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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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: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.

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.

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

In related news ...

[PPH]

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

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 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: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:

[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:

[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:massive, aggravated assault & rape in your

[david_thornley]

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

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.