Spying on a hostile intelligence broker sheltering from the justice system of an allied power in a foreign embassy while continuing to run hostile intel and propaganda ops against the nation the intelligence agency works for and its allies?
How is that not in the purview of an intelligence agency? Your question is like asking how frying chicken is in the purview of a KFC.
There, fixed that for you.
> taking refuge in a country (or rather its embassy) that provided a safe harbour.
Political sanctuary is an important tradition - even if's used by people who I or you would like to see punished for things.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-t...
Especially when they flee from accusations of a serous crime that the government has pretty lousy track record at solving. He flees to the UK, and you expect the prosecution to go "oh well, that's like 2 hours flight away, we'll never get him now"?
Basically the Swedish authorities thought that going after him more than they already had would be too much for the level of suspicion and the crime.
No, it had not seemed to have such cause.
First, even assuming the complaint against merited an investigation to begin with, the fact that the prosecution did not choose to charge him formally on the basis of the evidence available to it means the charge did not merit an international investigation (especially one which amounts to just questioning the accused).
Second, Sweden asked that Assange be held and/or extradited for questioning or interrogation. It is not clear why an uncharged person (even if not a journalist) should be arrested without even being officially officially charged. I am not well-versed in UK law (especially UK constitutional law, as they don't have a constitution) - but I doubt that's valid.
Third, suppose Sweden did have a legal right to require a questioning/investigation. Assange offered, throughout his time at the embassy, to undergo this at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedish authorities did not accept this offer. Remember, by Swedish law Assange was never considered more than a suspect, and assumed to be innocent; meaning there needed to be a good reason to refuse such an arrangement.
Fourth, the person whose claims opened the investigation against Assange withdrew (most? all?) of those claims; and Swedish authorities eventually closed the case.
and there's more...
but the last point worth mentioning is that as early as 2013, Sweden wanted to _drop_ the extradition request, but the UK authorities _dissuaded_ Swedish representatives from doing so (!)
More reading and references on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
People who are very well versed in UK law heard these arguments from Assange's excellent lawyers and decided otherwise.
[Actually it's quite normal to be arrested on suspicion of something before being charged in the UK, so their arguments were more focused on equivalence for international warrants and extradition purposes...]
> Third, suppose Sweden did have a legal right to require a questioning/investigation. Assange offered, throughout his time at the embassy, to undergo this at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedish authorities did not accept this offer. Remember, by Swedish law Assange was never considered more than a suspect, and assumed to be innocent; meaning there needed to be a good reason to refuse such an arrangement.
I'd have said the fact that the Swedish prosecutor requested the interview whilst he was in Sweden in order to formally charge him and arrest him, and he responded by leaving the country and insisting on only holding the interview in an environment where the second part wasn't possible seemed like a pretty good reason tbh. Similarly, if you are a fugitive charges from the US, the police are unlikely to accept your gracious offer of allowing them to do the reading Miranda rights bit by telephone video link or on foreign territory without an extradition treaty, which says absolutely nothing about the strength of the case.
> Fourth, the person whose claims opened the investigation against Assange withdrew (most? all?) of those claims; and Swedish authorities eventually closed the case.
The Swedish authorities closed the case and [publicly] reopened it after at the request of the lawyer acting for the women, which is nearly as unhelpful to the argument that Swedish prosecutors were desperate to pin things on Assange for foreign policy reasons as it is to the argument that the women aren't interested. Every time the case gets closed by Swedish prosecutors there's a statement from the women's lawyer that she's working on getting it reopened, and they're on at least their second by now...
Obviously because it involves Assange, the majority of articles covering the case have some sort of slant and assumption about Assange's motivations one way or another, but one of the few things that isn't seriously in dispute is that Swedish prosecutors had already interviewed Assange and the difference between this interview and the ones he turned up as requested for in Sweden was that this one was intended to end with him being detained awaiting trial. That's why Assange turned up multiple times in person to speak with both Swedish and UK law enforcement when they didn't have a valid basis to detain him for any period of time, but didn't attend this particular interview in Sweden and wouldn't go back there to do so.
Well, people who are well-versed in UK and international law have opined that Assange should not have been extradited the Sweden, that his request for political asylum was a worthy one, and that the UK was unjustified in demanding to place him in custody during his time at the embassy. So, I'll want to see the actual argument to change my mind.
> the Swedish prosecutor requested the interview whilst he was in Sweden ... and he responded by leaving the country
Ok, now you seem to be intentionally mis-reprenting the facts.
Assange had already been questioned about the case, denying the allegations. Later, Assange _asked_ to be interviewed by prosecutors before leaving Sweden. He was told (through his lawyer IIANM) that he could just leave, without having been interviewed.
> the Swedish prosecutor requested the interview whilst he was in Sweden in order to formally charge him and arrest him
You realize this does not even make sense, right?. There is no need for a second questioning (and probably not even a first) to be able to charge or arrest a person for suspicion of having committed a crime. If the charge or arrest is contingent on the suspect providing certain information, then - the prosecutor can't know in advance whether or not they will charge or arrest.
> The Swedish authorities closed the case and [publicly] reopened it after at the request of the lawyer acting for the women
I believe you mean the closing and re-opening while Assange was still in Sweden? Or are you talking about the events of 2019?
> the argument that Swedish prosecutors were desperate to pin things on Assange for foreign policy reason
I never made an argument about desperation. However, the Swedish authorities were certainly conflicted. The police officer who first looked at the case decided it didn't merit investigation; the courts at different times denied some prosecutorial elements what they were asking for, and they had to take alternate routes. Add that to the timing of the 2019 actions, the refusal to interview Assange in the UK and the excessive interest by high-ranking officials to pursue what should indeed have been thrown out given the available evidence - and you get a strong suspicion of external pressure. Add the UK authorities _known_ external pressure as far as the extradition request is concerned and the suspicions lead towards joint US-UK interests.
> Assange had already been questioned about the case, denying the allegations. Later, Assange _asked_ to be interviewed by prosecutors before leaving Sweden. He was told (through his lawyer IIANM) that he could just leave, without having been interviewed.
No, it's just that when I'm presented with the well established facts [i] Assange met with Swedish prosecutors in Sweden on more than one occasion and [ii] Assange left the country and refuses to return, going to extreme lengths to do so, I am more inclined to believe the prosecutor's account that they communicated that he should show up to the police to be charged and he left the country instead instead than Assange's insistence that they only wanted a nice cosy chat and he was desperate to see them and leaving the country on the same day was coincidental and we definitely shouldn't read anything into the extreme lengths he's taken to avoid returning since. It doesn't help that Assange's Swedish lawyer was forced to admit in court that he wasn't telling the truth when he said the Swedish prosecutor didn't contact him during the week Assange left the country (and to change his story to 'actually I just couldn't get a message to Assange in time')....
> You realize this does not even make sense, right?. There is no need for a second questioning (and probably not even a first) to be able to charge or arrest a person for suspicion of having committed a crime. If the charge or arrest is contingent on the suspect providing certain information, then - the prosecutor can't know in advance whether or not they will charge or arrest.
See above. I'm afraid that I am more inclined to believe Swedish prosecutors' explanation that under Swedish legal procedure a formal charging procedure is made in person, with an internationally valid arrest warrant being issued if they refuse to show up, than the arguments of a random person on the internet whose grasp of Swedish legal procedure is probably not the best...
> I believe you mean the closing and re-opening while Assange was still in Sweden? Or are you talking about the events of 2019?
Both actually [with different lawyers]
> Add the UK authorities _known_ external pressure as far as the extradition request is concerned and the suspicions lead towards joint US-UK interests.
And the women's interests? Or do they not matter?