7 ms·

Sweden's long-standing refusal to interview Assange in Ecuador's embassy was most probably due to pressure from the US. I wonder what element could have changed

by benevol 10y ago

Sweden's long-standing refusal to interview Assange in Ecuador's embassy was most probably due to pressure from the US. I wonder what element could have changed that. Edit: Or nothing at all has changed and the aim of the visit is purely "discovery".

krylon 10y ago
This is slightly paranoid speculation, but consider the following scenario: The US have realized that Assange is not coming out as long as the risk of arrest and extradition looms over his head. So Sweden now does the interview so they can drop the case without losing too much face. Assange goes free, and the US look for another way to snatch him or have him arrested by some allied state. (I am not even sure they would necessarily want to have him extradited - if he got convicted of rape in Sweden and went to prison for a couple of years[1], they might find that an acceptable outcome.) [1] I have no clue what kind of prison time he would face. My gut feeling says 5-10 years, but my gut is not a lawyer and only has a very superficial knowledge of the Swedish criminal law.
- Cederfjard 10y ago
  I'm not going to try to translate the concepts, since I'm much too unversed in Swedish or any other law. The prison sentences for the crimes that may apply in his case seem as far as I can tell to range between six months and ten years (that is the harshest possible sentence for rape here in Sweden, and I can only imagine that it is given under very aggravating circumstances). Also bear in mind that almost every prisoner is released on parole after serving two thirds of their sentence - anything else is an exception.
mtgx 10y ago
Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents about Clinton that he's sure would lead to her indictment. And Obama is trying his hardest to help her avoid that. So maybe the US government is willing to "make a deal" with Assange through Sweden? Just a theory.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents > about Clinton That he got via FOI requests, iirc, so unlikely to be particularly exciting.
legulere 10y ago
How has any of this to do with the US? If the US wanted Assange extradited, they would have simply asked the UK, which is a closer ally to the US than Sweden. Why would Sweden help the US when the UK wouldn't? Edit: To clarify, Assange has been for years in the UK before he went into the embassy.
- themartorana 10y ago
  They have asked the UK. But by being in the Embassy, Assange is on sovereign soil, and it would be (politically) akin to the UK invading Ecuador. Now, grain-of-salt all that. I've read several things that a) say it's not exactly sovereign, but the political fallout of the U.K. entering the embassy could collapse the entire house of cards that is the Embassy system worldwide, b) states have been kidnapping and assassinating people on foreign soil for ages (see: United States, Russia, Israel, etc). I'm sure being stuck in the Embassy is seen, at least a little, as being contained. But if he ever stepped foot outside, that'd be the end of that.
  - hugh4 10y ago
    But they could have extradited him before he ever went into the embassy. They didn't. Only Sweden is currently attempting to extradite him.
    - afterwise 10y ago
      "attempting"?
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      > Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition. Not weeks, years. He left Sweden in 27 September 2010, and it wasn't until 14 June 2012 that he had exhausted his rights of appeal in the UK (short of any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). He was on bail for pretty much the entire period (he spend nine days in police custody prior to being granted bail, but I don't believe he was ever in custody after that).
Trombone12 10y ago
The long standing refusal was probably mostly down to the preference of the prosecutor regarding the circumstances of the questioning. In any case, she caved last year and since then its been a diplomatic squabble about why there is no progress, with Sweden giving no official comments (as per usual policy) and Ecuador boasting about how kind and full of compromises they are[1]. I don't expect much will be different now, especially as there is no impending deadline like there was last year. [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-...
gaius 10y ago
Nonsense. If you are wanted for a crime there is no country on Earth that lets you dictate to the police when and where they can have a word with you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  That's not what happened though. He dictated where the police were capable of having a word with him, and they chose not to do so there. It's totally possible that there are legitimate reasons for that (if you already have enough evidence to convict, there would be no reason to 'interview' someone except in an arrest-friendly setting), but it's still a worthwhile distinction. This isn't someone calling up the police and going "I'll talk to you, but only if you agree to meet me at Starbucks." It's someone leveraging international law to leave the police with only one option.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  Well that's nonsense. Do you honestly think most countries would rather let the charges expire rather than agreeing to do an interview outside of their jurisdiction.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  Apparently there is, because he could.
- hackuser 10y ago
  You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to have an attorney present, at least in one country.

by benevol 10y ago

krylon 10y ago

This is slightly paranoid speculation, but consider the following scenario: The US have realized that Assange is not coming out as long as the risk of arrest and extradition looms over his head. So Sweden now does the interview so they can drop the case without losing too much face. Assange goes free, and the US look for another way to snatch him or have him arrested by some allied state. (I am not even sure they would necessarily want to have him extradited - if he got convicted of rape in Sweden and went to prison for a couple of years[1], they might find that an acceptable outcome.) [1] I have no clue what kind of prison time he would face. My gut feeling says 5-10 years, but my gut is not a lawyer and only has a very superficial knowledge of the Swedish criminal law.

Cederfjard 10y ago
I'm not going to try to translate the concepts, since I'm much too unversed in Swedish or any other law. The prison sentences for the crimes that may apply in his case seem as far as I can tell to range between six months and ten years (that is the harshest possible sentence for rape here in Sweden, and I can only imagine that it is given under very aggravating circumstances). Also bear in mind that almost every prisoner is released on parole after serving two thirds of their sentence - anything else is an exception.

mtgx 10y ago

Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents about Clinton that he's sure would lead to her indictment. And Obama is trying his hardest to help her avoid that. So maybe the US government is willing to "make a deal" with Assange through Sweden? Just a theory.

peteretep 10y ago
> Assange did threaten to release a bunch of documents > about Clinton That he got via FOI requests, iirc, so unlikely to be particularly exciting.

legulere 10y ago

How has any of this to do with the US? If the US wanted Assange extradited, they would have simply asked the UK, which is a closer ally to the US than Sweden. Why would Sweden help the US when the UK wouldn't? Edit: To clarify, Assange has been for years in the UK before he went into the embassy.

themartorana 10y ago
They have asked the UK. But by being in the Embassy, Assange is on sovereign soil, and it would be (politically) akin to the UK invading Ecuador. Now, grain-of-salt all that. I've read several things that a) say it's not exactly sovereign, but the political fallout of the U.K. entering the embassy could collapse the entire house of cards that is the Embassy system worldwide, b) states have been kidnapping and assassinating people on foreign soil for ages (see: United States, Russia, Israel, etc). I'm sure being stuck in the Embassy is seen, at least a little, as being contained. But if he ever stepped foot outside, that'd be the end of that.
- hugh4 10y ago
  But they could have extradited him before he ever went into the embassy. They didn't. Only Sweden is currently attempting to extradite him.
  - afterwise 10y ago
    "attempting"?
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    > Between leaving Sweden and entering the Ecuadorian embassy Assange spent several weeks in UK, while a British court decided on the validity of the European arrest warrent against him. Plenty of time for the US to demand his extradition. Not weeks, years. He left Sweden in 27 September 2010, and it wasn't until 14 June 2012 that he had exhausted his rights of appeal in the UK (short of any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). He was on bail for pretty much the entire period (he spend nine days in police custody prior to being granted bail, but I don't believe he was ever in custody after that).

Trombone12 10y ago

The long standing refusal was probably mostly down to the preference of the prosecutor regarding the circumstances of the questioning. In any case, she caved last year and since then its been a diplomatic squabble about why there is no progress, with Sweden giving no official comments (as per usual policy) and Ecuador boasting about how kind and full of compromises they are[1]. I don't expect much will be different now, especially as there is no impending deadline like there was last year. [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-...

gaius 10y ago

Nonsense. If you are wanted for a crime there is no country on Earth that lets you dictate to the police when and where they can have a word with you.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Bartweiss 10y ago
That's not what happened though. He dictated where the police were capable of having a word with him, and they chose not to do so there. It's totally possible that there are legitimate reasons for that (if you already have enough evidence to convict, there would be no reason to 'interview' someone except in an arrest-friendly setting), but it's still a worthwhile distinction. This isn't someone calling up the police and going "I'll talk to you, but only if you agree to meet me at Starbucks." It's someone leveraging international law to leave the police with only one option.
ryanlol 10y ago
Well that's nonsense. Do you honestly think most countries would rather let the charges expire rather than agreeing to do an interview outside of their jurisdiction.
kazagistar 10y ago
Apparently there is, because he could.
hackuser 10y ago
You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to have an attorney present, at least in one country.