Slashdot Mirror
Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation (cnn.com)
rmdingler writes: "Sweden is dropping its investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on rape allegations, according to a prosecution statement released Friday," reports CNN. "Assange, who has always denied wrongdoing, has been holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, in an effort to avoid a Swedish arrest warrant." Despite Friday's announcement, he's unlikely to walk out of the embassy imminently. There is no apparent change in the risk of being detained in the west, particularly in the U.S., but it's definitely a win for Assange.
Joshua.Niland adds: The pressure on Julian Assange may have lifted ever so slightly with Swedish prosecutors dropping their investigation into the allegations of rape. A brief statement ahead of a press conference by the prosecutor later on Friday said: "Director of Public Prosecution, Ms Marianne Ny, has today decided to discontinue the investigation regarding suspected rape (lesser degree) by Julian Assange." This will not likely deter the United States from pursuing their own charges against him for publishing tens of thousands of military documents leaked by Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
After describing the development as "an important victory," Assange said, "[...] it by no means erases seven years of detention without charge under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight. Seven years without charge while my children grow up without me. That is not something I can forgive. It is not something I can forget."
Guess I'll have to do it. Boldfacing the interesting parts, which for some reason Slashdot didn't bother covering in the summary.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
No. See the explanation for the dropping of the investigation which for some reason Slashdot didn't bother to mention. The short of it: They dropped it because Moreno won the Ecuadorian election, and he's refused to negotiate on handing over Assange, so there's no realistic possibility that he'll be surrendered before the statute of limitations runs out. Swedish law mandates that when all possibilities to resolve an investigation have been exhausted, the prosecutor is obliged to discontinue it.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
Trying to imagine how Assange can see "victory" in any part of his situation. While he started with nice ideals, at this point he has been transformed into a "useful idiot", though it would still make a lot of powerful people quite happy to see him punished well beyond indefinite imprisonment in an embassy.
Still seems to me to be an economic problem at heart. Largely based on a couple of books about WikiLeaks, I think it was the lack of a viable economic model that led them (though mostly just Assange) to where they are now. Competing economic models of journalism are equally bad or worse. Consider the eyeballs-for-advertisers model that produces disaster porn like CNN and clickbait websites. Worse than that is the paid propaganda model of FAUX "news", rightwing listen-to-a-nut-talking radio, and Alt-Right websites. The vestiges of mainstream journalism are now engaged in a last-newspaperman-standing strategy, and I think journalism still loses, regardless of whether the last paper standing is the "venerable" NY Times or the Washington Post. (I think the LA Times is already on the ropes and the Boston Globe was never a real contender, though the last paper might be some dark horse like the tainted WSJ.)
Assange is no longer part of any solution, so he must be part of the precipitate.
If this is still the first post, it says something about the state of the Slashdot, eh?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If Assange was seriously worried about US prosecution for leaking national security secrets, he should have transitioned genders during the previous administration. That strategy has always (n=1) resulted in a pardon.
You... realize he's no longer president, right?
It seems far more likely a request from President Trump would be for Swedish prosecutors to:
"Stop the Witch hunt. Leave Assange alone. He's a good man."
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I know slashdotters love to hate assange but now we know it was fake charges all along
We know no such thing. The European arrest warrant was dropped because there was no way to execute it, but prosecution can be continued if he becomes available before 2020.
His claim that he has been imprisoned for seven years without a trial is of his own doing - he would have received either a trial or the charges dropped if he had presented himself. He chose to avoid to cooperate with the investigation, and jumped bail.
Not only is he wanted for fleeing while on bail, but there are civil suits pending from several of the sureties; individuals who lost money when he turned out to have lied to them and skipped bail despite promises not to do so.
U should respect Slashdot for all it gives u - so if we didnt post the content & u did & got karma points, whats the big deal ?
You... realize he's no longer president, right?
He is still president. That's a perpetual title. He just doesn't hold office anymore, except as an emissary in potentia, and his powers are rather limited.
Well, that's the official reason. But it was always a long shot that Ecuador would hand over Assange anyway. They could easily have justified dropping the investigation many years ago.
erm. There are a lot of happy parents that would disagree with you on this.
#4 was incomplete and the last sentence typoed "party"
I'm slipping.
--
BMO
No, if you start fuck a sleeping girl to work around her previous refusal to consent to your preferred form of sex, that's rape.
Which was charge #4 on the EAW, the one marked rape. The other three charges were 2x molestation and 1x unlawful sexual coersion.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
and surrender to the US. https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
Manning is free. That was the condition. Please Mr Assange, honor your own words.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
Funny how neither one of the alleged "victims" in this case wanted Assange charged with anything. They just wanted him to get tested for STDs.
I guess the Ecuadorian embassy got their internet back! Congrats!
USA USA USA: "It's safe to come out now, we now know you're innocent of the charges we helped fabricate"
Assange: "uhh, ok"
Requiem for the American Dream
Actually if you knew anything about suspected rape cases in Sweden you would realize that this case is in fact very odd.
Lol, my mom gave me a condom when she saw me looking at girls. Hasnt happened yet but she didnt say anything about rape, I just think she doesnt want grand kids.
-=Beau=-
Let's put this in a less charged context than rape. Suppose a woman did some lines of cocaine with a man and the claims "he forced me to do that last line of cocaine!" In a system that isn't based on presumed guilt, you know what the court and/or jury are going to see?
1. She was there of her own free will.
2. She did cocaine with him freely, by her own admission, for most of that time.
3. She lacks signs of coercion.
4. Police have found not traces of evidence to plausibly back up her sudden change of mind.
5. Another line of cocaine made it into her system.
Now, if you are a judge or jury who is not a psychopath, you are probably going to weigh that evidence and conclude that you have a non-trivial chance of being the implement of someone's revenge. You are a decent person who doesn't want to throw someone in prison on a "maybe" or a "it looks bad, but I don't know." You're going to side with Assange here.
You... realize he's no longer president, right?
He is still president. That's a perpetual title. He just doesn't hold office anymore, except as an emissary in potentia, and his powers are rather limited.
Is this what they teach little millennials now? He holds no office. The US has no titles of nobility that he could hold. Former presidents are given security details, ambassador assignments, etc. because they know things and are potential targets, because they hold popular influence, etc. They've got less official power than the spouse of the president.
Perhaps. I see Trump and all the crap that is happening as a good and necessary thing. The timing is perfect- the GOP has a solid and incontestable hold on the House, Senate, and Presidency.
There has been rot and corruption deep in American politics for a while, and that rot has abscessed in a huge way the last couple of decades. If Hillary had won, it would just continue to grow and infect. Trump winning, and the resulting criminal behavior- coupled with the implicit AND active efforts of the rest of the GOP to cover it up or sweep it under the rug has brought it all out in the open. When the Trump abscess is lanced, all this rot will be cleaned out and they all go to prison. And I predict a few Democrats will go sliding down that tunnel with them.
There will always be corruption, but there should never be THIS much corruption. The 2018 and 2020 election cycles are going to be absolutely brutal to the GOP. Its time to fix some of the worst of the laws that the corruption uses to spread. And all politicians, for a while, will be very conscious of ethics and law.
If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately, says Marianne Ny.
The answer is a lie. So the "drop charges" is a lie as well. The moment he's outside the embassy, he'll be arrested, and the charges will be re-instated.
The proof of this is that Sweden has traveled to foreign countries to interview someone, and has conducted interviews over phone and videoconference. That Sweden refuses to follow their own standards in this case is proof they aren't following the regular process.
Julian Assange has *always* "been available". Sweden has not followed their own policies, and refused to make themselves available.
Much like the charge of "Rape (lesser degree)" is always mistranslated to "rape (with or without a degree listed)". It is "sexual misconduct" in English. But has always been deliberately mistranslated to further vilify Julian Assange. Why?
The deliberate misconduct on the part of Sweden can only be explained by them not actually wanting to catch and convict for the charge given.
Learn to love Alaska
Sweden can (but rarely does) try him in absentia. Sweden has been granted access to Julian Assange by phone, video conference, and in person. Sweden refused. Those means are commonly used.
Sweden has chosen to not pursue a legal conviction since before Assange "escaped" to Ecuador. Sweden has only acted to get him back in custody. It's inconsistent and suspicious.
Proof of his innocence is calls from the "victims" to drop the case.
A crime that isn't a crime almost anywhere else. Essentially Sexual Fraud, where he lied to gain consent "Yes baby, you are the only one for me". Lying to a sexual partner is "rape" in Sweden.
Learn to love Alaska
The only thing "fishy" about this case to start with was that Assange decided to run and hide in the embassy rather than face his day in court, spouting this blatant nonsense about a US extradition scheme.
Yet America refused to say that they would not ask Sweden to extradite if Assange agreed to testify.
And then they got Bolivian president's Evo Morales' plane rerouted by spreading rumors that Snowden was aboard and demanding extradition
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
He did present himself to Sweden, and Sweden refused. This was highly unusual on the part of Sweden. This makes the whole thing quite suspicious.
Learn to love Alaska
No it is not according to the main sources on political manners it would be former President of the honorable. This can be seen in laws that that cover pasting for costs of corners presidents .
First your claim that this goes against Swedish policy is bunk.
The more the actual case details are leaking out (well they aren't really "secret" however they aren't directly released to public either) the more obvious it is that this is about real rape not as some (including me) thought just technically rape. The allegations are that women that agreed to have sex with a condom were being fucked - while sleeping - without a condom. If that's true (and remember that there were two similar complaints from two women giving this significant support) then it is 100% rape, no ifs or buts, not sexual misconduct but a case of someone willingly taking advantage of someone else not capable to consent.
Mr. Assange can rot on English soil in the jail of his own choosing.
You need a new Russian-English translator, comrade.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"You should respect BeauHD's authoritah!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
*alleged* charges. There is nothing formal, only rumors at this point. There is nothing they could actually charge him of other than anything any other journalist has done in publishing same information.
Twinstiq, game news
Your mom didn't say anything about rape when she gave me a condom too.
Does that mean we're eskimo brothers?
You are welcome on my lawn.
The thing I regret most of all is that Rand Paul ran as a Republican.
If he had been the Libertarian Candidate he might be sleeping in the White House tonight.
You should respect Slashdot by not posting chatspeak comments.
This isn't twitter. The character limit is huge.
He did present himself to Sweden, and Sweden refused.
No, he did not. He agreed to do an interview from the embassy to an Ecuadorian intermediary, but not to present himself. The "interview" took place last year, but was worthless in that none of questions asked were answered, and instead deflected to a pre-written statement. It was a farce. As a result, the Swedish prosecutors upheld the charges.
The investigation is now dropped, mainly because after the election in Ecuador, there seems to be no way to negotiate an extradition. With no way to bring the investigation to a conclusion, the investigation has to be dropped. But if he presents himself, the charges can be brought forward, and he will have a chance to defend himself and actually answer the questions given.
Nah, you'd be blamed as one of the people who took votes away from Hillary.
Trust me on this.
--
BMO
Except both of them were groupies and only claimed rape, after each other found out about the other.
SW (the only person there was a rape charge concerning - there were only lesser charges concerning AA, and the statute of limitations has expired on them) did indeed only seek to force Assange to get an STD test - but she was telling people (including before going to the police, including before she met AA) that she had been raped. According to the witness statements, she didn't want to become embroiled in some big public mess with the public heaping negative attention on her (like, by the way, the vast majority of rape victims - the reason that rape reporting rates are so low), and so only tried to force the STD test issue. Yeah, that didn't quite work out.
Regardless of the initial goal of trying to stay out of the public spotlight, now that they're being trolled, doxxed, and receiving rape and death threats from Assange fans (one actually fled Sweden for a few years; both have to keep very low profiles due to all of the hostility), that option no longer exists. After the case got out into the open, both women secured legal representation which has consistently sought Assange's prosecution. Upon hearing the news of Sweden giving up hope of ever getting Ecuador to give up Assange and dropping the case, SW's lawyer was shocked:
Elizabeth Massi Fritz is the second legal representative that SW has retained; she switched from the first one, Claes Borgström, because she felt that he was more focused on self promotion than bringing Assange to justice.
In short, trying to pretend that SW and AA don't really want Assange prosecuted is pure nonsense.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
He was actually under house arrest at one point in the UK, while the UK court cases were playing out - although said "house" was a luxurious country mansion. He had to cut his tracking bracelet before fleeing to the embassy.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
Oh and one is suspected to be CIA operative or payed by the CIA. Wikileaks came months before the consensual sex and false rape charges, that even the women said they weren't raped.
U should respect Slashdot for all it gives u - so if we didn't post the content & u did & got karma points, whats the big deal ?
Water's wet. Sky's blue. Women have secrets. When you're cliff-diving, the judges award you extra points for degree of difficulty.
When you're posting on Slashdot, bonus points are awarded for deserved condemnation of the editor, and occasionally the OP.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
He is still president. That's a perpetual title. He just doesn't hold office anymore, except as an emissary in potentia, and his powers are rather limited.
Barack Obama is a former president. He is not the president. He no longer has the power to pardon anyone. That's what the topic is. That's what we are discussing. Why you think posting irrelevancies is contributing to the conversation is far beyond my understanding.
If Assange 'blindy released information', then Wikileaks would just be another Infowars.com or dailykos style operation. The problem for 'the authorities' is that the information on Wikileaks is NOT blindly released. They work for the credibility they have.
Actually not true and totally misleading. The women NEVER wanted to pursue charges. They just wanted him to take an STD test. What Americans (I'm assuming you're American) because in the US charges are placed by the victim and they have discretion to remove them. In other parts of the world that's not the case, the police place the charges with or without the wishes of the victim.
In this case, rape is fairly harsh since you're wanting to create victims out of people who may not want to be treated as victims.
I can understand their willingness for wanting him to take an STD test, that makes sense. But its not often that people know the intricacies of the law or the part they play in the legal process. In this case I believe they didn't know what was in store for Assange or for them by reporting this. So by trying to get the police to help them with one thing it evolved into a crime being reported. Which also goes back to the purpose of why we have police, you'd think police are there to keep order and peace, in this case its not whats happening as what's happening is much greater than that.
It can be quite clearly seen as a misuse of the justice system (for whatever reason) because of they hows and whys here. Normally you'd see such cases being thrown out UNLESS you had distort victimised people who cant live with whats happened and demand justice. And if that is the case then yes you'd be right. But what i see as an issue is that this is not evident. Where are they? can you point them out to me?
Chelsea Manning was not pardoned, her sentence was shortened. She is still guilty of the charges.
The timing is based off the presidential elections of Equador, not the elections of the US.
September 8, 1974
By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
GERALD R. FORD
Assange leads an average life, not too many sexual encounters but he does OK. One of his encounters evens brags about her conquest on Twitter. Then a year later, her and another ex press charges at the same time. Unlikely to be a coincidence. I am sure that if asked, you will lie and say you are always a saint when with a woman but this is not rape. This would never go forward as a case as it can never get past being an accusation. There is no case to answer as all he has to say is that it is not true and there is no evidence. It is just an attempt to get him into custody so he can be extradited to the US. Why not extradite him from the UK? The UK have a special agreement and never refuse to extradite. The only difference being that if extradited from Sweden the US does not have to agree not to execute him. It is not rape as sex was agreed upon. You are discussing the terms which makes it a civil case not a criminal case. If I buy a car from you and you make the sale conditional it does not become theft if I break those conditions but you may be able to make a civil case and sue me. Sex was agreed and the girls are saying that the terms and conditions were broken, that does not make it rape.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
because US went off the reservation in pursuit of those guys (him and Snowden). And since that part was very publicly proven [wikipedia.org], it throws some serious shade on the whole accusation thing.
The US going after Assange is pure, unadulterated, extra-legal revenge for the public political embarrassment WL has caused the US government by exposing their wrongdoing. Assange no more broke US laws than Woodward & Bernstein did in printing the Pentagon Papers, and W & B are US citizens and were on US soil when they printed the PPs, totally unlike Assange.
But then, if we've learned anything over the past 10 years, it's that those in power believe themselves above the law and think they can do whatever they want and to whomever they want with little consequences.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
At least not at this point. It's an empty pledge, which is why he made it. The UK is who wants him. Regardless of the status or validity of the original rape charge, he fled bail (and is still fleeing) in the UK so they have a criminal case against him. Skipping bail is illegal, even if the court later determines the charge that lead to the arrest and subsequent bail is complete BS.
Given that he's been flaunting it for quite some time, they are very likely to pursue it as well.
erm. There are a lot of happy parents that would disagree with you on this.
Eh? Where did that come from?
Oh. Found it. Per my settings, I mostly don't see the ACs. Not all of them are trolls, but even when they aren't, they tend to be wasting my time. Having dug up the actual parent of your reply, I'll just say I think you [Cederic] are just wasting your time by feeding an obvious troll. No detectable interest in a rational discussion there.
Quite serendipitously and tangentially, there is an actual issue touched there. After all these years, I'm still wondering if Assange was set up. It is possible that his real crime was the invention of stealthing, and in that case the critical legal issue is how the Swedish legal system addresses undefined crimes. One version of the nationalistic joke is "In America [but you can swap countries in accord with fashion trends or your actual prejudices], everything is permitted unless it is explicitly forbidden, while in Germany everything is forbidden unless it is explicitly permitted." A typical punchline might be "And in France, everything is required [or expected?] as long as it is explicitly forbidden." What do the laws of Sweden say?
Depending on when Assange got on their radar, it is quite possible he was targeted years ago. By whom? I'd say by any powerful person or nation with secrets to hide, which seems to provide plenty of suspects. Depends on someone's prediction that the very idea of WikiLeaks was a sufficient threat to worry about.
If targeted, then they would have accumulated targeting data about Assange. For example, they could have found out about his philosophy related to eugenics and his belief in his own superior genes and duty to reproduce. Combine that with some data about the kind of women he's interested in and details of his schedule and the schedules of suitable women, and something could be arranged. Add in a bit of patience and there's no need to expose anything to any of the actual participants in the "crime", especially when none of them knew there was a crime involved.
No, I'm not actually ready to say that Assange was set up, but it's like my sig says, coercion counts. I really like that freedom thing.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You [974911] are a flaming troll and must be using a herd of sock puppets to self-moderate your own incoherent tripe.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
That's how it would go in a movie.
Sadly writing that way about reality just comes across as naive.
Just because you can't see it getting worse (and it's going to get a LOT worse before Trump is dragged out, probably in eight years) doesn't mean that deeply entrenched systemic corruption is going to be almost completely cleaned up after a few ringleaders are jailed.
He's always been available-- they could come to talk to him at the embassy, interview him on the phone, or whatever. He just won't go where it's easy for the US to grab him, which is not at all an unrealistic fear at this point.
A modest proposal: if we're the good guys, we shouldn't go around acting like the bad guys in a cold war spy novel.
You'd be better off blaming the hopeless Republicans at the primaries if you want to blame someone other than Trump.
It was so pathetic that even tollbooth guy - unfit for trust in any office - was a leading contender for a while.
You have a fucking King in all but name who is above the law in every way so long as half the Senate like him.
Yes, Snowden shoulda let 'em through him uin solitary for years just like Bradley Manning.
Call them cowards if you like, the actual question is did they tell us something we deserved to know about what our own government was hiding from us?
(It's always fun having an "anonymous coward" call someone a coward.)
You do realize that any other candidate would have nuked Trump by double digits? Yes? Bernie would have annihilated him.
--
BMO
I'm not so sure about that. Trump annihilated the entire GOP slate without saying 2 coherent sentences in a row and there were some heavyweights - and I'm not making a sly remark about Chris Christie. Hillary's campaign has a great many problems including carrying Bill's baggage and 30 years of being smeared by rightwing media but this election was all about angry people who thought everyone but them is getting ahead.
"I can't get a job or afford medication but all my elected reps are doing is finding a safe place for chicks with dicks to piss?"
I don't think Bernie's message would resonate with *enough* of them to have prevented what happened in Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconcin.
Rick Scott has tossed so many off Florida's voter rolls that I can't say if Sanders could have prevailed there either
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Who says that the UK are not going to extradite him to the USA? After all if he steps out of the embassy he will still be arrested for breaking bail and seeking refuge.
It looks like Theresa May the coming UK Conservative Prime Minister will be the one to hand him over to Jeff Sessions for execution.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
That is the bit they will use to justify sending him off to the US for execution. They will say that he wasted millions of tax payers money and that is why he is being sent off to face the death sentence. The tabloid newspapers will publish anything you like if the owners agree and the people believe any old shit they are told.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
No.
WTF is it with people giving lectures to "correct" an opinion when they are basing it on nothing but gut feeling?
Wouldn't their minds better be put at rest by taking their own STD test? Why the concern over Assange's well-being?
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
Yet America refused to say that they would not ask Sweden to extradite if Assange agreed to testify.
You're complaining that someone doesn't give legal guarantees about a case that hasn't even been brought to the prosecutor. In other news the USA hasn't decided it won't go after me for murder charges. I haven't committed murder and I'm not in the USA but the point is the same. If you're expecting anyone to provide a legally binding comment on a charge that hasn't even been laid you're delusional.
And then they got Bolivian president's Evo Morales' plane rerouted by spreading rumors that Snowden was aboard and demanding extradition
They also killed Osama Bin Laden, and now Trump is president. Let that sink in for a moment. Why? Because just like your comment it has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.
He did present himself to Sweden
No, he gave Sweden an offer to do something that is not part of a normal process while hiding outside their jurisdiction knowing that whatever Sweden decide will not have any bearing on his current predicament.
It is just an attempt to get him into custody so he can be extradited to the US. Why not extradite him from the UK? The UK have a special agreement and never refuse to extradite. The only difference being that if extradited from Sweden the US does not have to agree not to execute him.
This is a load of bullshit. Neither Sweden nor Norway will extradite anyone facing capital punishment, this was also directly confirmed by the Swedish minister of justice William Hague. That is to say we'll certainly extradite to countries that have the law on the books, but in that particular case we'll insist you can at most get life without parole. If they executed him it'd lead to a huge diplomatic incident and the end of any future EU-US extraditions, that would never happen. The only semi-valid accusation he could make is that this was a honey trap set to discredit Assange and Wikileaks by creating trumped up rape charges.
As for the actual charges, to have any power to demand invasive tests you must be charged not merely a suspect, at least here in Norway and I assume also in Sweden. That is to say, a breathalyzer is considered a non-invasive test, but before anyone will poke a needle in you because you're suspected of a DUI you will be charged first, then tested and if you're sober the charges will be dropped. I believe STD checking is the same, they interpreted what the women said in terms of some sexual misconduct so they'd have a basis for demanding he take the test. If he had come and taken the test I think the whole case would probably fall apart either before court or in court and never reach a conviction.
When you try to evade the justice system though that becomes the issue by itself. And when you run the assumption becomes that you run because you're guilty, not because you fear a miscarriage of justice. The justice system doesn't care if the accused trust the system. They care that the people can trust in the rule of law and that if they've been victims of a crime that the police will investigate, the courts will give a fair trial and hopefully the guilty punished and the presumed innocent let go. The merits of this case will never be tested in court, because the accused has successfully evaded it. I real don't understand people cheering over this.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Watch RT: Where we tell you what your state run news won't.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
...the USA has never laid any charges against him nor made any formal requests about him to any government
That's how you know the US wants someone badly but doesn't have any legal/constitutional basis to do so. If it were me in Assange's place, I'd feel far better if the US did actually pursue a legal path through the courts by filing charges, etc against me. Too many of the extra-legal options are impossible to appeal, especially the ones where the subject dies.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
No, he did not.
Going back further he did, when he was in Sweden.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
> because in the US charges are placed by the victim
No, they aren't. In fact, victims cannot "press charges." You were obviously educated by pop culture.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-what-does-it-mean-and-who-does-it.html
I'm pretty sure Trump wasn't president 7 years ago. Or 6 years ago. Or 5, 4, 3, or 2 years ago. Or 1 year ago.
Golly, I wonder if that whole "back channel" thing was under consideration before Jan 20, 2017?
YMMV.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
People of an extremely suspicious nature have speculated that the charges are a frame-up, totally bogus, to allow that exact scenario to play out. Under a previous administration, FWIW.
Given the extremely dishonest nature of statements made by the CIA -- even to the Congress, in sworn testimony -- perhaps being extremely suspicious is reasonable.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
That this whole things would be a conspiracy honey pot in order to extradite Assange to USA is beyond stupid. First of all there are no extradition agreement between USA and Sweden which i.e is why we harbour quite a few American draft resisters from the Vietnam war (they knew that they could live here in peace and not be extradited to USA for their crimes).
If this would have been a honey pot operation then Assange would have been woke by armed police with the woman in bed screaming "rape, rape!" and not like how it was now that a few days later the women goes to the police, the police questions Assange, lets him go, lets him travel to the UK and then a new prosecutor decides to open the investigation again. Makes no sense what so ever to go this route if this was a honey pot. Also going though all this mess when Assange is in the UK which is a country with extradition agreements with the USA is also a very strange move.
People always bring up the Egyptian extradition as proof that Sweden extradites when the USA wants to but then they forget that this was done completely in secret with no involvement of either parliament or the judicial system and that we only know about it due to digging journalism. At the same time the Assange case was handled completely in public, so he could not have been extradited without extreme political turmoil with the party in charge most likely to loose the next election.
And to be honest, if the USA wanted him that bad they would have grabbed him of the streets in the middle of the night like they did with all the other people that they grabbed in Germany and Italy which they sent to gitmo.
Assange said, "[...] it by no means erases seven years of detention without charge under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight. Seven years without charge while my children grow up without me. That is not something I can forgive. It is not something I can forget."
I wonder why he was detained for seven year years?
Oh yeah, because he was dodging an arrest warrant for a crime (he allegedly) committed.
If he was concerned about being extradited to the US over wikileaks this doesn't change anything, the UK is just as likely (if not moreso) than to carry out an extradition request from the US.
I stole this Sig
Funny how neither one of the alleged "victims" in this case wanted Assange charged with anything. They just wanted him to get tested for STDs.
I don't find that funny at all. Going through a sexual assault trial against a major public figure (full of extremely personal questions and constant character assassination), wanting justice but not necessarily prison time, etc, etc. There is a lot of stuff between fully consensual sex and forcible rape, and the legal system does not handle it well.
I think there's a couple things most people can agree on here:
1) Assange was in the wrong.
2) As sexual offences go there are far worse ones, and not everyone is agreed that Assange should have spent time in prison (or even face official legal penalties) for them.
I think there are a lot of people living in that grey area, some are leaving a steam of victims in their wake and others just made a mistake and need a reminder. I think there needs to be some sort of confidential parallel legal system, a combination of mandatory counselling and tab keeping, that can step in and intervene when someone has committed an act that is wrong, but the victim doesn't want to go through a whole trial process.
The victims could have gotten a feeling of validation and justice, and Assange could have gotten the message that he was acting way out of line.
I stole this Sig
Going back further he did, when he was in Sweden.
When he was in Sweden, he was not yet wanted as a person of interest in a rape case. The charges changed as more information was brought forward.
(Which, incidentally, goes a long way to squash the conspiracy theory about the charges being phony and intended to get him extradited to the US. If that was the purpose, they would have brought full charges to start with, and not added to them after more details surfaced, giving him an opportunity to leave.)
Whether the case case had been brought to prosecution is irrelevant, as the matters little to those who really want Assange: the US. The sexual assault case is just convenient cover to go after a declared enemy that is considered a threat. Don't play dumb.
First off, let me say that you have won the Internet for the next hour for this spectacular display of intellectual posturing while managing to be utterly clueless that you have said absolutely nothing of legal relevance to my points.
Now then, I have shocking news for you. Her complaint isn't worth a bucket of warm piss in an honest court room. Do you want to know why? Let's go over it, in blunt and sober detail:
1. She admits she had sex with him with informed consent of what she was doing.
2. She admits she invited him to spend the night with her, in her bed.
3. Fornication is legal, rape is not. Chant that a 1000 times before proceeding if you have to, to understand why we're about to run into problems.
4. She claims she was asleep, but we have no proof she was asleep.
5. She claims she did not consent to this act, but consented to having sex with him hours earlier.
6. She has no evidence that can concretely back up another claim of coercion.
If you are not a psychopath like many modern feminists, you are not going to vote to convict on that evidence because there is literally nothing that passes muster on "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was raped. In American courts in particular, if you gave the state a conviction on a case this flimsy, you might as well wipe your ass with the bill of rights and set it on fire when you're done.
So you say I am talking BS and then go on to explain that you think it is legal to accuse someone of rape based solely on a desire to get them to take a STD test? Whether or not he has an STD is not in any way relevant to whether or not it was rape. It is extremely unlikely that he did anything illegal at any point but at worst he is being accused of being a cad. Given that the girls were happy with the encounter at the time and only became unhappy a year later, at the same time, it is extremely unlikely that the unhappiness is related to the event. A view that the initial prosecutor shared when the case was initially dropped. There never has been a charge so why was there an extradition request without a charge? You seem to be wrapped up in the idea that Sweden is above reproach but this whole case stinks.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
First of all there are no extradition agreement between USA and Sweden
https://internationalextraditionblog.com/2011/06/15/sweden-extradition-treaty-with-the-united-states/
I don't know if that's real. But the first hit on Google shows a treaty in place, since the '60s.
If this would have been a honey pot operation then Assange would have been woke by armed police with the woman in bed screaming "rape, rape!" and not like how it was now that a few days later the women goes to the police, the police questions Assange, lets him go, lets him travel to the UK and then a new prosecutor decides to open the investigation again.
Julian Assange is arrested. He is questioned. Some agency thinks "great, he'll be in trial for months, and we can work out a diplomatic solution to the extradition. Charges dismissed. Assange goes to the UK. Oh,fuck. They don't ever try anyone for rape there? CIA calls someone ,and the prosecutor on the case is replaced with someone who will prosecute, even if for a loss, to get Assange back in Swedish custody. Too late, he's hiding in Equador.
How does that sounds unreasonable. The dismissal and travel was too quick for any diplomatic channels to work.
And to be honest, if the USA wanted him that bad they would have grabbed him of the streets in the middle of the night like they did with all the other people that they grabbed in Germany and Italy which they sent to gitmo.
The conspiracy theory is that was the plan, only they wanted to do it in Sweden, not England. They missed their chance the first time, and put pressure on Sweden to give then another.
Learn to love Alaska
No, he did not.
He presented himself multiple times in person in Sweden. He was told he could travel, and did.
He agreed to do an interview from the embassy to an Ecuadorian intermediary, but not to present himself.
You are twisting the words "present himself" to imply "surrender". He did not surrender, but he offered many times to a phone, videoconference and in-person interview. Sweden has done all of those with other people, but refused for Assange. Why?
But if he presents himself, the charges can be brought forward,
If he's suspected of being in a jurisdiction with extradition, the charges will be brought forward without him presenting himself. Then he'll be arrested.
he will have a chance to defend himself and actually answer the questions given.
Ah, presumed guilty until proven innocent. At least that's one thing the us got right, at least in theory.
Learn to love Alaska
He presented himself multiple times in person in Sweden. He was told he could travel, and did.
That was before enough details had come out to turn it into a rape case. They could not question him about rape or issue a detention order before there was a rape case.
Re-read my post. It has nothing to do with your response.
Once someone is out of the country and is "wanted", it's standard to invite them back (including international warrant), and once that fails, then interview them remotely. But Sweden didn't follow their own regular procedures. Why not?
Learn to love Alaska
As additional evidence, I note the sudden horde of negative mods on the branch. Just par for the brokenness of Slashdot, unfortunately.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Its unreasonable because when the case was dropped the first time he was told that he could travel to another country. I.e that prosecutor completely dropped the case. So yes of course some agency here (CIA) could be stupid enough to believe that he would be detained for months as you muse but this is far to uncertain and "loose" to be a though out honey pot operation. If it would have been a real honey pot I will still argue that he would have been arrested at the night of the rape (since the rape was planned as part of the honey pot they would of course know both the time and location of the event) and shipped to the US that very night.
Yes we apparently have a form of extradition treaty with the US, but #1 the crime have to be a crime in Sweden as well and #2 the punishment cannot involve a death sentence. Since 2001 also the whole EU have a "oh my the terrorists" extradition treaty with US so him being in Sweden or UK would not matter for that law either.
No the Egyptian point makes it very clear that this was not a secret operation. Note how they did everything covert in the Egyptian case since the whole matter was illegal. The whole thing blew up politically as well here so doing something similar but also in the open is way far fetched.
Yes the women wanted to force Mr. Assange to have a test. How is that relevant? Even if neither of the women involved in this case wanted to press rape charges (not true!) the circumstances as described were consistent with two counts of rape and therefore the Police had the duty to investigate the case as a rape case rather than a sexual misconduct case.
The rest of your post isn't worth answering in particular as you post anonymous.
"You're complaining that someone doesn't give legal guarantees about a case that hasn't even been brought to the prosecutor." What difference does the status of the case matter to the US when everyone knows the case is an excuse to go after him for something totally different?
No you got that backwards. What doesn't matter is the state of the case, it's the legal guarantee that's the issue. The same reason why you don't ever comment to the public when you're in a court battle.
Anything you say can be used against you. Giving legal immunity against something without having actually defined that something (i.e. no case means he hasn't actually been even accused of a crime let alone a specific crime, and even then if you read about what's going on no one is 100% certain about which if any crime he's actually committed), that would be the kind of peak stupid that only the current POTUS would be capable of.
Regardless of what the unwashed masses say the government shouldn't make any comment on a case before or not before the courts unless that comment is along the lines of "here in my hand is a signed pardon document".
I don't understand the Swedish justice system in any detail, and I distrust accounts from people who aren't authorities and don't cite sources. Trials in absentia are abominations. I see no inconsistency in Sweden's waiting until they can get custody of a suspect to proceed with a case.
Every so often, rape victims call for charges to be dropped, for various reasons. That doesn't mean innocence.
I'm not taking any position on the accuracy of the statements, but one woman accused Assange of holding her down, forcibly removing her clothing, and refusing to wear a condom. Another accused Assange of sex without a condom while she was sleeping. Both of these would be considered felonies whee I live.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
With the Swedish extradition request, the UK could not have legally extradited Assange to the US. He was safer from the US because of the extradition request.
Assange voluntarily traveled to Sweden, and then to the UK. Going to the UK is a very strange thing to do for someone who fears a US extradition request.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes