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.
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!
You don't know what the word "democratically" means
Not the GP, but in this thread the person who doesn't know what democracy means is you. Democracy means rule by the people (literally, by the city). Implementations of democracy are referred to as either direct democracy or indirect / representative democracy. In a direct democracy, eligible voters are permitted to decide issues directly. In a representative democracy, the people select, via some mechanism, representatives who decide issues on their behalf. Nothing in the definition of a representative democracy requires that the representatives be selected via a straight first-past-the-post single-constituency election.
You seem to have been taught a fallacy that is common in the US, that a democracy and a republic are different and incompatible systems of government, rather than orthogonal aspects of a system of government (you can have a democratic monarchy and an authoritarian republic, for example, but you can also have a democratic republic).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.