Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Still Faces Legal Jeopardy In Three Countries (chicagotribune.com)
Though Sweden dropped an investigation into rape allegations against Julian Assange, "I can conclude, based on the evidence, that probable cause for this crime still exists," chief prosecutor Marianne Ny told reporters in Stockholm. An anonymous reader quotes Newsweek:
Ny stressed in her statement Friday that the investigation could be reopened before the statute of limitations on the case expires in 2020. If Assange "went into British custody, then the Swedes may well revisit their decision ⦠as extradition is suddenly easier", tweeted legal expert David Allen Green. Assange failed to answer a bail hearing when he took refuge in the embassy, resulting in an active warrant for his arrest by London's Metropolitan Police, punishable by up to a year in prison. Foremost of Assange's concerns is possible extradition to the U.S., where he he could be detained on espionage charges... Ecuador has offered Assange asylum should he be able to leave Britain.
Meanwhile, The Chicago Tribune reports that "a federal inquiry is widely assumed to be underway by prosecutors in Virginia." According to a former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity to discuss the Assange case, American authorities are now presented with a "cat and mouse game." "The decision on whether to indict him rests largely on whether they can get their hands on him," the former official said. Indicting the head of an organization such as WikiLeaks presents a huge number of First Amendment issues, but the Trump White House has indicated such issues may be less of a hurdle than during previous administrations. Prosecutors could seek a sealed indictment -- or may have one already -- to be unveiled if and when Assange strays within reach of American law enforcement, the former official said.
Meanwhile, The Chicago Tribune reports that "a federal inquiry is widely assumed to be underway by prosecutors in Virginia." According to a former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity to discuss the Assange case, American authorities are now presented with a "cat and mouse game." "The decision on whether to indict him rests largely on whether they can get their hands on him," the former official said. Indicting the head of an organization such as WikiLeaks presents a huge number of First Amendment issues, but the Trump White House has indicated such issues may be less of a hurdle than during previous administrations. Prosecutors could seek a sealed indictment -- or may have one already -- to be unveiled if and when Assange strays within reach of American law enforcement, the former official said.
" Indicting the head of an organization such as WikiLeaks presents a huge number of First Amendment issues, but the Trump White House has indicated such issues may be less of a hurdle than during previous administrations. "
Unless the constitution has changed since he took office, the only way the hurdles should be any less is if he plans on ignoring said constitution.
I can see that happening for some reason.
Maybe it's just me but I think it's bizarre that the US wants prosecute someone that was never in their jurisdiction nor attempted to help one country over another. It wreaks of tyranny.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
They're not dropping the charges. They're dropping the investigation and arrest warrant.
It's not a matter of dropping the charges (after all, no charges has been formally presented)
Yes and no. The Swedish system differs from the American system most here are familiar with, and distinguishes between "häktad" (arrest charge) and "åtalad" (trial charge). The US system doesn't have a two-tier system and treats informal and formal arrest the same, requiring a trial charge and court order for keeping the person jailed during investigation.
Translating the charge against him to "rape" is already fucked up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
It's technically a charge of "lesser rape"- we wouldn't call it rape in the English speaking world. Sweden has three types of "rape" on their laws, only one of which we would call rape, and the least serious of which is what Assange is accused of.
This is a common argument made by Assange supporters - that the "rape" allegation is only "rape" in Sweden.
Its a bullshit argument.
Here in the UK, for extraditions to be approved by the court, the reasons for extradition need to meet the "dual criminality" test - they need to be equitable crimes here in the UK, and if they are not then the extradition is not carried out.
Assanges lawyers tried arguing that "its only rape in Sweden" to the UK High Court during their appeal in July 2011 - the court threw their arguments out, giving a lengthy ruling on this very exact issue:
See points 104 to 127 in the High Court ruling - the court spends five and a half pages giving its reasons why the court has judged that the fourth offence being considered against him is also considered "rape" in the UK.
Five and a half pages. And that doesn't even count the pages spent giving reasonings for the other three offences being considered!
And yet people like you still use the "its only rape in Sweden" line!
> m sure the US would love to prosecute him, but doing so would be a mockery of justice.
Sadly, this business model is becoming trendy (again) these days. The US isn't there yet, but their president is trying hard.
The rape charges have been confirmed in every real life court in which their reality was called into question are only dubious in the minds of the hard-core Assange supporters that can't bear to see their hero brought back to earth.
The alleged acts were/are defined as rape in Sweden, the U.K. the rest of the E.U. and in the U.S. The U.K. high court confirmed this years ago, at which point Assange jumped bail & scuttled off to the Embassy.
The Swedish prosecutor was unable to satisfactorily question Assange due to his preconditions and would need to be auditioned again before the case could move forward.
As a high profile bail-jumper, he will very likely see the most severe penalty of a year in prison for jumping bail: 1 year, served in the U.K if no-one cares to claim him.
If he stays in the Embassy until the Swedish statute of limitations for the rape charges runs out (instead of coming out as promised when Manning was released) we'll all see if the boogey-man of U.S. charges become reality or not. He has burned all his goodwill by jumping bail & the U.K.>U.S. extradition treaties make extradition a mere formality for any that the U.K does not wish to defend. If Brexit becomes effective before 2020, appeals to the E.U. High Courts become impossible.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I live in Sweden and you are partly correct.
The charges have been dropped, but the reason is because they cannot get any further in the investigation. This is quite common practise, unfortunately, and it means that if that condition changes (for example if Assange would turn up in Sweden) they might find that they can get further and can reopen it.
So you might want to call it suspended but the case is dropped and there are no current charges against him, but that could change at any time if the circumstances change.
I guess the most important thing here is that:
1. He is still innocent and has no serious charges against him atm (only the escaping bail in England)
2. The European warrant is withdrawn so other EU-countries have no obligation to arrest him based on that
3. Sweden have no longer anything to say if Britain or any other EU country managed to get to him and want to extradite him to US
This means that it might be easier for England to extradite him to US. It also means that England has less serious charges against him and, if no other secret legal orders exist, they are much more likely to let him go as the proportions of the operation to keep him in the embassy is way of the charts at the moment.
But you have your cherry picked biased source and you wil not move from it because it says someone you don't like was doing something you don't like and therefore it must be real.
His 'cherry picked biased source' is the fucking high court ruling. That's the decision in law on whether
1) Only the prosecutor claims it was rape.
and says that no, not only the prosecutor claims it was rape, and
4) The actions were not rape in the UK, where the EAW was enacted
to which it demonstrates through law, legal precedent and the known descriptions of the acts which took place, that the acts would justify an accusation of rape under UK law.
5) The UK law courts only decided whether the EAW being written by the prosecutor not the judge (you know, as in an actual arrest being required) was legal, NOT whether it was likely rape, that was specifically off the cards for the law lords to determine.
That's because they had to rule on the legality of the EAW, and not pass judgement on whether the acts described were actually rape. To answer the legality they did ascertain whether an act as described would be rape in the UK and confirmed that it would.
That does not mean that the act took place as described, or that it would result in a criminal conviction.
I have read scores of other links, including the translated court documents
But not the one in its original English that you're claiming is cherry picked and biased. This doesn't reflect well on you.
Basically all of your points can be dismissed by simply reading the court ruling that I linked to in my previous post.
Perhaps you should try that, rather than look like a fucking idiot time and again...
No evidence of rape is required to be supplied, as the case being heard was not the case that was trying that evidence - it was a case that was trying the validity of the arrest warrant and extradition request, and both of those things were found to be valid. This is covered in the court ruling I linked to.
There is no requirement for a *judge* to issue the EAW, none at all - the treaty that covers the EAW is very specific in what it requires, and it basically leaves the validity of the issuing authority up to the issuing country, and the Swedes allow the prosecutor to issue it.
Swedens legal situation regarding why they needed extradition is well established, and discussed in the court ruling I linked to.
And just what, exactly is the "ECHJ"? Do you mean the European Court of Human Rights? I'm not sure how you expect them to rule on a case that has never been petitioned for them to take...
Still a sham ...To extradite him to the US, nothing more
To the contrary. At the time that he jumped bail on his promis to appear in Sweden for questioning, there really was no threat to extradite him to the U.S.. The Obama administration was vigorously prosecuting Americans who leaked U.S. secrets, but it had no apparent intent of going into dubious legal territory of trying to prosecute a foreigner who assisted publication of secrets he didn't leak himself. At the time, the threat to extradite him from Sweden to the U.S. was all in his mind. (And in any case, if the US had wanted him, it would have been just as hard, or just as easy, to extradite him from Sweden as from the UK.)
But by fleeing his bond and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy, he allowed a new presidential administration to come to power in the U.S., and now there really is a credible threat, since this administration has no problem with dubious legal territory.
The threat at the time was "extraordinary rendition" such as what occurred to Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery from Bromma airport in Stockholm.
Please do try to keep up.