Assange 'to leave' Ecuador embassy
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Note that it is (naturally) in Swedish, however I will translate the actual allegation (under the title 'Övergreppet') here below, english is not my native tongue so if anyone else who knows swedish have any remarks on the translation, be kind to let me know:
Sexual Assault
They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass.
They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'.
She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night.
She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards.
She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans.
On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian.
Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive.
She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby.
They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills.
His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour.
After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would.
She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills).
After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'.
The guy lived 40 years with no sex charges and then immediately after pissing off the most powerful agencies in the world he's got two strange ones. It's possible he made criminal mistakes but even if so it's likely he was being manipulated. He easily could have been drugged without his knowledge.
On a related note: It don't believe punishment for the charges brought against him is not severe enough to really warrant such a move from the side of the spy agencies. The damage had already been done, bringing the allegations against him in a public court in Sweden might retroactively damage Assanges credentials a little, but the documents stood quite well on their own and the expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low prison sentence in a Swedish prison. I just don't buy that. It's not worth the effort.
And let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape and he's only wanted for questioning. I believe that this is what they are saying because it's impossible to justify any other stance based on the lack of evidence...
Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets I do love the blind belief that Assange is the victim of a highly successful multi-government conspiracy over a number of years.
How do you come to the conclusion that governments are poor at keeping secrets? There have been relatively few leaks of consequence, and governments have done a great job of making an example of the people doing the leaking. Manning is in prison, Snowden is in exile, Assange is locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Serious journalists like Greenwald have to base themselves in third-world countries.
So while governments are perhaps mediocre at protecting data, they can certainly go after anybody who places it in the public domain, and this fear effect is a much stronger deterrent than anything else they could do.
This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to trial.
"Questioning" is an awkward translation and does not mean what you think it means.
It has been debated to death in all those Assange threads.
Please read the article in New Statesman that another poster helpfully linked to somewhere in this thread.
Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): Even though Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some, including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a fugitive on the run.
In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge.
I wonder if you will read it?
The concern has not been the sexual assault changes. The concern been that once Assange is in Swedish hands, the U.S. will unveil a warrant for his arrest, and Sweden will happily extradite him. And then he's tortured and rots in a maximum security prison.
That's the concern.
Given the lengths the U.S. has gone to in order to obtain people associated with intelligence leaks, including forcing a presidential plane to the ground, I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.
The rules are much harder to extradite from Sweden than from the UK. Why the elaborate set up to make things harder?
And the current situation makes it even more absurd. They would first need to extradite him back to the UK, and then to the US. No one has so far been able to show how it could be done in any other way.
Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition.
But they couldn't, that's the whole point.
You've presupposed that the various organizations that are quite literally the only "legitimate" authorities in their respective jurisdictions are above bending/changing the rules ever so slightly for this one case.
What prevents the UK from just storming the Ecuadorian embassy and arresting Assange? Hundreds or possibly thousands of years of foreign relations precedent and agreement. Is it worth breaking with that tradition to arrest Assange? Probably not.
But whatever treaty "prevents" Sweden from extraditing him to the US without first sending him back to the UK is probably a lot flimsier. And easier to say "look we only sent him to Sweden since we knew he had to come back through the UK in order to be extradited to the US" and the UK govt officials look good, the US is happy and Sweden doesn't have the US do whatever it is they'll be holding over their heads.
Before you say "but the law prevents this!" just look at the UN. Why is that body such a joke? Because none of the nations are really bound by whatever the UN rules because they're all sovereign governments. They are the ultimate authorities in the territories that they administer and as such are not accustomed to HAVING to play by any rules.
Any rules they do play by are part of a complicated calculus to get what they also want. Diplomatic immunity and embassies being "sovereign" territory aren't because anyone really believes in it for anyone else. They just want it for themselves so they go along with it for others such that it doesn't get taken away from them.
Torture is against international law but the US has been doing precisely that under two different administrations at gitmo. Given that this is a FACT please explain what MAKES Sweden not extradite Assange to the US after they get him from the UK.
He also lived 40 years without being a major international celebrity. He wouldn't exactly be the first person in history to be corrupted by fame and the (oftentimes imagined) power that comes with it.
Correlation != causation.
Well, until now.
I'm not surprised one of the women backed down, they were both being harassed by idiots online for months.
"Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims [...] Emmerson is not vouching for the accuracy of these accounts but merely offering them as summaries of the charges against his client."
His lawyer was being quite careful not to say "yeah, my client had sex with a sleeping woman without her consent, but it's okay!", he was saying "if the complaint is true, and he did these things, it would still be okay". Which is lucky for Assange, because the court has ruled that it really would not be okay. :)
Source: http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concede...
More informed parties with more understanding of the case, such as Eva Joly, one of the most famous lawyers in Europe, is on Assange's side, and described the Swedish 'minor rape' charges IIRC as being extremely particular to Sweden and nothing like rape as other countries see it, in fact they should not be called rape.
She felt so strongly about the improper handling of the case that she went to Sweden visit the prosecutor to point out the tools available for moving the case forward, but Marianne Ny refused to meet with her.
Similarly, "feminist icon Naomi Wolf" in a "debate with Jaclyn Friedman of Women, Action & the Media on Democracy Now!" Wolf defended Assange as a victim of political persecution:
“If you are going to take the issue of rape seriously,” Wolf said, “the person who is engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, ‘I don’t want this’ and again and again and again these women did not say, ‘this is not consensual.’ Assange was shocked when these were brought up as complaints because he had no idea that this was not a consensual situation.”
I trust these people, with respect and hard won reputations to uphold, far more than some student website.
Here's the definition of rape: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
Basically, rape is defined as penetration, without consent, and without a reasonable belief in consent. Someone who is sleeping cannot consent, and you cannot therefore have a reasonable belief in that person's consent (if you're aware they're asleep, at any rate). Thus under UK law, an allegation of penetration of a sleeping person is an allegation of rape.
(The law is the same in most US states, Canada, Australia, Scotland, NZ, and many, but not all, European countries. Even places where it doesn't count as rape, it's generally a serious crime. In Germany that would amount to an allegation of "abuse of persons unable to resist", which can carry a stiff penalty.)
Allow me to quote from the actual legal opinion of an actual court (whose opinions, in fact, do represent the law):
'However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.'
And that's that. UK courts ruled—twice—that Assange is alleged to have committed acts that in the UK would be rape, full stop.
Anyway, he hasn't even been on trial. How can you be so sure he is guilty? I think that's an uncivilized attitude.
Edit: since I have googled now, apparently he is not wanted in Sweden for a trial, just for a questioning.
Next he wanted guarantees from Swedish authorities that if he were to travel to Sweden, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Swedes tried to explain that no such guarantees can be made: authorities can only process requests for extradition once made. Giving a guarantee up front would be illegal as it completely circumvents the laws regarding extraditions.
These two things combined meant Assange complained "I can't be questioned here nor be guaranteed I won't be extradited to the US!", both of which are ridiculous complaints when you read the laws involved.
It's just an accident of terminology that the relevant Swedish legal phrase translates to "questioning" in English.
The main question is: what is there to gain for Sweden by offering any guarantees to Assange (other than having him show up sooner)? It's a matter of relations with the US (which are closer than they should be as Snowden revealed) versus the matter of human rights. A delicate decision without a given answer.
In Sweden one probably wants to keep the possibilities open and delay all investigations regarding refugee status, extradition requests etc to when they actually have Assange. If he wants to wait several years until he needs to visit a hospital, neither the US nor the Swedes really care: his whereabouts are known.
Your newly suggested scope is to whether Sweden should give guarantees and accept Assange's generous offer to return to Sweden physically with a guarantee he will not be handed to the US.
The fact is that Assange has not been charged with any crime, left Sweden with its blessing after responding to queries on the case (which was already thrown out of court), and as an innocent member of the global public is certainly not obliged to make such generous offers.
The Swedish prosecutor Marriane Ny's continued lack of movement on the case and media-directed table-thumping, even ignoring her own bar association, prominent international lawyers, and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, has been extremely telling.
You might have missed that the venue of a trial is usually pre-determined, certainly not chosen at the whim of the defendant.
Do you think she should go to Italy? If she doesn't go, would that make you believe she is guilty?
But the difference is: no one in their right mind expected Italy to let Ms. Knox leave for the United States when she was in custody.
Only when she was acquitted, the arrest warrant was lifted, and according to Italian law she was free to go, was she able to leave.
So I am really not sure what you are saying? WOuld you have said Amanda Knox should have gone to Italy, had she already been in the US before the first trial?
I don't understand the distinction you make between the two cases. Both people are wanted for trial in another country.
The difference is that noone forces Ms. Knox to Italy, because the USA don't extraditre their citizens, I guess.
Assange isn't in Australia. He's in the UK, and the UK forces him to Sweden.
If you don't see the difference, then there's nothing more I can do or say.
Given that, I have the feeling that he was actually trying to avoid the trial and using the fear of extradition to the US as a convenient excuse. I may quite well be wrong on that, but that's how I currently feel.
Read the New Statesman article linked somewhere in this thread. You'll find that most of what people on the Internet say about the legal issues is factually wrong.
Not everything is as black and white as you appear to make it.
Apparently you trust the system, so maybe you can not understand how it feels if you don't trust the system. I hope you'll never have issue to worry about it.
Edit: answering here because HN won't let me reply - The issue is not that you trust the system and want him on trial, that's a fair attitude. The issue is that you assume he is guilty because he avoids the trial (or rather, questioning).
Perhaps it makes logical sense if you assume everybody would trust the system. But perhaps you can accept that not everybody trusts the system, and that therefore their avoiding it doesn't prove guilt.
In fact I think your attitude demonstrates a typical failure of the system. Most people (who represent the system) are prone to jumping to conclusions and illogical assumptions (he runs so he must be guilty).
It's understandable that Assange might not trust the system, but that does not mean that I have to support that. It's obviously not a better system if everybody on his own gets to decide which parts of the legal system apply to him or not. It's not an opt-out system.
Given that, even if that were not the case: I trust the UK less than Sweden. The alleged scheme makes no sense: It would be the same for the UK and Sweden could only loose. Unless somebody gives me a credible reason what Sweden has to gain from allowing extralegal action of the US under its legal system, I'm sticking with my opinion.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
Accompanied by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilén visits a Stockholm police station — by their own account, for the limited purpose of obtaining assistance in compelling Assange to take an HIV test. Anna Ardin is present during the interview with Ms. Wilén, which is conducted by a friend and political ally of Ms. Ardin.
What I do know is that a person is wanted for questioning regarding acts of sexual violence, that person has fled to another country and has refused to return for said questioning, claiming some conspiracy to send him to the USA.
Yep. A lot like prison, in fact. Which raises an interesting question: As this drags on, at some point wouldn't it have been easier for him to cooperate, go to Sweden, and take his lumps? He could just about be out on parole by now; instead he still has it hanging over his head.
The whole thing seems very short sighted; the UK and Sweden aren't going to just get bored. Is he hoping to drag things out until he dies, or what?
If he goes to Sweden (which I would consider highly likely if he in fact does exit the embassy and gets apprehended by the UK authorities) I suspect the chances of him doing any significant jail time as a result of the case there are slim, so then the only thing that he should still be worried about is eventual extradition to the US on charges still to be brought, but the spotlight will be very much on Sweden pulling any fast ones in the extradition process there.
Time will tell.
That's entirely impossible under EU law. If extradited to UK to Sweden, he can ONLY be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK.
Scenario A: The UK would agree (in which case, he didn't need to be extradited to Sweden, as he was already in UK custody).
Scenario B: The UK would not agree (in which case, he cannot be extradited from Sweden).
Nobody has ever been able to outline any way in which being extradited to Sweden could have increased his risk of being extradited to the US. If the US even wanted him; the UK is well known for rolling over to US extradition requests, and he was in UK custody for an extended period of time. The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try.
"Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. [...] there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States [...] the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom."
Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05...
Highly illegal, and had our foreign minister not been murdered, she would have been held accountable as there was a huge outrage over the whole debacle. To me this says two things: 1) "the law" didn't mean much last time, so Assange is right to be careful 2) his public profile together with the last incident in fresh memory means he is probably at very little risk to be treated illegally in Sweden, especially as elections are coming up in September.
My guess: he'll go to Sweden, he'll be questioned by police, then let go. Seeing as he spent a couple of years hiding to avoid this, he will probably find this surprising, and no one else will.
Only during the investigation and any subsequent criminal proceeding in Sweden. After these are completed, or abandoned, he could be extradited from Sweden to the US. From the blog post linked in section two of the New Statesman article:
"After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government. But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’)." [1]
[1] http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seek...
When has the law ever got in the way? Governments can no longer be trusted. Only within the last week it was revealed the the UK tried to have evidence that they allowed the US to torture people on a UK owned island redacted from reports.
I've always been for big government/welfare state etc. but recently I've been becoming more and more libertarian. Politicians are untrustworthy and arguably evil people. They don't give one shit about us unless they are running for election. In that case they will lie and promise and then break those promises when we elect them. I've come to the conclusion that although I want a government that helps it's citizens and I'm fine with paying high taxes for that it's no longer worth the risk to our freedom.
No it isn't. You have admitted yourself that it would be possible if the UK gave consent (which they would).
> The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try.
This is by no means obvious. There is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks. These typically take a long time, and it was likely not complete when the Swedish extradition request was made. It seems plausible that the US will wait until after the Swedish investigation has played out before serving their own warrant.
edit: The New Statesman article you referenced has a large inaccuracy. Details: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-sta...
Anyways, I'd rather sit in a room for the rest of my life than to face what could await him in the US:
Solitary confinement for the rest of his life (if not, maybe being raped), torture, forcing him to answer prison wards every 30 minutes - even during nights - to make sure he doesn't commit suicide (that's what they did to Manning)
I'd probably even prefer suicide to that treatment.
iirc uk police were waiting outside for him to leave. he'll get detained once he sets foot outside of the embassy.
In the two years Assange was imprisoned in a Embassy, he lifted 5 times a week. He also changed his wardrobe to black suits and black shades. His hair also changed: It was now completely missing, Julian now wore a bald head.
Today was the day. He had to leave the Embassy and step out to Great Britain's soil. These Brits where always waiting for him outside, always eager to attain him.
But lucky for Assange, nobody expected him to be a personal body guard of a leaving diplomat. He just walked outside with the other guards and nobody checked his papers. No Officer recognized him or expected a nerd with muscles. After some meters, he split up from the group and vanished in the streets of London.
Rumors say, even today he is roaming the streets, assassinating US spies and lobbyists.
I prefer the version where Anonymous sends 1000 Julian Assange lookalikes to flood the embassy's entrance and that allows for Julian to escape through the sewer
Distribute the insurance file passwords before you exit the embassy!
This is character assassination, pure and simple. Trial by media. There are of course still more points, these are just off the top of my head. I saw the sorry state of his Wikipedia article and took it upon myself to introduce some of the facts, so became familiar with some of them. If anyone still thinks it's a legitimate case at this point, I'm sorry, but they're just goddamn stupid.
More info @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange