5 ms·

The fact is that he was questioned before, stayed in the country and left after they allowed him to leave. Later Sweden decided to change it's mind and requeste

by quonn 11y ago

The fact is that he was questioned before, stayed in the country and left after they allowed him to leave. Later Sweden decided to change it's mind and requested an extradition - just for questioning him, which they could easily have done locally (and, by the way, other countries do this) - which is, perhaps, not very common. And _coincidently_ this happened while Wikileaks was all over the media and the US was infuriated. I can't blame him for being worried.

trevelyan 11y ago
Worth remembering also that the reason Sweden wanted to extradite for questioning is that if they charged him first they would have been required to actually make the evidence public and Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Apologists for Sweden never seem to have read the UK high court judgment or seem familiar with the actual legal reasoning behind the extradition request. To secure extradition, the Swedish prosecutor needed to insist that Assange was only wanted for questioning (else they should charge) but since questioning alone is not a sufficient basis for extradition requests they also needed to state it was extremely likely Assange would be arrested once questioned. It is of course nonsensical for the Swedes to refuse to question Assange in London if speaking to him were at all material to the case. As such, their refusal to do so speaks plainly to the obviously political nature of the persecution.
- rmc 11y ago
  > Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Extradition is only allowed if it's for a crime that's illegal in both countries. Assange's legal team repeatidly challenged the extradition on the grounds that it wasn't a crime in the UK. The UK legal system consistantly said that it was. Remember one of the charges/claims is that he had sex with someone who was asleep. That's a crime in the UK and Sweden.
  - trevelyan 11y ago
    Assange has never been found guilty of a crime or even charged with one. The British legal ruling was not over guilt or innocence but simply over the bureaucratic definition of a crime. If the Swedish government reprinted the exact same request with your name on it, you would also face extradition without the ability to challenge the request on the grounds that its allegations are not factual. This is the key point that apologists for Sweden miss. The prosecution could have charged Assange and got an extradition warrant that way. They didn't because doing so would have required a court filing and granted Assange rights to a speedy trial and freedom from indefinite detention. Interviewing Assange in London was equally impossible -- once it was done the Swedish prosecutor would have been legally required to either charge Assange or close the case. And charging the case would have required a court filing, etc. etc..... Arguing that Assange would have been found guilty of rape also shows a lack of knowledge of the case. Despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep and has in fact made statements contradicting your claims and accusing the authorities of railroading her. I do not personally know what happened that evening, but her description is striking in showing Assange complying with every request she made. The only possible breach of consent lies in the possibility that Assange broke a condom deliberately, but this is apparently contradicted by forensic evidence which shows the breakage was due to wear and tear. Add on the woman's affectionate treatment of Assange both before and after the night in question, and the way her change in behavior followed her realization that he was sleeping with someone else, and it seems rather obvious that while Assange may have been a cad the rape allegations simply don't hold water.
    - rmc 11y ago
      > Assange has never been ... charged with one The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says: > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange. > despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep Assange is/was wanted in Sweden for 4 cases, with at least 2 different women. One of which is the charge that[1]: > 3. ... deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide. [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
rmc 11y ago
"questioning" is misleading. He was going to be arrested in Sweden.
- quonn 11y ago
  It's not misleading since questioning him is exactly what they wanted to do, what they had to do first according to their own laws and what they should have done. Sweden might also like to arrest him, but as we know he did not like to be arrested and it seems Ecuador did not like it either. There was a fairly high-profile money laundering case in the conservative party in Germany at the end of the 90's. It involved a German arms trader who lived in Canada. They wanted to question him and, had he been in Germany, he would presumably have been arrested. Alas, he was in Canada. So they made the effort to travel and question him there, if I remember correctly. (But eventually he was extradited.)

by quonn 11y ago

trevelyan 11y ago

Worth remembering also that the reason Sweden wanted to extradite for questioning is that if they charged him first they would have been required to actually make the evidence public and Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Apologists for Sweden never seem to have read the UK high court judgment or seem familiar with the actual legal reasoning behind the extradition request. To secure extradition, the Swedish prosecutor needed to insist that Assange was only wanted for questioning (else they should charge) but since questioning alone is not a sufficient basis for extradition requests they also needed to state it was extremely likely Assange would be arrested once questioned. It is of course nonsensical for the Swedes to refuse to question Assange in London if speaking to him were at all material to the case. As such, their refusal to do so speaks plainly to the obviously political nature of the persecution.

rmc 11y ago
> Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law. Extradition is only allowed if it's for a crime that's illegal in both countries. Assange's legal team repeatidly challenged the extradition on the grounds that it wasn't a crime in the UK. The UK legal system consistantly said that it was. Remember one of the charges/claims is that he had sex with someone who was asleep. That's a crime in the UK and Sweden.
- trevelyan 11y ago
  Assange has never been found guilty of a crime or even charged with one. The British legal ruling was not over guilt or innocence but simply over the bureaucratic definition of a crime. If the Swedish government reprinted the exact same request with your name on it, you would also face extradition without the ability to challenge the request on the grounds that its allegations are not factual. This is the key point that apologists for Sweden miss. The prosecution could have charged Assange and got an extradition warrant that way. They didn't because doing so would have required a court filing and granted Assange rights to a speedy trial and freedom from indefinite detention. Interviewing Assange in London was equally impossible -- once it was done the Swedish prosecutor would have been legally required to either charge Assange or close the case. And charging the case would have required a court filing, etc. etc..... Arguing that Assange would have been found guilty of rape also shows a lack of knowledge of the case. Despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep and has in fact made statements contradicting your claims and accusing the authorities of railroading her. I do not personally know what happened that evening, but her description is striking in showing Assange complying with every request she made. The only possible breach of consent lies in the possibility that Assange broke a condom deliberately, but this is apparently contradicted by forensic evidence which shows the breakage was due to wear and tear. Add on the woman's affectionate treatment of Assange both before and after the night in question, and the way her change in behavior followed her realization that he was sleeping with someone else, and it seems rather obvious that while Assange may have been a cad the rape allegations simply don't hold water.
  - rmc 11y ago
    > Assange has never been ... charged with one The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says: > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange. > despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep Assange is/was wanted in Sweden for 4 cases, with at least 2 different women. One of which is the charge that[1]: > 3. ... deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide. [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

rmc 11y ago

"questioning" is misleading. He was going to be arrested in Sweden.

quonn 11y ago
It's not misleading since questioning him is exactly what they wanted to do, what they had to do first according to their own laws and what they should have done. Sweden might also like to arrest him, but as we know he did not like to be arrested and it seems Ecuador did not like it either. There was a fairly high-profile money laundering case in the conservative party in Germany at the end of the 90's. It involved a German arms trader who lived in Canada. They wanted to question him and, had he been in Germany, he would presumably have been arrested. Alas, he was in Canada. So they made the effort to travel and question him there, if I remember correctly. (But eventually he was extradited.)