Sweden Makes Another Request To Ecuador For Permission To Question Assange (thelocal.se)

cold fjord writes: Thelocal.se reports that Sweden's state prosecutor's office said today that it has formally asked Ecuador in writing for permission to interrogate Julian Assange. They don't know when Ecuador will reply. The request follows the signing of an agreement in December on general legal cooperation between the two countries. Ecuador required the agreement before it would consent to an interview of Assange. The Swedish prosecutors want to question Assange regarding rape allegations that have a statute of limitations that run till 2020. The statue of limitations for other sex crimes Assange has been accused of have expired while Assange has been in hiding. Sweden had previously asked to question Assange in the embassy, but Ecuador declined permission. In another peculiar twist to the case, RTE.ie is reporting that Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino has stated that the exact procedures that will be used are not known, but that Ecuadorian prosecutors will be the ones actually questioning Assange although Swedish officials can be present. Sweden's view on this is unclear.

Comments

Exact

[Thanshin]

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino has stated that the exact procedures that will be used are not known

I like the Scottish flavor of that use of the word "exact".

I wonder what would be the answer if a journalist raises the question "precisely how exact are we talking here?"

don't know/are not known/is unclear

[turkeydance]

my summary.

Re:don't know/are not known/is unclear

[NotDrWho]

"We've decided that the only logical recourse is to hand him over to a neutral third-party for questioning," said Ecuador and Sweden.

"Ooh, ooh, me, me! Right here!" responded the U.S.

Re:don't know/are not known/is unclear

[Anonymous Coward]

"We've decided that the only logical recourse is to hand him over to a neutral third-party for questioning," said Ecuador and Sweden.

What? Ecuador and Sweden has to find a neutral third party? Sounds like they are going to let Aslan resolve the issue for them.

Non-Extradition Treaty?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I wonder if the legal framework between the two countries prevents third-party extradition (which could be used as a mechanism for future problem-solving). Curious that it hasn't been leaked.

Re:Non-Extradition Treaty?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I believe it doesn't - from what I read (don't have a link atm) Assange said he'd only go to Sweden voluntarily if they promised not to extradite him anywhere after that. However, they can't promise not to extradite someone - if they get a valid request, they have to comply.

What IS clear:

[rmdingler]

There exists some influential political motivation to extradite Assange, and any hearing he received in the US or England would be tainted by that.

Ecuador is relishing its role as thorn in the side of the Americans.

Assange could still be guilty of the sexual assaults.

Re:What IS clear:

[Zak3056]

There exists some influential political motivation to extradite Assange, and any hearing he received in the US or England would be tainted by that.

The idea that Sweden is doing this just so he could be extradited to the US does NOT in any way pass the smell test--if that was the end goal, the UK (who seems to have a "Sure, America, we'll do whatever the fuck you want" attitude) would have done so before he fled to the embassy.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

There were hints that there was some political pushback from the UK. The U.S. policies have come under a lot of public fire there and their Prime Ministers are already seen as pathetic U.S. lapdogs. It's likely that deporting him to the U.S. from the UK would be political suicide.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote two things that have special significance:
- "I assume ..."
- "that's without me knowing anything about the details."

Assange hasn't been charged because under the Swedish legal system (like some others in Europe) he has to be questioned by the prosecutor before charges can be filed.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely that deporting him to the U.S. from the UK would be political suicide./blockquote

As opposed to how the Swedish government would be roundly applauded for doing deporting him? I guess we can all imagine how the people of Sweden (and the rest of the European Union) would react to the Swedish government abrogating the terms of their membership in the EU by passing Assange on to the US - riches, bitches, and more coke than you can snort in a lifetime for everyone involved, amirite?

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's without me knowing anything about the details.

Yes, we can see that. He *cannot* be charged under Swedish law until he is first interviewed. Even if they have a mountain of evidence, they are bound by Swedish law's rules of due process.

Please try to keep up - this isn't a 30 minute Law & Order rerun.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

Until he's tried and convicted in a court of law he's not a rapist. I feel you are not only misrepresenting the facts but your also accusing someone of a crime that has not been proven. This by very definition makes an unjust therefore and uncivilized individual.

Re:What IS clear:

[drinkypoo]

The idea that Sweden is doing this just so he could be extradited to the US does NOT in any way pass the smell test

They've illegally extradited people to us just because we wanted them before, so there's plenty of reason to believe they would do this again.

if that was the end goal, the UK (who seems to have a "Sure, America, we'll do whatever the fuck you want" attitude) would have done so before he fled to the embassy.

The UK has laws about how extradition works that would make it even more obvious what is really going on, and they don't want to get involved to that degree.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that Sweden is doing this just so he could be extradited to the US does NOT in any way pass the smell test--if that was the end goal, the UK (who seems to have a "Sure, America, we'll do whatever the fuck you want" attitude) would have done so before he fled to the embassy.

I'd say Sweden isn't very far behind the UK in the sucking up/bowing to the US - see The Pirate Bay. See Egyptians handed over to the CIA for transport to Egypt and torture.

As to handing over Assange to the US, I've seen it said in previous comments here that Sweden supposedly has a non-judicial route that the UK doesn't - the US could request to 'borrow' assange to assist in some other investigation (let's say Snowden) and a decision for that could be made by some bureaucrat rather than a court.
Of course, once on US soil I doubt it'd take long before the US would suddenly find something to hang on Assange.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

. . .I've seen it said in previous comments here that Sweden supposedly has a non-judicial route that the UK doesn't - the US could request to 'borrow' assange to assist in some other investigation (let's say Snowden) and a decision for that could be made by some bureaucrat rather than a court.

It was a load of bull when you said it before, it is still a load of bull. The UK would have to agree to allowing Assange to be taken, so why don't they do it themselves while Assange is in the UK? The idea is nonsense.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

They've illegally extradited people to us just because we wanted them before, so there's plenty of reason to believe they would do this again.

Got a citation for that? First I've heard of Sweden engaging in illegal extradition TO the US. In fact, the one case I can find that has reliable documentation is the extraordinary rendition of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, who were - at the behest of America - denied asylum and extrajudicially repatriated to Egypt. This event (coupled with UN censure of Sweden for its role in abetting torture) provoked a BAN by Sweden on extraordinary rendition flights through Sweden, a $500,000 award to al-Zery for damages, and created a lot of diplomatic tension between the US and Sweden. Given that history, how reasonable do you think it is to assume that Sweden would extrajudicially render Assange TO the US, given that:

1) It would infuriate the UK, and every other EU member, to whom Sweden has treaty obligations delineating additional extradition to a third nation;
2) It would infuriate the people of Sweden;
3) It would infuriate plenty of people in the US;
4) There is no precedent, or indeed, indication that the US is seeking such rendition;

Please explain your logic, rather than just making bold assertions as if they're fact.

The UK has laws about how extradition works that would make it even more obvious what is really going on, and they don't want to get involved to that degree.

There are only two ways for Sweden to extradite Assange to the US:
1) Sweden secures the agreement of the courts of the UK, in which case, the UK *is* involved to that degree, like it or not;
2) Sweden ignores its treaty obligations to a powerful member of the EU, angering the entire EU, and likely drawing a host of sanctions down on itself;

Your whole post has a curious American-centric view of the world - as if ANYTHING the US wants will automatically be agreed to by any country, without any thought to the repercussions for that country. I assume you're American, and engaging in wishful thinking, right?

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

The charges are less "rape" and more "being a shitty boyfriend". IIRC the charges are actually "molestation" and the specifics are related to condom use and him lying to get women to sleep with him, rather than him actually forcing anything against consent.

That he may have been enough of an asshat that it was actually illegal is amusing, and he probably does deserve to face the charges in court and possibly be sentenced according to the law. But ultimately it's more than a little odd to see a nation attempt to extradite someone for this. Additionally given the timing and the political situation regarding his websight it's likely that there are motivations beyond "asshole boyfriends shall not be tolerated" that are exactly the sort of thing one seeks political asylum from.

Re:What IS clear:

[mSparks43]

AIUI

Because publishing this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Is illegal in Sweden, but not the UK.

And he can only be extradited if it would be illegal in the country receiving the request.

Re:What IS clear:

[Goaway]

No, until he's raped someone he is not a rapist. "Rapist" is not a legal term. It is a word that means "a person who rapes".

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden have done it before: give someone over to the CIA without even a writ. And fnord here is talking a load of shite here. Equador said no because Sweden wanted to load lots of people into the "questioning" that had no damn reason to be there.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, under the Swedish legal system, they DO NOT have to question him before charges can be filed. The procedure is NOT one that blocks the charging. Please stop repeating this bollocks.

Re: What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh no. Whether he is a rapist is irrelevant to courts. Only he and the female accusers really know if he is/is not a rapist.

And as to courts, just because they find somebody guilty or not does not change the status.

Re:What IS clear:

[rtb61]

Careful there the rape in question was not an assault but a very disingenuous attempt to enable conception when empty mutual masturbation was the only intent. Something covered in Swedish law as rape but that can not be considered as sexual assault. There are the additional considerations of increased risk of sexually transmitted disease but as neither pregnancy nor infection resulted from those two particular bouts of voluntary non reproductive mutual masturbation (not choosing to define methods, possible partnerings nor organs of choice), the legal costs expended to placate the US government seem rather foolish. You could just imagine coming out of the Swedish government, "Ohh God, Ohh God, Ohh God, please let it end". Especially now that close association with the US government is not that desirable in Europe any more and distinctly frowned upon (screwing up trade, promoting austerity dicks as suitable politicians, refugee crisis, Ukraine a collapsing state within Europe itself - divide and conquer they smell a rat in the White House and a bunch of them in the US Federal Reserve).

Re: What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a rapist. See how that works? -PCP

Re:What IS clear:

[cold fjord]

You don't recall correctly. He is accused of rape. He allegedly inserted his penis into a sleeping woman. A sleeping woman cannot consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape.

Besides rape he was also accused of molestation and other sex crimes.

Assange is a Leftist political activist and oddly enough a Leftist regime is shielding him from the legal process to adjudicate the sex crime allegations against him. This is easy to understand.

There is nothing odd about extradition over allegations of sexual assault. What is odd is how the spurious theories and explanations keep being posted.

Re:What IS clear:

[cold fjord]

The Supreme Court of the UK said that the allegations against Assange constituted crimes in the UK. Extradition isn't a problem. Assange being a fugitive from justice is a problem.

Re:What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is still a preliminary investigation. Under Swedish procedure charges are not made at this stage. Until Assange is interrogated there will not be a good basis for a charging decision.

The Swedish system is obviously one you are not familiar with. "bollocks" indeed.

Re:What IS clear:

[cold fjord]

What are you on about?: Assange stuck his penis into a sleeping woman. A sleeping woman cannot consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape.

Re:What IS clear:

[mSparks43]

Thats the almost certainly fabricated sex charges.

I'm talking about why he can be extradidited from Sweden to the US but not the UK to the US.

That is why he came to the UK in the first place. after the collateral murer story broke.
Then they fabricated the sex charges.

Or something to that effect.

Re: What IS clear:

[Goaway]

No, I don't. You lied about me, what is that supposed to prove?

Re:What IS clear:

[david_thornley]

Sweden filed an extradition request for actions that would be considered rape under UK law, and the UK court system confirmed that. The whole political thing is largely generated by Assange and his supporters. The US does not have a case against him, and has made no move to get hold of him.

If he feared going to Sweden because of extraordinary rendition by the US, why did he go there in the first place?

Re:What IS clear:

[david_thornley]

So far, I've seen no good evidence that the charges were fabricated, or why they would be. I've seen a lot of false claims that support the idea of fabrication, and a lot of paranoia about why, but nothing that stands up to rational thought.

What I think happened is that Assange is a jerk, and went too far with the women. Being a jerk, he claimed that this was all for political reasons. I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of good, but that doesn't preclude him being a jerk and a rapist.

Re: What IS clear:

[Anonymous Coward]

The us was told no no by sweden on rendition about when the italian problems came up. The us agreed. As best i can tell the swedes meant what they said. The US not so much, until they got caught red handed yet again.

Re:What IS clear:

[KGIII]

I must be a rapist 'cause I slipped it into my g/f last night while she was probably close to sleep. She didn't complain and it turned out to be pretty active 'cause I'd been sick for a few days. I'm still sick but I'm getting better. To be fair, some rubbing and neck and back kisses where the start - she might not have actually been asleep. However, she didn't say, "Yes David, I formally swear and will attest to my desire to have sexual intercourse with you." Well, she calls me Dave or Mr. Dave or whatnot but it definitely didn't include a affirmative stated clearly and on the record.

Then again, I don't usually sleep with tramps, so there's that. (Not that these women are, that's just a general observation with regret sex claims)

Hmm... I didn't even stick it in her pooper. There's something to be said for dating someone nearly 40 years your junior.

This is actually the first legitimate request.

[tlambert]

This is actually the first legitimate request.

Ecuador did not have an agreement in place with Sweden to act as a framework within which such a request could be allowed to go forward on Ecuadoran soil, which is what the embassy is. Until that agreement was reached, it was in fact a requirement that refuse Swedish extraterritorial interrogation requests.

Ironically, it would have been perfectly legitimate for Interpol to request on behalf of Sweden, and send Interpol investigators (some of whom could have been Swedish) to perform the questioning, since Ecuador is a signatory to treaties and agreements which require cooperation with Interpol.

The issue, however, has always been that what Sweden is asking is not for what they want, but a pretext for what they actually want, which is extradition. This has, naturally, been a sticking point for Ecuador.

Really, the request should not be big news, since it was inevitable that this would be asked. The real news is the Sweden-Ecuador agreement that allowed the question to be asked; but that type of thing rarely hits the front page, unlike anything directly dealing with Assange.

Fiasco continues

[Anonymous Coward]

I will patiently wait for the sanctimonious shills to come out and shit the place up like all articles of the nature.

Assange is a serial rapist who escape prosecution!
Manning's leaks cost 'murican soldier's lives!
Snowden sold 'murica's secrets to the Russians!

Pathetic...

Re:Fiasco continues

[GameboyRMH]

I once spoke with an NSA worker who said he "knew" Snowden was a traitor...because we "can't see what he sees."

Unfortunately we have to choose between regarding all Arguments from Secret Intelligence as fallacious, and treating all intelligence workers as omniscient gods who know truths not meant for us mere mortals.

Come on guys, stop fighting

[NotDrWho]

There will be enough U.S. favor for BOTH of you when you hand him over.

Strange

[EzInKy]

I thought Statute Of Limitation only applied to undiscovered crimes. The idea that a known suspect can hide for a certain period of time to avoid prosecution seems quite absurd to me.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem may be that he is not charged with anything yet.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

What's even more absurd is expecting authorities from a differing country (British authorities) outside the jurisdiction of Sweden to apprehend a suspect. Say he was escaping arrest then it would be understandable but this is "questioning" and the only reason why this has been an issue is because of Sweden's stubborn inflexibility.

Assange will take interviews from pretty much any news organisation out there. Swedish authorities are too poo poo winge winge to treat this "special" situation with such merits. And its not like Assange said a flat out "no" to them he's stated that he would answer any questions they have. He's afraid of being shipped to Gitmo and waterboarded right?

I say conduct the fucking interview already and quit the pointless pandering already.

Re:Strange

[EzInKy]

Still, the crime is known and the perpetrator has been named. Allowing him to avoid prosecution simply by going missing is still absurd.

Re:Strange

[EzInKy]

What's even more absurd is expecting authorities from a differing country (British authorities) outside the jurisdiction of Sweden to apprehend a suspect.

How else do you propose to apprehend suspects who flee to different jurisdictions?

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be prosecuted in-absentia if there is enough evidence to support the claim in court. But if the only evidence is the testimony of the alleged victim they might not have enough to go on.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

What's even more absurd is expecting authorities from a differing country (British authorities) outside the jurisdiction of Sweden to apprehend a suspect.

Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.

Say he was escaping arrest then it would be understandable but this is "questioning"

He cannot be charged until he is interviewed, and (if evidence supports it) arrested under Swedish law. You should probably go read up on how the law works before you offer legal opinions. And technically, he's subject to an arrest warrant - not just 'we need to question him.'

You will find in most modern legal systems, the accused doesn't get to dictate the terms under which they will comply with the law.

He's afraid of being shipped to Gitmo and waterboarded right?

Based on what evidence? What indication is there that this is even remotely likely? BEYOND your "hurr durr US is meanies!" opinion, that is?

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

Doesn't "discovery" imply that they're reasonably sure he did it? I'm not sure the language supports "we discovered that something may have happened."

Especially in this case. If they had DNA evidence against him, sure--discovered. But isn't it just the word of these two women against his?

If we accept that postulate then the distinction you're making evaporates.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

It's not "fleeing" if he hasn't been charged with anything.

I didn't "flee" to work this morning. I commuted.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.

Why? Because those pesky rules are getting in the way of us sending him to Gitmo?

This is the exact same idiotic argument used by the agencies to justify domestic spying "to catch terrorists."

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.

You must be American. Its so obvious because whenever you guys have any problems whatsoever internationally the first thing you think of is INVADE INVADE INVADE.

He cannot be charged until he is interviewed, and (if evidence supports it) arrested under Swedish law.

So he's leveraging a loop hole and that makes you mad does it. You mad bro? ... HA! Good on him. You cock suckers invented the concept LOL

Based on what evidence? What indication is there that this is even remotely likely? BEYOND your "hurr durr US is meanies!" opinion, that is?

The US was calling for his assassination almost exactly at the same time. Maybe loud mouth Yankee senators should have acted a little less reckless with their hawkish pandering. Oh that's right. This is the exceptional and morally superior civilized tone of the Murka to jump on CNN and threaten to the kill the guy.

Aren't you just a little ashamed?

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they would have to file charges before time runs out which they haven't done due to lack of evidence.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

In either case, he didn't "flee" as they said they didn't have any more questions for him. Then he left the country, *then* they decided that they wanted to talk to him after all. (Wouldn't you think they'd have a registry of people wanted for X that would have stopped him from leaving the country via airport if he was wanted?)

If they want to prosecute him for something he did there, I just don't see what motivation he would have to go back.

On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.[7] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,[20][21] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,[22] which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

Since 19 June 2012, Assange has lived in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he asked for and was granted political asylum.[69] Assange’s lawyers invited the Swedish prosecutor four times to come and question him at the embassy, but the offer was refused.[70] In March 2015, faced with the prospect of the Swedish statute of limitations expiring for some of the allegations, the prosecutor relented and agreed to question Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy.[71]

Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,[72] to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.[73] However, the Swedish government is free to reject extradition requests from non-EU countries, independent of any court decision.[74]

This whole affair is so facepalm ridiculous, too. Why the fuck couldn't they just guarantee they won't extradite him to the U.S.? He's facing a Swedish rape charge, why in god's name would that ever involve extraditing him to the U.S.?

If the U.S. wants him for unrelated reasons they can catch him their own damn selves.

Re:Strange

[sangreal66]

That's bullshit. He had a follow-up interview scheduled with the police before he fled Sweden

The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October.

http://www.theguardian.com/med...

Re:Strange

[sangreal66]

They haven't "filed charges" because of a quirk in Swedish law, it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence and everything to do with his flight from prosecution

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

Hmm. In which case Wikipedia isn't really *lying* about it, just interestingly omitting it (presumably because they're infighting about the reliability of some source).

This whole case is annoyingly murky.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven’t charged him because Swedish procedure requires an interview before filing charges.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Why couldn’t they guarantee they won’t extradite to the US? For the reason you quoted: Swedish law doesn’t allow rejecting an extradition request that doesn’t exist and may not ever exist.

Re:Strange

[dissy]

Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.

If you are already committing to ignoring the law yourself, under what pretense do you have left to claim actions by others are illegal?

You can no longer accuse or punish Assange for doing something illegal, since the government is stating doing something illegal isn't a bad thing nor is an action to be punished for doing.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that's the argument that Swedish prosecutors are using, but it's rather a stretch to claim that they require Assange to incriminate himself in order to charge him. Although the idea of running from charges to run out the statute of limitations timer may seem too easy, I don't think that the purpose of these limitations has been breached.

The whole point of limiting these charges from being filed at a time significantly later than the alleged crime is that evidence goes away over time. It doesn't matter that Assange intentionally avoided questioning during this period, any relevant evidence is still timing out.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

I know better than to argue with you, cold "Argument to Authority" fjord.

The whole idea of Guantanamo Bay is to circumvent U.S. law. And you think that they're going to follow their own rules?

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there any evidence that the current or past guests in Gitmo were in danger of being kidnapped and tortured prior to their non-arrest? Your question regarding the need for evidence is like the judicial position that in order to bring legal action against a black budget secret spying operation being run against your person you must have proof of this operation targeting you, and have proof of its actions bringing harm to your person. The operational secrecy has already guaranteed that this judicial requirement cannot be met, so the illegal operation is allowed to continue because it is intentionally avoiding any legal challenges.

How is it somehow OK for a law enforcement operation to use the same judicial avoidance tactics but it isn't OK for a whistleblower?

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

How about "there's no logical way that this could ever result in an extradition to the U.S. so no, that won't happen"?

Or to put it in code terms:

if(false) {
    functionA();
}

"No no no, we can't guarantee that functionA() won't be called, even though this is the only place it occurs in the codebase. Because reasons."

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because those pesky rules are getting in the way of us sending him to Gitmo?

You should *really* work on your sarcasm detector. The assertion that it's "absurd" to expect "authorities from a differing country (British authorities) outside the jurisdiction of Sweden to apprehend a suspect" leaves us with what alternative, if we want to apprehend a suspect? The entire foundation of international extradition treaties is rooted in the notion that it's NOT absurd for one government to ask another government to apprehend, and deliver, a suspect in a criminal matter who happens to be residing in the second country's jurisdiction.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,

Depending on how much we trust the wording, I suppose them promising not to extradite him implies that they won't extradite him ever for any reason, not just because of this court case.

In which yeah, makes sense they wouldn't promise that. But it's understandable why Assange doesn't want to go back, when they can't provide him any guarantee of not immediately stuffing him on a plane to the U.S.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

The only worse idea than using sarcasm online with no formal statement you're doing so,
is doing that when we're talking about legal issues most of us don't fully understand.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be American. Its so obvious because whenever you guys have any problems whatsoever internationally the first thing you think of is INVADE INVADE INVADE.

And you must be an idiot. The GP post I replied to suggested that it's absurd for Sweden to expect the UK to assist them in apprehending a suspect. My comment pointed out the idiocy by explaining that the only recourse Sweden would have if that truly were absurd, would be to violate the territorial sovereignty of the UK and invade in order to apprehend him. Think about that for a minute. The entire system of international cooperation rooted in the UN, extradition treaties, and the like supposes that it's *not* absurd... yet some armchair lawyer on Slashdot has neatly skewered the entire concept by asserting that "it's just absurd," apparently based on the sound legal precedent of "I like Julian Assange, and anything that makes his situation better is good."

So he's leveraging a loop hole and that makes you mad does it. You mad bro? ... HA! Good on him. You cock suckers invented the concept LOL

Ahh, I see - so it's okay to use loopholes in the law to get what you want... as long as you're Julian Assange? If Americans invented it, why would you want your precious Julian to behave like an American? Do you understand that you are *arguing against* international agreements and the rule of international law by making these assertions? If you think that's okay, then you must also concede that America is well within their rights to just simply drop a bomb on the Ecuadorian embassy in London - because after all, it's absurd to ask another country for assistance apprehending a suspect, and when things don't go your way, you should exploit any loophole you can think of.

The US was calling for his assassination almost exactly at the same time.

A few loudmouth congressmen who have absolutely no power in the matter were making idiotic noises at the same time, you mean.

Maybe loud mouth Yankee senators should have acted a little less reckless with their hawkish pandering.

Yes, they probably should have. That doesn't make Assange's supposed fear of extraordinary rendition anything more than idiotic paranoia, but I'll agree - the idiotic windbags who got on TV and opined that dropping a JDAM on him should be considered are idiots who should shut up. Unfortunately, they're not MY representatives, so I can't do much to ensure they don't get re-elected.

Oh that's right. This is the exceptional and morally superior civilized tone of the Murka to jump on CNN and threaten to the kill the guy.

If we're painting every collection of people with the worst things ANY member of that group has ever said or done, then I submit to you that Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and his supporters likewise have absolutely no legitimate claim to a moral high ground. Assange's controversial and inflammatory statements are legion, and it's absolutely breathtaking to see his supporters' dogged insistence that demonstrably false things are true.

Re:Strange

[Uberbah]

By this point, even Cold Dumbfuck Fascist must know that there are people still in Gitmo that were cleared for release by the Bush Administration. Guy's still bent out of shape that he was born at the wrong place and time to be an informer for Francisco Franco, the Shah, or Pinochet.

Re:Strange

[Uberbah]

Why couldnâ(TM)t they guarantee they wonâ(TM)t extradite to the US? For the reason you quoted: Swedish law doesnâ(TM)t allow rejecting an extradition request that doesnâ(TM)t exist and may not ever exist.

Willfully obtuse tautology. Cold Fascist's partner in propaganda, Rei, has even stated (between protesting that Sweden can't promise not to extradite) that Swedish law does not allow for extradition for intelligence crimes. So, yeah, Sweden can call Assange's bluff and make such a promise. They've been able to do it for years now - if this was actually about alleged rape. Same for Assange's offer to be interviewed by Swedish investigators in person or remotely - another offer that Sweden has refused, because reasons.

Which tells any person, that doesn't have a hole in their head, that this is not about rape and never has been.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, ignoring reality is stock in trade for Cold Facist cunt.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you can show us the evidence and the court cases that prove these accusations?
No, of course not, you will tell any lie to justify the actions of the liars and kidnappers that run Gitmo.
If it was the likes of vanilla ISIS in Oregon sent there, you would be whining like crazy.
You're well known to be an authoritarian fascist, most of the time we just think of you as a deluded moron.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah .... Assange made you guys look like twats internationally and you guys are still upset about it. It is really as simple as that ....

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody disputes that he had sex without a condom with the women in question. The question is whether or not that was rape or consensual sex. How would DNA evidence help, exactly?

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting how different countries handle this. In the US, I believe the Statute of Limitations pauses ("tolls") when someone is "on the run" and outside of the arm of the law. Basically, if you cannot be arrested, the clock is stopped. You have to be where they can arrest you for the clock to be moving, at least in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#Tolling_and_the_discovery_rule

http://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tolling+the+Statute

Re:Strange

[crbowman]

This sounds like animal farm double speak. He has been charged but in Sweden they don't charge you until after they interview you, which they've not done. For me the question is, was he legally allowed to leave the country at the time he did. I don't honestly know the answer to that question.

Re:Strange

[cold fjord]

By this point, even Cold Dumbfuck Fascist must know that there are people still in Gitmo that were cleared for release by the Bush Administration.

And why were they there to begin with? For the reason I stated.

If the Bush administration cleared them then why didn't Obama release them? Hmm? Do you think there may be a problem?

By this point, even Cold Dumbfuck Fascist . . . Guy's still bent out of shape that he was born at the wrong place and time to be an informer for Francisco Franco, the Shah, or Pinochet.

The fascists are cousins to the Communists, and both of them are on your side of the "progressive" political spectrum. I'm on the side of democracy, free enterprise, and limited government.

Re:Strange

[cold fjord]

You've just demonstrated multiple areas of ignorance.

Here, knock yourself out.

Re:Strange

[cold fjord]

Ohhhh, poor butt-hurt AC.

Re:Strange

[cold fjord]

It's not "fleeing" if he hasn't been charged with anything.

I didn't "flee" to work this morning. I commuted.

Assange is fleeing extradition to Sweden,* so yes, Assange is FLEEING.

*Where he is likely to be taken into custody, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned for the crime of rape.

Re:Strange

[Goaway]

I know that's the argument that Swedish prosecutors are using, but it's rather a stretch to claim that they require Assange to incriminate himself in order to charge him.

True. This is why nobody claims this.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

He's not fleeing anywhere--either he fled, or he didn't. He's just sitting in the embassy now.

And just stating it as a fact gets you nothing. We know that in your eyes, anyone who goes against the government is guilty, no matter what.

Re:Strange

[Coren22]

There was an arrest warrant issued, so that he can be "interviewed" which is a requirement for "charging". He was extradited, but skipped bail and hid in an embassy. This is a second thing he did illegal which could put him in jail.

The swedish legal system terms the prior to arrest differently, but it is the equivalent of every other legal system's charging step or the grand jury indictment if you prefer.

Re:Strange

[david_thornley]

Statutes of Limitation, in the US, usually put a time limit starting from when the crime was committed. The recognition that some crimes against children may not be known until long after the time has run out has prompted some such laws that apply to when the crime was discovered, by some criterion or other.

The problem with allowing trials long after the crime is that it's likely to be hard to determine what happened, as witnesses will die, move away, or get forgetful, and physical evidence is unlikely to be kept.

Re:Strange

[david_thornley]

Who's supposed to make the assurance? The executive branch is not supposed to speak for the judicial branch in Sweden. It may be illegal for a Swedish official to do that. The Swedish courts are unlikely to make a pronouncement about a hypothetical extradition request without any details. Moreover, the US has not made any move whatsoever to try to extradite him for not breaking any US laws. Leaking confidential information is highly illegal, and Manning is imprisoned for it. Publishing what has been made available is legal, and has been for a long time.

Re:Strange

[david_thornley]

The prisoners are there because they were at one point believed to be terrorists and unlawful combatants. Whether such beliefs were well-founded or not is not really relevant. How many cases can someone find of people moved to Gitmo who did not fit those conditions? I'm willing to learn something.

Communists and fascists have some surface resemblances, but in ideology are far different, as is much of the practice. That they are close is just a bunch of ignorant right-wing propaganda.

Re:Strange

[david_thornley]

There are a lot of stupid things being said about the Swedish case. However, they did make a formal extradition request, for something that was found by the UK courts to be a crime in the UK, and had legally determined that Assange should be extradited. At that point, Assange evaded capture by fleeing into an embassy, despite the principle that diplomatic means should not be used to shelter ordinary criminals, and so he's a fugitive from justice.

Re:Strange

[david_thornley]

Sigh. Discovery is a feature of civil law in the US. If Assange were charged here, it wouldn't apply. It does not involve any prejudging. For criminal matters, we have investigations. The police can, within limits, investigate anything with no particular reason. They can't do some things without a warrant, which is issued on probable cause, not certainty. Moreover, I don't know what applies in Sweden. I'm not an international lawyer, and what I do know is that Swedish and US law are very different.

Also, there is no argument whether or not Assange had sex with the woman named, so DNA evidence would be pointless. The question is under what conditions did they have sex. Whether he committed rape or not is to be determined by the Swedish courts, and I don't know what they will do. What the Swedes do have is enough to make an extradition request, which also does not presume guilt.

Re:Strange

[TangoMargarine]

I'm not sure whether EzInKy was using "discovery" in the vernacular or legal sense. In any case I was using the common English definition of the word. I blame OP for trying to draw a distinction in an insufficiently clear context ;)

As you and the other guy said, it's not a question of whether they had sex, but whether it was consensual. I was trying to make a distinction between "hard evidence" and "he said/she said" and it appears my mentioning of DNA spectacularly failed to convey that :P

Captain Pedant (me), awaaaaaay!

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

In which yeah, makes sense they wouldn't promise that. But it's understandable why Assange doesn't want to go back, when they can't provide him any guarantee of not immediately stuffing him on a plane to the U.S.

While I'm not in doubt that Assange have been acting as an asshole against the women in question, I'm equally sure that the unusual zeal with which the rape allegations have been pursued is a direct consequence of the high-profile nature of his other political pursuits, and that they are a consequence of diplomatic pressure from the US. I believe that the reason Sweden wants to get custody of him (as opposed to simply conduct a remote or an on-premise interview, as they have done in less high-profile cases before) is to be able to comply with this pressure for extradition to the US either immediately or after he's served a possible sentence in Swedish prisons.

What's beyond doubt is that once in the US he'll either be shipped offshore for extrajudicial treatment, or go through a kangaroo court process in the US after which he'll be sentenced to a very, very lengthy stretch indeed in a super-maximum security prison. I'm not surprised that he wants to avoid any situation in which he could be extradited to the US. Also, kudos to Ecuador for helping him taking a stand against this obvious ploy, nevermind how secondary their motives may be.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think there may be a problem?

Yes. The problem being, of course, that those people are there without due process. It's not illegal because hey, Guantanamo is somewhere where they don't care about due process, right? And the towelhead bastards need punishment all right, we all know that! And also Assange.

Wrong. The whole classroom would be laughing at the US for your insincerity if you were not the schoolyard bully who is not only blatantly perpetrating illegalities, but also brings a handgun to school and threaten to shoot anyone who might argue against them, and occationally backs up your threats with real actions.

PS after all these years I'm still not sure if "cold fjord" is a mere troll, a psychologically disturbed person, a government shill, or some combination of the above mentioned. If he's a troll he's surely a persistent one :)

Re:Strange

[zedaroca]

It depends on the country. In Brazil, where I'm from, you can hide to avoid prosecution, for most crimes (exceptions are racism and armed groups acting against constitutional order). There is a table for the applicable limitation times, but for most cases it is between 1,5 to 2 times the maximum jail time you could do for the crime. E.g.: for a crime that can land you 2-4 years of jail time, the state has 8 years to charge you, then another 8 to give a final verdict, and then the time you actually got (eg 3 years) to land you in jail. In other words: if the state doesn't bother to charge you for 8 years for a minor crime, you are free; if it charges you, but is so slow that it can't give you a "speedy trial" of 8 years, you are free, and if you are sentenced to 3 years of jail, but for another 3 years it can't put you in jail (fleeing or not found), then you are free as well, after all, it has been 19 years after you committed the crime, nothing good will come from putting you in jail for that. If you were a real criminal, you would go to jail for other crimes, if you are not, and for the past 19 years you did nothing wrong, there is no constructive reason to spending public money on vengeance.

It's funny cause for me it seems quite absurd that a person must live outside of society and worry forever because of something minor that the state didn't bother enough to prosecute properly. Someday the bs has to stop (I mean generally, not specifically to Assange's case)..

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem very retarded. "in hiding", "FLEEING"?

Re:Strange

[zedaroca]

Yes, you showed real intelligence with this post, that will teach him.
Also, replying to an AC that didn't make any points on the subject, but only on your behavior, claiming that HE was butt-hurt. lol You just named your feelings.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say that there is any good reason for you to make that post, or that you are demonstrating any intelligence in it. The sole purpose seems to be taunting. You should probably work on your character development, it seems a bit weak.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so you think that Assange's goal is to spend the rest of his life in that embassy? That seems to be pretty stupid.

Re:Strange

[cold fjord]

Assange remains a fugitive from justice.

And just stating it as a fact gets you nothing.

I was starting to wonder if facts mattered to you.

We know that in your eyes, anyone who goes against the government is guilty, no matter what.

And what makes you think you "know" this? I've certainly opposed various government policies, and supported people that oppose them.

This seems to be another case of you "knowing" something that isn't true. That probably feeds back into your "interest" in facts.

Re:Strange

[cold fjord]

The prisoners are there because they were at one point believed to be terrorists and unlawful combatants.

Agreed.

How many cases can someone find of people moved to Gitmo who did not fit those conditions? I'm willing to learn something.

That depends on how we parse your question. If the question is, "How many people were take to Gitmo for confinement that were known at the time to have no involvement with al Qaida, its affiliates, or terrorism?" the answer is zero to the best of my recollection. If the question is, "How many people were taken to Gitmo for confinement due to suspicion of involvement with al Qaida, its affiliates, or terrorism, but were later thought to be innocent of it?", as I recall the answer is on the order of a couple of hundred of the approximately 800 that were ever held there, with a caveat. Of the people that were claimed to be "totally innocent" of involvement with terrorism and released, something like 20-30% of them were found back on the battlefield involved with al Qaida, the Taliban, or other extremists. It seems many of them were able to either hide their involvement or explain away things to the point they were released. Then there is the case of the Ulighars who were involved with militant groups, but directed at the oppression of the People's Republic of China and considered not to be a threat to the US. The problem for them was where to send them? It was considered impossible to send them back to China where it was expected they would be arrested and tortured. So in summary there is no chance Assange will end up there unless there is some significant and direct involvement with terrorism that we don't know about.

Communists and fascists have some surface resemblances, but in ideology are far different, as is much of the practice. That they are close is just a bunch of ignorant right-wing propaganda.

On the contrary, they are from the same part of the political spectrum (Left/Progressive), have many similar goals, and in the past have formed alliances and worked together. There are significant areas of overlap in their practice, and in terms of ideology there is very much a certain "different side of the same coin" aspect to them. Whereas Nazis exterminated by race, Communists exterminated by class, and the little known fact is that Marx and Engels called for extermination by both class and race. Whereas Communists tend to be internationalist socialists the fascists tend towards nationalist socialism.

Have you heard of the documentary, "The Soviet Story"? It's creation was supported by a group in the European Parliament. It would be well worth your time to view it as it exposes a lot of little known history that is quite revealing. I believe you can watch it on itunes or Amazon video for a modest fee if your library doesn't have it. It can be found on Youtube, but ususally not with English subtitles for foreign language sections. Although you do miss things without the subtitles it can still be worth watching if you can't find it anywhere else and can't pay to watch the localized version. Please, by all means watch it!

Telling the Soviet story - A new film about Nazi-Soviet links

The Soviet Story 1 of 9

You might also find the book (discussed below) Liberal Fascism informative even if it is written in an American context. (Aspects of it might be a bit disorienting since the American political spectrum labeling is a bit different than Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere.) There are other books that discuss these ideas as well.

Liberal Fascism

Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fas

Re:Strange

[david_thornley]

Okay, so you know approximately nothing of either socialism or fascism. You could have just told us so without the demonstration.

Fascism is capitalistic, in every case I know of. Socialism is not capitalistic, by definition. Fascism is normally a combination of a large degree of nationalism, typically blaming social ills on a minority group, having little regard for workers while working closely with capitalists, militarism, appealing to traditional values, and opposing democracy. You may note that a lot of these things tend to be right-wing, such as nationalism, militarism, traditional values, and capitalism.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

The prisoners in Guantanamo have due process. There have been tribunals to review their status, some have even been prosecuted for criminal activity.

The prisoners in Guantanamo are there for terrorism. Assange isn't accused of that by anybody. There is no way Assange will end up in Guantanamo.

Re:Strange

[cold fjord]

I know better than to argue with you, cold "Argument to Authority" fjord.

Some people are uncomfortable in dealing with actual facts instead of fabricated nonsense. I find the actual facts of a matter are often unwelcome on Slashdot, especially when they bring into question political beliefs.

The whole idea of Guantanamo Bay is to circumvent U.S. law. And you think that they're going to follow their own rules?

As a military base Guantanamo Bay is under US military and federal law. There is no circumventing that. Its location has reduced the ability of parts of the US legal system to interfere without good cause, and that is a good thing. Why should a judge in San Francisco be able to interfere with operations at an overseas prisoner of war camp? The idea is silly. Jurisdiction is a significant check on power of the various executive agencies, the judicial system, and so on. Why wouldn't you want that? Do you think all parts of the government should be all powerful without limitation?

Re:Strange

[fustakrakich]

You are correct sir, fascism and communism (and democracy) are peoples movements, requiring popular support to exist.. Aristocracy and the monarchy are the ideals of the "right", one "god" to rule over all. All of them represent simple appeals to authority, different paths to the same goal.

massive, aggravated assault & rape in your str

[harvey the nerd]

...and you're still bothering Assange.

Tell us again how you are not a lap dog for the US gevernment.

Re:Send the bikini team.

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the Bikini team. I also vote for a jelly wresting competition between the Assange and prosecutors. The first one to pick up the strawberry at the bottom of the tub between their cleavage wins.

Re:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, it's ridiculous. And so obvious.

Massive gangs of asylum seeking men, molesting underage girls at music festivals... Gang rapes that occurs every year... Someone gets a couple of months in prison at most. The population never get the news or to know identities of the criminals eitherway.

USA-wanted man has sex with two girls without condom - let's chase him for years!

Re:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US wanted him, they'd just wait for him to go back to Australia and nab him there.

Important question

[Anonymous Coward]

Will Lemmiwinks finally get Wikileaks?

because clearly the americans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Americans have requested extradition? Because the Americans have charged him? Because the American government has accused him of a crime short of charges? Seriously?

Ecuador desperate to play with first world

[Anonymous Coward]

They like their name to be mentioned alongside the UK, Sweden, and the US. That's it.

Re:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[Anonymous Coward]

USA-wanted man has sex with two girls without condom - let's chase him for years!

You don't even know that he's wanted by the USA.

Rape is a terror tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

Massive gangs of asylum seeking men

The assaults in Germany follow a pattern of the use of sexual assaults as a weapon of war in Syria and elsewhere. The fact that Germany and the worldwide press aren't speaking about these attacks as terrorism speaks to their inability to grasp the tactics of our enemies.

Re:Rape is a terror tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are such morons, it's actually quite entertaining.

Re:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[penguinoid]

Let's put him in "pound me in the ass" federal prison, *without* reminding him not to drop the soap.

Re:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even know that he's wanted by the USA.

lolwut?

Yes, I know, but that's actually a valid response to your post.

Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

The Scandinavian countries have the reputation of upholding freedom and being independent but afterall they still lack the backbone to standup to US.

Re:Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you speak up? All I hear is "mumble mumble something ... rapists I like should go free." Surely you don't mean that?

inception moment

[beanpoppa]

I initially read the headline as Snowden Makes Another Request...To Question Assange

just point to the Patrick Kane case and say BS

[Joe_Dragon]

just point to the Patrick Kane case and say that the women is BS

Hiding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? They know exactly where he is.

In related news ...

[PPH]

... Bill Cosby was spotted entering the Ecuadorian embassy.

Re:In related news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The big diff is that Bill actually raped people. Assange was just being a slut and slept with two girl who were friends and they reported him when they found out he had fucked them both... I wonder if you can charge you GF with rape if she fucks with your friends too?

"My girlfriend raped me!"
"What? How?"
"She slept with my best friend!"

Re: massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so each inmate does not have their own shower in their personal cell?

Re:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, i guess imprisoning people to be raped because they revealed to us the truth is just brilliant.

God save us from Imbeciles.

What it really is ...

[cold fjord]

Ecuador did not have an agreement in place with Sweden to act as a framework within which such a request could be allowed to go forward . . .

What a grandiose method of handing a request to talk to someone when supposedly everyone agrees to it and thinks it should be done. A treaty just to talk to a guy in a room in London? A "framework"? This is Ecuador simultaneously trolling and puffing itself up. Of course the kicker is that Ecuador still won't allow the Swedes to talk directly to Assange, it will be Ecuador's prosecutors doing the talking. This is really about Ecuador's government continuing to run interference for Assange.

I think it is pretty unlikely that Ecuador requires treaties and frameworks just to talk with other people that they actually want to talk to.

Re:What it really is ...

[PsychoSlashDot]

A treaty just to talk to a guy in a room in London? A "framework"? This is Ecuador simultaneously trolling and puffing itself up.

I do not know this to be the case, but I suspect this is more a matter of formally establishing paperwork that get signed, wherein Sweden agrees explicitly that they know and agree to obey Ecuador's laws. While in that embassy, Ecuadoran law prevails, and while it's fine to say "I agree to that fact", it's another thing to agree to the specific laws that might come into play.

"Oh, I didn't know I can't wear blue on Wednesdays."

The form and content of the questions asked etc, may have restrictions because of Ecuadoran laws on how questioning/interrogation work. Ecuador has a duty to protect a person they've granted asylum to, and that extends to making sure the Swedes don't illegally (for Ecuador) badger, harass, or insult that person.

My point is that this can't be a casual off-the-record conversation between two buds. And you know how police are sometimes known to manipulate people into confessions/self-incrimination? Yeah, well, not when you've granted asylum.

Assange bad, muslim rape gangs ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey sweden, how about you deal with the hundreds or thousands of muslim "refugee" gang rapes going on in your country rather than pretending to care about rape you FUCKING ASSHOLES?

Re:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[david_thornley]

Why? He has not broken US law, and I believe Swedish prisons are less barbaric.