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

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.

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.

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: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

[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."

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: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.