run the show, but are ONLY FUCKING IT UP ALL THE MORE, losing control (their spy systems worldwide prove that much for me).
Why? See the quoted conversation above - he's truly gotten where Charlie Sheen as Bud Fox describes.
Personally? I can't help but admire the man - & Who cares if he drinks or drugs?? The man's done things his detractors/naysayers can't TOUCH by many a country mile, & THEY never will either... apk
That case is BS! Plain and simple, the chick is a known woman hater and woman who make up false claims of rape should be thrown the book. Too many people have had their lives ruined over such things. It's disgusting.
He obviously believes that the risk of extradition out of Sweden is real, because there is no way he could be sentenced to more than 5 years for these minor offenses. The case against him is weak, which is why he was allowed to leave Sweden in the first place. They are obviously politically motivated, hence the refusal to question him in the UK. (Once the question him the have to charge him with something very specific, which would be embarrassing as there is nothing to charge him with.)
It is most unlikely that Sweden would now extradite him now, it would be a huge loss of face to them. More likely the UK will send him out once he eventually leaves. But that said, if I were him, I would not want to bet my life on it. The US jails are very nasty, nothing like Swedish ones.
" I've got the Shadowy Conspiracy(TM) down pat"
Not conspiracy theory, rather documented modus operandi, the leak shows they discredit opponents with sex and disinformation. There is no such limit of 'Iran and Taliban' only as targets, we had an admission that JTRIG can target the UK, the aim is to 'discredit' not 'extradite'.
There's quite a long discussion about them here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/22/controversial-gchq-unit-domestic-law-enforcement-propaganda/
And the Assange case seems to fit their modus operandi. Both the mode (classic honeypot), and the target (Assange a known target of a US secret grand jury).
The leak shows:
" “dirty tricks” like deploying sexual “honey traps” designed to discredit targets, "
i.e. this Assange thing.
"Early official claims attempted to create the impression that JTRIG’s activities focused on international targets in places like Iran, Afghanistan and Argentina. The closest the group seemed to get to home was in its targeting of transnational “hacktivist” group Anonymous."
i.e. the disinformation you passed
"An August 2009 JTRIG memo entitled “Operational Highlights” boasts of “GCHQ’s first serious crime effects operation” against a website that was identifying police informants and members of a witness protection program. Another operation investigated an Internet forum allegedly “used to facilitate and execute online fraud.”
i.e. targets UK outside of UK legal processes
"Beyond JTRIG’s targeting of Anonymous, other parts of GCHQ targeted political activists deemed to be “radical,” even monitoring the visits of people to the WikiLeaks website."
i.e. targets Wikileaks.
He has the right to ask the prosecutor to look at something or give their view, but the prosecutor doesn't have to ask them to.
From the link to the law explanation:
"The preliminary investigation follows the general features of an inquisitorial model, in that the suspect is not considered to be a party to the investigation."
Where do you get this "from what I read"??? Where did you read it?
By her own words she was SLEEPY, *NOT* SLEEPING. After which she got out of bed, went shopping and made him breakfast, and texted how great he was.
Asleep, unconscious, what's the difference?
Best Slashdot Co
funny, muslim immigrants come from Amazon.com then?