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.
It was clearly just a setup by Microsoft.
The unique problem here is there exists a power that wants to bring him down.
One of the ironies is that the guy who's sheltering him calls his opponents rapists and is big on secret surveillance.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
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?
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.
Except that the ReiserFS doesn't piss off the government of the country you've been brainwashed in and its corporate masters, you mentally diseased idiot. Now get back working like a donkey and tonight don't forget to watch the katrashians with some beer and junk food at arm's length, so you won't have to think, ever.
Yes and no. I mean, I don't really know much one way or the other. However, legal troubles aside, the level of effort involved in his case, and many of the facts about how its been conducted DO make it look quite politically motivated; which, regardless of his innocence or guilt, is reason to look at the entire affair with a pretty jaundiced eye.
He may well be guilty, but, I honestly don't think that is the real reason for the prosecution, people more guilty of worst crimes get far less scrutiny. I honestly wouldn't even be shocked to find out the women involved worked for intelligence services to begin with and the entire deal was a setup, its not like they don't have a name for using pretty young women as agents.
And thats the problem, his big major enemies have no credibility at all and nothing can be put past them, because of long standing patterns of decietful behavior of which, this would all be pretty minor examples.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I think you're confused.
People who are on our side, whatever side that may be, never rape. If they're charged with rapes, it's due to lying sluts making fake charges due to political motives.
People who are against us however are never faced with false rape accusations. They're rapists, plain and simple. Even if they haven't been charged with rape.
Please keep these matters straight.
Also: It's easy to forget, but remember: rapists look like creepy guys who would jump out of the bushes with a knife. They never look like upstanding members of their community, and they never do things in their professional life that one can admire. Their whole life is dedicated to the pursuit of Rape and General Evil. We've all seen movies and TV shows, right? That's how rapists are in the real world too, because Hollywood is famous for accurate presentations.
Lastly: It's unfair to mention anything about Assange's past, so no mentioning his I am a god to women comments, his womens' brains can't do math comments, the accusations from whistleblowers working with him of misogyny and aggressive sexual behavior, accusations of cyberstalking a teenager before he got famous, his stopping an interview to oggle some pre-teens, or about 50 other things. Let's stick to the issues at hand: What a great hero he is! So kudos to him for his brave evasion of evil injustice!
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
BTW, if you're going to read any links, check out the last one - "Ghosting" by Andrew O’Hagan. He was Assange's ghostwriter for his book and spent months living with him, interviewing him and recording every conversation. It's a... very revealing read, to put it mildly.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
This makes it sound like Sweden is highly restricted in what it can consider to be an obstruction of justice.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
Swedish prosecutors have interviewed 44 suspects in the UK since 2010, while for five years declining Julian Assange’s offer to be interviewed at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.
Meanwhile the UK already spent ~12M pound to make sure he doesn't leave the embassy. If these rape allegations where the only reason for this theatre then the British police would have told the Swedish prosecutor that they will make sure Assange stays put for two or three month in the Embassy to give them the opportunity to interview him, and then they would have stopped this wast of public money.
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)..."
I would also point out, that the fear of extradition to the US is a little baseless, he hasn't actually broken any US laws. If the US wanted to extradite him anyways, why work through Sweden which isn't a strong ally instead of the UK which is a Five Eyes partner and nearly the US's closest ally.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The Swedish police were apparently not interested in interviewing him when offered
They applied to do so, but have yet to receive a response from Ecuador.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
I think there were four important things to know:
1) There were real women who made real complaints, though they weren't particularly heinous and they dropped them fairly quickly.
2) The prosecutor decided to go ahead anyway, which is unusual, though potentially justifiable if the women dropped the complaints because they felt threatened or intimidated by Assange's reputation (ie, they didn't want to be the people who put an international hero behind bars).
3) The US really wanted Assange, it's quite plausible they Swedish authorities simply wanted to get Assange into the country to extradite him to the US.
4) Sweden went to very usual lengths to get Assange for a case of this stature, which might be evidence of an ulterior motive, or a proper reaction by the Swedish authorities to someone who was publicly flouting their legal system in a very public manner.
Personally I don't think the basic facts are in huge debate and I suspect Assange deserves some real (though mild) punishment, however I don't know if that's what he'll get in Sweden or if he'd eventually end up in a US prison cell.
I stole this Sig
John McAfee himself has disowned the software and has put out a video on how to uninstall the software. If anything would make one presume him to lack innocence it would probably be his travel tips.
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.
It was the timing. Right after the wikileaks, then the charges come up.
Governments use dirty tricks like this all the time. Obama wants to get hold of him, so they get Sweden to arrest him, then extradite him.
He was only wanted for questioning, yet for some reason England surrounded a embassy, and put 24/7 guards on it. When have they ever put so many resources into anybody else, simply because they wanted to question them?
do you know the story?
He is in charged of rape, because he didn't use a condom on a occasional sex. That is a crime in Sweden and is equivalent to rape. The girl don't even want any charge against him, but it is a public crime, so her opinion doesn't matter.
So this happen to thousand of people in Sweden and no charged are made... but he got charged and lot of work was put in to bring him to "justice"... why is he so special? Oh, right, he published things that powerful governments didn't like.
Ok, lets assume this is a valid charge... why do Swedish prosecutor don't agree to question him on another country or via the internet? Why they pressure so much for him to go to Sweden to be questioned. Assange didn't refuse to be questioned, he just want to do it out ot Sweden because he don't trust their motives. It is also known that the USA did pressure the Swedish government to arrest Assange... and a few months later, this charges show up.
So, he for sure is not perfect and for sure did much things that aren't right nor his ideas about women are all right... but this case is too uncommon and weird to blindly trust Swedish justice.
Higuita
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....
Does anyone actually care about this guy's legal troubles?
Probably the woman that was raped...
You mean the one who said publicly that she wasn't? Or the other who more or less said the same?
When asked about this the prosecution said "Ah, but they're not lawyers".
I don't doubt this guy's a creep. I also don't doubt that there is more to this case than the alleged sexual offenses.
More to the point,
1) Someone surrendered under an EAW, in order to be extradited to a third state, requires the consent of both states taking part in the EAW request, rather than just one. Being extradited under an EAW only further complicates any attempts at third party extradition.
2) Sweden is one of the few countries whose extradition treaty with the US flatly bans extradition for military or intelligence crimes, and has a consequence long been a place to where defectors and spies flee (the most famous being Edward Lee Howard, the greatest CIA defector during the Cold War period)
3) Sweden was so mad at the US extradition program ignoring their ban on use of their airspace for extradition flights that they caused a diplomatic rift with the US in 2006 by disguising their special forces soldiers as airport workers to sneak aboard a suspected extradition plane. And how do we know about this event? Why, Wikileaks of course!
4) Sweden has the world's strongest whistleblower protections, so the point where it's not even legal to look for the source of a leak, let alone prosecute them for it.
5) While no country's judicial system is completely devoid of controversial cases (Sweden included), as a whole Sweden has one of the world's highest rankings on judicial fairness according to the peer-reviewed World Justice Project. They actually use it as an example of fairness when discussing how other countries can improve.
6) Assange himself thought so much of Sweden that he was applying for a residence permit there and repeatedly called Sweden his "shield". Funny how Sweden instantly became evil US lackeys the instant he was investigated for rape, isn't it?
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
In the 21st century, people get arrested and detained all the time for not breaking a law.
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.
A couple minor issues.
1) Waiting for a girl to fall asleep so that you can F* her in a way that she repeatedly stopped you from doing and told you not to do while she was awake (charge #4 on the EAW, the one that's still open) falls under my standard of "heinous", but to each their own.
I'm not sure what you mean by "they dropped". Eva Finne (who ironically Assange fans used to rail against but now apparently love) only closed part of the investigation (never the whole thing), and this in response to the backlash of her earlier bungling (filing an arrest warrant for Assange when he had never at that point refused to cooperate).
2) The partial closure itself was itself some pretty heavy bungling in that it involved victim statements that hadn't even gone into the computer yet and without having interviewed Assange on the topic either - which is some pretty fundamental stuff. Sweden has a strong victims' rights process which allows accusers to appeal the closure of a case that they feel was handled incorrectly. This brings it before a review board; about 20% of such cases are reopened. The women's (then-mutual) legal representative, Claes Borgström, filed such a request for them, and it was approved.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
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.
They did try - naively assuming that Ecuador wouldn't interpret "a couple months advance notice" as "Meh, we can wait that out".
Beyond that, it's a really subpar situation, not only because of the various limitations that interviewing someone remotely puts on the interrogation process, but because the goal is to indictment him. They already have a court finding of probable cause in Sweden on all four (now one) counts - a court hearing initiated by Assange and involving a review of all evidence and defense from his attorneys. However, Swedish law has specific questioning requirements before an indictment can be leveled. If they were to question and then indict him, Sweden has strict, short limits on how long there can be between the issuing of an indictment and a trial, and it's illegal to try someone in absentia in Sweden. It's possible to get extensions on the time limit due to extenuating factors, even potentially indefinitely, but it's a very undesirable situation.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
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?
Sweden as impartial now as it was during WW2 when it did business with Nazis and took stolen gold as payment and prevented others from getting help against Russia. Don't trust sweden.
4) Sweden went to very usual lengths to get Assange for a case of this stature, which might be evidence of an ulterior motive, or a proper reaction by the Swedish authorities to someone who was publicly flouting their legal system in a very public manner.
It's not just Sweden that did that, the UK did too, by spending an awful lot of money posting multiple officers outside the embassy 24/7.
Assange is not a nice person (no nice person would ever run something like Wikileaks, but that's life). He also seems kinda skeezy and if I was to place bets, I would say he's probably guilty of what he's been accused of.
Nonetheless, the whole thing is a bit odd in that the authorities seem to be going to extraordinary lengths compared to crimes that the police just can't seem to be arsed to deal with properly. That makes it seem political. Then of course there's Sweden being complicit in the extraordinary renditions. Sure, they were "mad as hell", but then perhaps those same Swedish authorities shouldn't have handed over the prisoners in the first place.
There is no dichotomy here even if many people seem to be insisting on it. It is perfectly possible that he did what is claimed and is guilty and there's hefty political inteference in the process.
If in doubt, assume asshattery on all sides. That generally explains a lot of behaviour perfectly well.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ya puts the roofie in da drink and da roofity-doofity dippitiy doopity!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I've never understood why people simply assume there can't possibly be any basis in this story.
Many people do not assume that, they have tentatively concluded it after studying the case, the publicly available evidence and Swedish law. Unless your only source of information is Fox News, it's not rocket science.
Let's actually remember the story: 1. The women in question actually had consensual sex with Assange 2. Then few days after they wanted to report how he didn't use the condom: in case one he took off a condom during the intercourse, and in the other case he tricked the woman into having sex without a condom. In Sweden this constitutes a rape. He denies both allegations, so it is his word against theirs 3. By now all possible evidence is gone and there was no sign of violence.
I skimmed this overview of Swedish criminal procedure and their reasoning with regards to custody appears valid. Indictments come late Swedish criminal procedure. As part of the preliminary investigation, they have to question the suspect, who can speak in his defense. It's not like in the US where "anything you say can and will be used against you" and never to help you. In Sweden the investigator can actually listen to your explanations and you can request they investigate some other thing which may exonerate you. So, they have to talk to you before they indict. But once they indict, there are "right to a speedy trial" rules, so if they interview with no way to put him in custody if they indict, that defeats the purpose. So that's valid.
But what's not is the UK spending something like 12 million pounds to make sure he doesn't leave the Ecuadorian embassy. Look, I get it, serious crime and all. But I cannot believe they would spend 12 million to capture any old rapist. Sweden's just following their rules. The UK's made it personal.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
No, the Swedish investigation (first became public Aug. 20) came before the "Cablegate" releases (Nov. 28), not after. Assange controlled the timing of the Cablegate releases, it was his choice to have the come immediately after the Swedish issue came up (even while Wikileaks volunteers were expressing concerns about the rushed release - which ultimately led to a mass exodus of volunteers from Wikileaks). And after Cablegate blew up big, when being shown all of the headlines, he smiled big (on camera) and said "I'm untouchable now in this country."
As for everything else, see here.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
By "remember", apparently you mean "display gross ignorance of even the most basic facts of the case".
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
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
Interesting articles, and thanks for posting them, but I wonder about this from the OP article: “From the beginning I offered simple solutions,” Assange said. “Come to the embassy to take my statement or promise not to send me to the United States. This Swedish official refused both. She even refused a written statement This is beyond incompetence.”
If this is true, you do have to wonder. If Sweden is notorious for not extraditing on espionage, how hard would it be to give written assurance that it was only a rape investigation and under no circumstances would he be extradited anywhere?
You can bet any rapist who sought refuge in a foreign embassy to escape prosecution would result in prosecutors going through unusual lengths, if not for any other reason than that they don't want this sort of thing to become commonplace.
"I would also point out, that the fear of extradition to the US is a little baseless, he hasn't actually broken any US laws".
I do hope that was meant as a joke. Surely there isn't anyone left who believes the US government gives a flying fuck about laws? The salient fact is that they hate Assange because he disobliged them and annoyed them. They certainly could create a new law specifically to make him illegal, or retroactively reinterpret some old laws to do the same... but history shows that they mostly just kidnap, torture and kill whomever they want, without any concern for laws.
In case you doubt any of that, ask yourself what laws the people in Guantanamo Bay broke. And then ask yourself, if they did break any American laws, why they weren't brought to trial in a US court of law. You might then graduate to asking yourself what US laws were broken by the thousands or millions of dead civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen... etc., etc. to merit the summary capital punishment that was visited on them.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Or just detained... indefinitely (or until they develop a nasty case of death, from natural causes of course).
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
it is political: British and Swedish police and prosecutors feel like they are being made fools of very publicly. That has nothing to do with why Assange is famous per se. He could have been an actor or sports star too. But once there was a lot of press coverage and he tried to get away by taking refuge in a foreign embassy, police and prosecutors were not going to let this go.
That isn't to say that a US extradition request also motivated them, but I think they would have done this even without it. Furthermore, I don't see any particular reason for people to object to a US extradition request, a request that is valid under mutual agreements between Sweden, Australia, and the US.
'When asked about this the prosecution said "Ah, but they're not lawyers"'.
You mean there are people so degenerate they'd rape a LAWYER???
Ewwww.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"Does anyone actually care about this guy's legal troubles?"
Yes, like Socrates and Jesus Christ he got into trouble with the authorities for telling the truth in public and upsetting people. (Please don't twist that into any implication that Assange is as good a person generally as Socrates or Jesus Christ). And he is currently getting the same treatment. Certainly, he hasn't yet been crucified or made to drink poison. (Indeed, if he were ever to find his way to the good ol' USA I'm willing to bet he would soon be begging for some hemlock). Nor has he been sodomized with a bayonet like Colonel Qadafi, or hanged like Saddam Hussein. But that's not for want of trying.
What continues to amaze me is how eager many ordinary people are to see all those things done to someone whose main crime has been revealing the filthy tricks of their government, in the vain hope that this might help to moderate that government's appalling conduct. I suppose there will always be a lot of human beings who simply want to be led by someone who seems authoritative, which saves them the trouble and pain of thinking or standing up for themselves.
(Jesus got into trouble for consorting with publicans and sinners - more or less equivalent to government officials and prostitutes. Luckily for him he never consorted with Swedish women).
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
3) Sweden was so mad at the US extradition program ignoring their ban on use of their airspace for extradition flights that they caused a diplomatic rift with the US in 2006 by disguising their special forces soldiers as airport workers to sneak aboard a suspected extradition plane. And how do we know about this event? Why, Wikileaks of course!
On one hand they are mad, on the other hand it continues to happen. It is very unlikely that it happens without high level consent from the swedes. This being a major problem.
Also both the women are now uncooperative, one of them has even fled to Australia.
I am not supporter of Assange, and consider him a megalomaniac, but his concerns are quite valid.
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.
Multiple aspects of the argument "It would be easier from the UK" are discussed here: https://justice4assange.com/ex... (Disclaimer: Not exactly an unbiased source)
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!
Useful clue:
If the USA wanted Assange, it would have been easier to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden.
Personally, I think he hid in the embassy because of a much greater threat than extradition to Sweden or extradition to the USA - he was afraid he was rapidly becoming ignorable. And he desperately wants to feel important....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
1) Waiting for a girl to fall asleep so that you can F* her in a way that she repeatedly stopped you from doing and told you not to do while she was awake
Yeah, since I actually have sex and sleep with women, this one comes across as pretty fishy. I can't touch a girl's hair without waking her up. I can't even change my breathing. I find it difficult to believe that people can have sex with a sleeping person provided that sleeping person isn't drugged or severely intoxicated... or unless that dude is hung like a needle.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
According to Rei (who seems to have pretty valid points), in order to extradite from Sweden, UKs approval would be needed anyways, so it doesn't help anything to send him to Sweden first.
It seems that the argument from that site amounts to that he is safer in the Ecuadorian embassy, but this totally misses the point that that isn't what is being argued, and what is being argued is that it would be easier to extradite from the UK compared to extraditing him to Sweden, then from Sweden (which requires UKs approval anyways). Why involve Sweden at all when the UK MI6 likely would just hand him over to the US without any fuss at all and no extradition hearing.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
On the other hand I can't believe some people actually think the US government wouldn't stoop to the level of getting someone who had a contact in the CIA to set up one of the greatest thorns in their side with a character-ruining false accusation. The US government would never do something like that!
Assange may have done what he is accused of AND the CIA may have been involved in engaging in character assasination to dicredit a particularly effective critic.
Any rational-minded observer can discount neither possibility.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
He hasn't been in the UK since this whole thing blew up. He's been in Peru.
Sure, he's been in a building in the middle of England, but diplomatic conventions are that an accredited embassy is legally speaking the native soil of the country being represented and will remain so until the embassy either voluntarily relinquishes it or the host nation ceases to recognize it as such. To send in US or UK police or military officials to drag him out would be no more acceptable than if they'd sent an unauthorized squad to Lima. Effectively, an act of war.
Assange may be a thorn, but he's not a big enough thorn to warrant that. Even some of history's worst former dictators haven't been considered worth that.
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.
This is not exactly correct. The embassy is the sovereign territory of the country in which it is physically located (British Embassy in Peru is not British soil)...however the Vienna Convention states that the local government foreswears the right to enter an embassy, and provides diplomatic immunity for the diplomats inside.
If I live in Peru and I break into the British Embassy and commit a crime, I will be punished in Peru by the Peruvian police and law. It is not up to the brits to come and get me, and I get off scott-free once I walk out the front door without some kind of extradition treaty.
So anyone the government says deserves to be jailed deserves to be jailed and anyone who disagrees is either a traitor or talking out of his ass.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I am pointing out that as these people are enemy combatants, and not criminals, asking what laws they broke is disingenuous, and trying to claim to KNOW that these people have done nothing wrong when most of the information is classified says either AC is lying, or he is breaking federal law.
If you want to fix it, protest it and elect leaders that vow to correct it. Oh wait, wasn't that one of Obama's promises? I think he said he would close Guantanamo Bay, but yet it is still open 6 years later. Interesting.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You're trying to mislead slashdot readers, and, given your comments under this article, it isn't because you don't know what went on, but purposefully. Most likely you're, like cold fjord, a sad fuck whose job is to feed us propaganda about the case. Who's paying you, the US or Sweden?
The facts are as follows:
1. Wikileaks released a video from a US helicopter murdering unarmed Iraqi journalists in April 2010, which made a huge news splash.
2. Then in July 2010, they released the Afghan War Diary and announced the imminent release of the Iraqi War logs. This made an even hugher news splash.
3. The US immediately began an investigation and a smear campaign against Assange. It had nothing to do with Cablegate.
There were, for example, allegations that the Afghan War diaries contain names of people who will 'face danger' for co-operating with the US. Of course, as of today there is no information of anyone hurt because of that release. There were also calls for him to be assassinated by US senate members and so on.
4. Alongside with the investigation under the very modern US Espionage Act of 1917 , and together with the smear campaign, the US began to pressure various governments to help US apprehend Assange.
This is the prequel to the Sweden's investigation.
5. The complaints by the two women in Sweden were made in the end of August, months after the US effort to discredit and arrest Assange began in earnest.
Now, why are you lying when all this can easily be checked and confirmed?
I wish you blind assange supporters would at least stick to the truth. But of course this has never been about the truth.
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
You make a very good point.
Assange is the perfect person out of whom to make an example. He is a sleazy idiot who thinks he is above the law and has a general asshole attitude.
And how many people did they interview in a foreign embassy in London?
Don't pretend they can just show up and ask questions.
How on Earth was this ever voted +2 Insightful?
Because a conviction for violating some US secrecy law would make him a martyr. A conviction for rape is much better for destroying his legacy.
Claes Borgström, a Stockholm lawyer who represents one of the women whose allegations against Assange will now never be tested in court, said the woman was ambivalent about the situation. “On the one hand, she wanted Assange to face trial and answer for what he has done. On the other, she wants to put this behind her.”
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
Bolded for attention. I wish both, you sweden apologist and the assange supporters would stick to the truth.
Socrates was an ass. He was outrageously provocative, and when he managed to anger people enough to be put on trial he made a mockery of the legal process and deliberately forced a conviction and death sentence. He even turned down an offer of escape - his followers bribed prison guards to get him out, and he refused to follow. He got himself killed to prove a point.
The only accounts of the life of Jesus are the unreliable sources of the gospels, but they make it clear why Jesus got in legal trouble. Nothing to do with consorting with anyone: He was a popular Jewish preacher delivering fiery speeches to a Jewish population already on the verge of rebellion against the occupying Roman forces. A general troublemaker of dangerous charisma - the Romans wanted him gone because he could serve as a leader for a rebellion or urge the Jews to further actions of resistance.
That's a hell of a read. Thanks for the link.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I would like to point out Guantanamo bay, where the US govt puts people it illegally kidnaps.idiot.
You're either incredibly stupid or a shill for the govt. FFS, these guys were picked up randomly and sold to the US.
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".
Lying shill.
Sweden legally can't guarantee that he won't be extradited anywhere.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
As the AC below said, Sweden can't guarantee that he won't be extradited; they have to consider requests as they come in, and can't promise to break a treaty.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You mean both of them who didn't say that? One of them said she wanted him to face trial. She's conflicted about it, like most rape victims - the longer it takes to get to trial, the more they want to put it behind them.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Don't pretend they can just show up and ask questions.
Obviously not, but firstly, Assange was in the UK since August 2010 when the case was already open, and he only entered the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012. That makes nearly two years to question him in London without the complications to ask Ecuador for permission, and then they had three years to ask Ecuador for permission and only did so this year in June when the time for three of the allegations started to run out.
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.
Multiple government officials here... including at least one who is currently running for president and another who was previously a vice-presidential nominee... have publicly called for Assange to be kidnapped and/or murdered. We have a recent history of "extraordinary rendition": ie. kidnapping people we don't like and sending them off to third-world crapholes to be tortured and murdered by the CIA so it doesn't technically happen on our own soil. And we operate our own modern gulag in Cuba, also so that technically holding people indefinitely with no trial or other due process isn't happening on our own soil.
I agree that he *shouldn't* have to be worried about being extradited to the US. But there are more shenanigans available than extradition.
Imagine all the people...
Collateral murder was released on April 5th, 4 1/2 months earlier. And was one in a line of releases. Among others, in February Wikileaks had leaked the Reykjavík 13 cable, the first of the leaks sourced from Manning, which caused a big uproar in the states dealing with the Icesave scandal. In November of the previous year it inserted itself into the Climategate scandal. In September they leaked documents from Icelandic banks showing a huge amount of illegal activity leading up to the financial crash. In July they had leaked the first evidence that led to the disclosure of the Stuxnet worm. And on and on.
Wikileaks profile steadily increased, one case after the next. But Cablegate was really their zenith.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
...
I doubt we kill them in the third world countries - it would attract unnecessary attention. I suspect they are hog tied, put in a 120mm ammo crate, and kicked out the back of a C-130 somewhere over the South Pacific.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Um, sex with a person who can't consent is normally considered rape, and the woman did want Assange charged. She may just want to forget about it now, but that's not really important. Interpol considered it a rape charge, and the UK court system agreed all the way to the top that the charges qualified as rape. It's not just Swedish law. It looks like the UK was interested in protecting him.
Which thousand women in Sweden were raped while asleep with no charges filed? Even if you had evidence, it would be a stupid thing to bring up, because rape is so often underreported.
At what time did the US government pressure the Swedish government to arrest Assange? Got a reference for that? Some political hotheads in the US were grandstanding and calling for his head, but that's not anywhere near the same. I haven't seen any sign that the US wants him. (This isn't proof, of course, but it makes me doubt people who simply claim the US wants him without any evidence.)
What do you know of Swedish legal procedure? What I basically know is that it's very little like the US or UK system. Without knowing more of it, I can't possibly judge the Swedish actions.
BTW, the Swedish prosecutor did ask about interviewing Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, and was stonewalled. Why didn't Assange agree to talk to them, if all he wanted to do was talk to the prosecutor when not in Sweden?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
do you know the story?
He is in charged of rape, because he didn't use a condom on a occasional sex. That is a crime in Sweden and is equivalent to rape.
Actually, it's that the girl told him "no", then went to sleep, and then, knowing that he didn't have consent, he had sex with her while she was asleep. As Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, told the UK's High Court:
Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
That's also a crime under UK law as well as US law.
The girl don't even want any charge against him, but it is a public crime, so her opinion doesn't matter.
I have a question for you... Do you believe that, if a guy and girl have consensual sex, and a few days later, the girl has regrets, that travels back in time and it becomes rape? Or would you agree that the crime either occurs or doesn't occur at the moment the act of penetration occurs, and things that happen days later are irrelevant?
The problem here is that lots of people are paranoid about the US government, which has not given any indication of wanting to do anything to him (other than some grandstanding politicians). Really, if Assange was worried about being shipped to the US, why go to the UK? They have a history of rolling over for US extradition requests.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"I would also point out, that the fear of extradition to the US is a little baseless, he hasn't actually broken any US laws".
I do hope that was meant as a joke. Surely there isn't anyone left who believes the US government gives a flying fuck about laws? The salient fact is that they hate Assange because he disobliged them and annoyed them. They certainly could create a new law specifically to make him illegal, or retroactively reinterpret some old laws to do the same...
Then why didn't they grab him during the 18 months he was in the UK arguing his appeals before he went into hiding in the embassy? Hell, if the US really is all "fark you, laws," why haven't we sent a SEAL team to invade the embassy? I don't think we're terribly concerned about Ecuador's military might.
Strawman.
Nobody mentioned muslim countries (many of which are indeed despicable places - as are other countries).
"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)."
which has not given any indication of wanting to do anything to him other than some grandstanding politicians
"Grandstanding politicians" are a pretty strong indication he would be the star of his own show trial.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If there is one thing about spy scandals in the media that I know, it's that the reader will never know the full story.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hey, here's an idea! Instead of addressing a couple of minor issues,lets address a real one! Why don't you admit that you, like everyone else on the planet, has no idea what - if anything - happened? If the "prosecutors" had integrity, then that is what they would have admitted. The fact that they are pursuing this case is, therefore, Prima Facie evidence that this is not about what may or may not have happened in bed, but is rather about how Snowden exposed what a bunch of criminals "we" are.
If you work for the U.S. Government TLAs such as the NSA and FBI after all this has come top light then you art an anti-American criminal who deserves to be water-boarded right next to those fucks "in charge".
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yes, I can see what you mean. Look to the nice people! Mother Theresa and Ghandi would be the first to say that all things government are "NICE" and any time you do anything to go against the government, you are not nice!
If exposing government corruption is sleazy then your statement makes sense. If I had to place bets, I'd bet that you most likely molested children earlier today. I would bet my life that it is more likely that you molest children than it is that Assange raped anyone. In the 50+ years of his life there have been a flurry of accusations all centred around the time when he exposed the corrupt scumbags. Are you really so stupid that you can't see that?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Holy fuck! He is one amazing Motherfucker! I also heard he controls the timing of the Earth revolving around the Sun. This guy is dangerous, can't anyone see that? We need to star fabricating evidence immediately !
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
It's a... very revealing read, to put it mildly.
For an equally revealing read, after you've read the above on Assange (and I'll throw in Suelette Dreyfus' excellent "Underground", which talks about his early years), read Robert Hare's "Without Conscience" and see how much of Assange you can find in the book.
The presumption is that Sweden would spirit him at night, and seek forgiveness rather than permission after the fact.
To me it sounds like paranoid hysteria, but I do wonder if Assange really believes this. He does come across as a little unstable.
Sweden can not be trusted, and sadly the law just doesn't come into it:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/...
Oh please? You're claiming that he's lying?
Guantanamo Bay is a fucking gulag by any other name.
I tell my girls to scream. I tell them that I will come in the room and blow the rapist's brains out if they scream.
erm. Make sure you understand _why_ she's screaming. Just that.. some girls are.. noisy.
'Then why didn't they grab him during the 18 months he was in the UK arguing his appeals before he went into hiding in the embassy? Hell, if the US really is all "fark you, laws," why haven't we sent a SEAL team to invade the embassy? I don't think we're terribly concerned about Ecuador's military might'.
It's not about Ecuador; it's about the UK. Militarily, there isn't much difference between Ecuador and the UK except that the UK has lots of US bases on its territory, and some US-supplied and US-controlled nuclear weapons, making it a prime target if war breaks out.
But the UK does have a "special relationship" with the USA. It's not the kind of deep friendship that politicians like to suggest. (After all, the Americans did have to rebel against British rule; and in 1812 the British burned Washington - hardly the act of a best buddy). No, the British are Washington's most reliable stooges (or "poodles" if you prefer). It looks bad if the USA goes forth to war against some little pipsqueak nation without allies - "the Coalition of the Willing" or whatever crap. The UK's most important role is as the seed crystal around which such coalitions can be formed. As such, it would look exceedingly bad for the USA to use open military force within the UK's territory.
Sweden, not so much.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
A couple minor issues.
1) Waiting for a girl to fall asleep so that you can F* her in a way that she repeatedly stopped you from doing and told you not to do while she was awake (charge #4 on the EAW, the one that's still open) falls under my standard of "heinous", but to each their own.
Accusing someone of raping you when he didn't falls under my standard of "heinous", but to each their own.
(See how that works - anyone can make an accusation. Just because you believe one side because that side happens to line up with your ideological beliefs doesn't mean that the other side can't make up equally bullshit assertions that also aren't based on fact.)
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
What happened, though, is that big government opposition to WikiLeaks’s work – which continues – became confused, not least in Assange’s mind, with the rape accusations against him. It has been a fatal conflation. There’s a distinct lack of clarity in Julian’s approach, a lack that is, I’m afraid, only reinforced by the people he has working with him. Only today, he sent me an email – hearing I was writing this piece – telling me it was illegal for me to speak out without what he called ‘appropriate consultation’ with him. He wrote of his precarious situation and of the FBI investigation into his activities. ‘I have been detained,’ he said, ‘without charge, for 1000 days.’ And there it is, the old conflation, implying that his detention is to do with his work against secret-keepers in America. It is not. He was detained at Ellingham Hall while appealing against a request to extradite him to Sweden to answer questions relating to two rape allegations. A man who conflates such truths loses his moral authority right there: I tried to spell this out to him while writing the book, but he wouldn’t listen, sometimes suggesting I was naive not to consider the rape allegations to have been a ‘honey trap’ set by dark foreign forces, or that the Swedes were merely keen to extradite him to America. Because he has no ability to see through other people’s eyes he can’t see how dishonest this conflation seems even to supporters such as me. It was a trap he built for himself when he refused to go to Sweden and instead went into the embassy of a nation not famous for its respect for freedom of speech. He will always have an answer to these points. But there is no real answer. He made a massive tactical error in not going to Sweden to clear his name.
But the UK does have a "special relationship" with the USA. It's not the kind of deep friendship that politicians like to suggest. (After all, the Americans did have to rebel against British rule; and in 1812 the British burned Washington - hardly the act of a best buddy). No, the British are Washington's most reliable stooges (or "poodles" if you prefer).
I think people tend to look at what has happened in the last 50 years rather than what happened over 200 years ago.
Asleep, unconscious, what's the difference?
Best Slashdot Co
You've heard of the US? Then you understand that you don't need to break any of their laws for them to try to use justice against you. They'll make something up and the media will run with it, and all the people there will agree with the grandstanding politicians and you will disappear into a hole where no one can find you, because it's underground and the tiny entrance is guarded by soldiers in plain clothes who don't know what is below.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
"I think people tend to look at what has happened in the last 50 years rather than what happened over 200 years ago".
In the last 50 years, the UK has been more or less the 51st state. Only, like Puerto Rico, without representation, power, or influence.
But it is very foolish indeed to focus only on the last 50 years. Although certain people would much prefer that other people did so.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Why not just execute him via a sniper when he walks past a window? Extraditing him without any type of due process has always been possible, but it would be a political shit storm for everyone involved.
funny, muslim immigrants come from Amazon.com then?
Remember, he has not been charged with anything, but is wanted for *questioning*. What is to stop Sweden from doing the questioning, then dropping the case and letting him go, only to pick him up again at the airport and put him on a flight to Gitmo? Since he was freed, the terms of the arrest warrent should no longer be valid, right?
"There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
So Sweden should have had no problems guaranteeing Assange that they would not extradite him to the US but of course they would not.
Given how the US has persecuted its war on terror, I consider Assange properly paranoid over the issue. I am sure that either the US and Sweden had a non-extradition extradition planned for Assange or the US was prepared to act without Sweden which of course could still be the case. Assange will just vanish at some point into one of our friendly foreign interrogation centers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I would have wrote "continuing history of extraordinary rendition and torture" instead of recent history.