Swedish court upholds Assange arrest warrant
reuters.com
reuters.com
Its easy for armchair conspiracists to imagine this whole thing an elaborate ruse to extradite Assange to the US, but Assange was being questioned in Sweden before he fled from there and on bail in the UK prior to 'fleeing' to the Ecuadorian embassy. It seems a very roundabout way for the Americans to get at him.
Occams Razor Assange is fleeing justice and abusing the trusting conspiracists trust in promoting the whole American extradition narrative.
PS: so the downvotes roll in :(
Really, are these girls secretly American agents? And the Americans, rather than use two girl agents that had intimate access to Assange, chose to burn them by asking them to escalate to the Police when Assange wouldn't be treated for STDs?
And the stay at the embassy is for political reasons – and like a prison sentence (in a civilized country where prison sentences are about the loss of freedom and not the loss of living as a human being).
There was no assumption of guilt in the parents post. There's an open accusation and it's absolutely normal that people get arrested for rape accusations. Rape is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted.
The stay at the embassy is self-inflicted. Nobody but Assange chose to violate the conditions of his bail. Assange still is master of his own destiny and could end this at any point. He also enjoys a lot of freedoms that actual prisoners often do not enjoy, among them using the internet. Equating his self-chosen recluse with a prison sentence is unfair to all actual prisoners.
They should face those accusations by being interviewed by the persecutor, and if the prosecutor believes there is a case to answer, they should face those accusations in court.
"Last month, Ecuador’s prosecutor-general rejected a previous request from the Swedish prosecutor to question Assange in London. That office, in a letter to Swedish authorities, said it will interview Assange and asked for a list of questions the Swedish prosecutor wants the Ecuadorian prosecutor to ask the Wikileaks founder."
(http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/02/swe...)
http://johnpilger.com/articles/freeing-julian-assange-the-la...
Will you still respect what you said in the comment and return to NK to stand trial ?
Replace North Korea with Iran, Iraq, Syria or any other country known to be a corrupt or totalitarian state...
Aka at least half of all the countries in the world...
As a foreigner, you wouldn't trust the justice system in those countries and you would be right to try to avoid the trial.
So you see, the validity of what you said depends a lot on the context.
Even if the Swedish investigation and the trial is totally fair, it is not really the issue.
The issue is the extradition treaty with the US - Sweden will have to make a choice - Assange or good relations with the U.S.
And this is were the deadlock is. Go to Sweden and get unfairly convicted (low probability) or get extradited to the US and get life in prison (high probability). Or both.
Should a Swedish court rule against extraditing Assange to the US, that will have exactly no impact on the relationship between the US and Sweden. No government can reasonably expect from another to break its own laws and it is certainly not in US interest for Sweden to go down that route. Not to mention that the US also reserves the right not to extradite to Sweden in individual cases.
I feel and respect your desire for and belief in integrity on the part of the system, but it's extremely naive to believe that.
Maybe it's the fact that I've lived in many different cultures (including Sweden for a year btw!) or maybe it's my age, but what I've taken away from life so far is this:
There's the story which all people (should) believe and then there's the shit that happens.
We're being lied to since we're born - santa claus, tooth fairy, God, then justice, patriotism, news, terrorism, traitors and so on.
Wikileaks is one of the tools which shows us a glimpse of the shit that really happens.
Corruption, under-the-table deals, intimidations - including members of foreign governments, illegal detentions of foreign citizens, surveillance..
Always treat 'the System' with healthy skepticism - and that is because the information that it broadcasts is often false - due to incompetence on the part of the 'reporters' (usually) or due to hidden agendas that so many groups have.
The world is a combination of many chess games played at the same time - in some you're a pawn, in some you're a rook, in some you're the board ;).
Some countries, especially in the Civil Law area allow sentences in absentia.
At least to me (but I'm not a lawyer), the current system violates european human rights. Either he is charged with a crime, in which case the court case should have started years ago (and ended), or he is not officially charged with a crime, in which case he should be free to go where ever he wants until he is charged. The current situation is absurd.
Why can't he be charged while he's still in the Embassy?
I understand that enforcing any judgement rendered by a court becomes a hang up because of his asylum, but that's a separate concern.
I'm really sad that his hasn't gone to the European Court of Human Right to decide against Sweden (or England, because it is actually England that is keeping him locked up).
Note that I do not have a high opinion of Assange, and it is quite possible that according to Swedish law he did rape those women. But he should have been entitled to a trial in absentia.
So he only has another 4 years to go
He refuses to go anywhere that makes him extraditable to the US. The Swedish, in turn, say roughly "our general rules are such that we can't guarantee that, and an exception isn't practically possible". Which makes sense, it's arguably better to have plain and simple rules than ones that cover every last edge case.
Personally, I think the Swedish should bend their laws. Globalisation is proceeding, and I think there'll be more country-straddling cases in the next century than there were in the past century. If that assumption is correct, writing rules to cover stances like Assange's is more reasonable than it has been.
IF there are US charges against him and IF the US tries to extradite then I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to fight it.
The current rules for extradition do have their reasons. You may not want Germany to be able to enforce its strict rules about nazi speech all over the world, or Turkey to be able to imprison people who've offended Erdogan.
Haggling over extradition is not unusual. For example, the US has promised not to use capital punishment in order to extradite people from countries that forbid capital punishment.
If there would be a request, as you say yourself, Sweden doesn't necessarily have to honor it, for example if Assange faces capital punishment. Assange could probably fight extradition in court also.
In any case this is nothing here to suggest that this is anything more than a smokescreen thrown up by Assange to distract from the fact that he's a rapist fleeing prosecution.
What is your opinion about what countries should or should not have to do based on? Your feelings about countries in general, or a specific empathy for Sweden?
> IF there are US charges against him and IF the US tries to extradite then I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to fight it.
You're absolutely sure? Why haven't you called Assange yet? I'm sure he'd be happy to know what you know.
Oh wait, there is. But Assange has chosen to (illegally) run away from a valid investigation.
As I had recalled earlier there was some damning evidence, if true, supporting the case that it is a conspiracy.
Supposedly the girls had denied rape allegations but later retracted or removed traces of the denials.
The evidence is an affidavit from Assange himself. Not many people would consider an affidavit from the accused "damming".
That's a kind way of saying "about as reliable as the idea Reiser was framed by the Russian mob."
If the UK and Sweden were to agree that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the US I imagine he'd be on the next flight to Stockholm. It's the extradition order that's blocking these two women getting justice, not Assange himself.
The Swedes have asked the UK to extradite him to Sweden.
The US hasn't asked either the UK nor Sweden to extradite him to the US. Is there even a court case against him in the US?
The extradition to the US seems to be Assange's own narrative. Why didn't the US reach out to get him on the streets of London?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/assange-why-is-doj-wikileaks-inve...
Why would a nation give a warrant for communication data associated with a person, close down that persons bank accounts, and send investigators to interview people close to the person and request evidence? Those are the supporting evidence, and while it doesn't conclusively prove anything, some people would conclude that it is enough to warrant caution.
This is the real issue. Whether or not he would likely be extradited if he were to return to Sweden.
Obviously Assange thinks he will otherwise he would have returned long ago.
If you think he would not be, then that should be the focus of your debate.
> You don't get to avoid prosecution for a crime because it is politically or legally inconvenient for you.
You clearly do, if the alternative for the people who want to prosecute you is to violate international norms and storm an embassy.
The UK isn't that complicit, because he's been here for a while and the UK has done fuck all.
If they really wanted him in the US they'd have spent a tenth of that and had him renditioned.
Our laws do also, by the way, make it impossible for us to extradite him to the US without the consent of the UK, so it seems awfully convenient that he claims that he would trust an illegal guarantee by the Swedish government but not that it would follow it's own laws. That is, unless the UK is the problem - but then why the hell did he go there in the first place, and stayed there?
If they think the demands for extradition are not fulfilled, they can say so, and that's the final word. There's nothing the US or UK can do but complain, there's no court they can apply to to overrule such a decision (because of course, the UK or US governments would certainly not allow themselves to be overruled by any independent court in a matter like this).
The national courts can overrule the government and say that an extradition is illegal, even if government wants to extradite. But the converse is not true: if the court thinks that an extradition would be permissible, the government can still stop it. They can even promise this beforehand, preempting the need for a court ruling. See sovereignty, again.
At worst this would be "impolite". The government of course loathes to do something like this, because then they have to answer for all the cases they did not intervene in with the courts and the civic service's many rulings. They would like to wash their hands of unpopular decisions. But they do in fact intervene quite a lot.
That the government claims "we must not meddle with the judiciary" as some holy principle is darkly ironic in this case. Because if you don't think it was political that Marianne Ny revived the case after it had been firmly dismissed by the previous prosecutor, how naive are you?
As for armchair Occams Razor/conspiracists theorist, the published line of events goes as:
First month in Sweden. Initial questioning only, followed by conversations between lawyer and prosecutor. Assange explicit asked if he could leave the country and got "yes" back. While in UK he had a previous schedule talk in Sweden which got suddenly surrounded by a massive police force. Following this was the international arrest order.
So I ask, what secretly American agents? What elaborate ruse? A ordinary investigation suddenly jumped from "this is barely worth anyones time" to "international arrest warrant and massive police forces". Assange theory is that an external diplomatic force, ie US, meddled with the investigation. The other theory being presented is that this unprecedented chain of events is just normal procedure.
If Sweden is serious about this case, they should accept Ecuador's invitation. Not doing so will further fuel questions about whether this case is a ruse.
[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idU...
"Swedish court upholds Assange warrant, clears way for questioning in October"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idU...
So as far as I can see, he will be questioned in place, in October.
Now he seems involved in some strange right-wing cabal involving everything from the Kremlin to Donald Trump? Was he that guy all along, or did he kind of turn into that side of things while stuck in the embassy?
Even allowing yourself to be interviewed on RT is discrediting. As I said, they are a Breitbart-esque state controlled propaganda arm of the Kremlin.
Steven Segal did this before, when he needed some spotlight:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/30/rt-russia-toda...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341
What jumps out of to me is that the initial prosecutor said she didn't believe Assange committed rape, so she dropped the case. But then Sweden's general prosecutor took the case - why would she do that? Is that typical in Sweden?
Another thing it's not made clear by BBC, although it may have been explained in other articles or by Assange himself, is how did the two women meet and already accused him of rape within the span of 3 days?
>Included in the leak was a list of high-profile donors from 2008 and the ambassadorship they received in exchange for their large donation to the DNC and Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA). Essentially, Obama was auctioning off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. The largest donor listed at contributions totaling over $3.5 million, Matthew Barzun, served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011, served as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 reelection campaign, and now serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Oh, I don't think that will help.
Particularly when the Ecuadorean embassy keeps throwing curve balls by blocking requests and insisting on asking the questions themselves.
Ms. Ardin hosted Assange six days after the alleged incident and threw party for him.
Ms. Wilen and Assange separated in good mood afterwards and had breakfast together.
They went to police in order to persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases and after the police said they cold not do such thing they basically asked the police "if they could have been raped or molested" without never reporting rape or molestation. In the prosecutors report girls describe sex as unpleasant and that they did not like it. Under Swedish law police and the prosecution are required to register and prosecute all possible rape offenses of which they become aware. Prosecutors even dropped the case once.
As far as I understand, this is just procedural limbo. Swedish prosecutors are required to continue with hearing and Assange is freaked out of his mind because the case is so absurd.
I don't agree with those who claim that Swedish rape laws are bad, but I think they are very different from other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#/media/File:Ra...
Unfortunately, due to the media people now associate Assange with "rape."
I grew up thinking rape meant something completely different than whatever happened here, be it, at the worst, what sounds like unpleasant and regrettable consensual sex.
Sweden is not a "banana republic" or whatever you're trying to imply here.
Going on since the forced sterilization, German troop transports, extradition of baltic citizens to the soviet union and seizure of newspapers before publication in the days of the second world war .... continuing to today with the Da Costa case, the Egyptians kidnapped and sent to torture by the CIA with help of the Swedish government, the pediatrician accused of murder, the whole Thomas Quick embarrassment .... the list can be made rather long.
And there is obviously a great deal of pride and prestige put into this case by the attorney, who has not been exactly working their ass off to get the investigation going forward - even bending their own rules quite a bit with the obvious intention to inflict maximum discomfort to Julian Assange - and that makes me distrust their honesty and the entire basis for this case.
At the very worst, this is not a case of rape in the traditional definition of the word. At worst, it is a modern interpretation as what qualifies as rape, as in "I invited him to sleep with me and stay at my apartment, and we were sleeping together for a week, but then a few weeks after we had sex I later regretted it."
There is presently a scandal in Sweden regarding how bad the Swedish police and the courts work. The justice system write off cases easily. In many parts of the country, after office hours there are hours of travel for the closest police (if they happen to be free).
Recently it was found that the police doesn't just have the lowest solving percentage in history, they hide that information. And so on.
But in this Assange case, the justice system work hard; it seems they'd follow Assange to the gates of Hell...
(That said -- imho, no part in that circus has any credibility whatsoever.)
If they'd follow Assange to the gates of Hell, they've just fly to the embassy and interview him there
(I'm not certain if Assange should be sent to a prison in the US or not. Releasing information, which certainly e.g. China and Russia already have, is not bad. On the other hand, releasing secret information must be prosecuted for a state's good.)
Rather, crime in Sweden is deemed important if a case reach the media. That is a more likely explanation to the situation (without external influences).
So e.g. the case of the old man getting a gun to his head I noted above will probably be solved now, if it still is possible after so long a time.
(And e.g. removing the condom during consensual sex, like Assange, is defined as "rape" in Sweden, but is hardly the upper half of that definition.)
EDIT: Before you reply angrily, please read the exact details of the cases. It's more subtle than you think. Just saying "but it's rape!" doesn't cut it here.
Based on Sweden's chequered history with renditions I don't blame Assange for being reluctant to face the charges. But that doesn't mean he did or didn't do anything wrong.
Standard immigrant-hatred. Very much en vogue throughout Europe right now.
All of these are covered in all the major news sites. The poster your responded to belongs to our equivalent of Trump supporters, meaning that, yes, there is a tiny bit of truth in what he's saying (there are some minor problems with violance and rape amongst the refugees) but the extent is extremely exaggerated and fueled by nationalism, paranoia and xenophobia as well as a complete lack of care about the truth.
https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexu...
Here you can see some stats that shows the real statistics, and as you can see the levels are stable. Please note also that this isn't only for rape, but all kinds of crimes with a sexual component (i.e. everything from groping, spreading nude pictures, sexual harassment etc).