5 ms·

The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sen

by Tycho 7y ago

The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sense is when you realise it’s a ruse to limit or remove his freedom, because he crossed the US government.

ChrisSD 7y ago
Sweden followed all normal procedures for an extradition request within the EU. Both the UK high court and the appeals court ruled he should be extradited to answer for accusations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. If he feared the US, why the heck did he flee from Sweden to the UK in the first place? The UK is notorious for its one sided extradition treaty with the US.
- Tycho 7y ago
  Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit. Here's some of the ridiculous things: * the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially * the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station * the only actual formal accusation that one of the women is standing behind is that Assange tampered with a condom. How the heck is anyone supposed to investigate that? * the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor * once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist * for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward * now that they have a chance to prosecute him, of course they will not bother
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    Again, he was scared of the US so he fled to the UK. That makes sense to you? He had sex with someone who is asleep. Some who is asleep cannot consent. You understand that this is rape, right? The women involved does still want to take him to court and the Swedish Prosecution Authority is currently reviewing the matter. The other allegations have passed the statue of limitation and cannot be prosecuted. To be clear, the alleged offenses happened between 13 August 2010 and 18 August 2010. They were reported to the police on 20 August. Assange was interviewed on the 30th and had left Sweden by 27th September 2010, after an arrest warrant had been issued. They had tried to interview him before he left. On the 26 November 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued after hearings in both Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal (in which Assange's lawyer was present). The arrest warrant was issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Subsequently this warrant was certified by the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency. It was also upheld by a district judge on 24 February 2011 and by the High Court on 2 November 2011. So it's been thoroughly reviewed by two legal systems that both agree there is a case to answer.
    - Tycho 7y ago
      It is not established that he 'fled' to the UK, versus leaving with permission, and obviously if they really wanted to they could have stopped him leaving. It's not clear what exactly the accusation is or what the injured party actually wants. But the odds are that this is a ruse.
      - ChrisSD 7y ago
        His own lawyer admits[0] that Assange was informed that Swedish authority were seeking Assange for interrogation, although the lawyer apparently suffers from a certain amount of selective amnesia (as many lawyers do). It's incredibly clear what the accusations are even if you don't speak Swedish as they're spelled out in the European Arrest Warrant[1]: > On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. > It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-texts https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange... [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
DanBC 7y ago
> The case was ridiculous. So ridiculous he chose to hide in a broom cupboard for yearss rather than go to court for a trial.
- Tycho 7y ago
  He was hiding from extradition to the US. It's incredible that this is not obvious to you.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    Hiding... in the UK initially. He would have been safer from the US in almost any other country aside from the US itself.
    - Tycho 7y ago
      I doubt it. Look at Gary Mckinnon. I would rather be in the UK than Sweden. But regardless, he was on Ecuadorian soil.
      - ChrisSD 7y ago
        Sweden disallows extradition for political reasons. If, after fleeing to the UK, he'd agreed to be extradited back to Sweden then both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to any extradition request, which would have been a far better situation then the UK alone. Instead he ran from the UK authorities too. So it seems that Assange didn't have your faith in the UK. Either that or he was fleeing Sweden and not the US.
        Tycho 7y ago
        Why would he be worried about standing trial in Sweden? There's no way the accusations can be proven. Explain to me how the prosecution would work? If Sweden has a remotely sane legal system the case would be thrown out of court.

by Tycho 7y ago

ChrisSD 7y ago

Sweden followed all normal procedures for an extradition request within the EU. Both the UK high court and the appeals court ruled he should be extradited to answer for accusations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. If he feared the US, why the heck did he flee from Sweden to the UK in the first place? The UK is notorious for its one sided extradition treaty with the US.

Tycho 7y ago
Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit. Here's some of the ridiculous things: * the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially * the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station * the only actual formal accusation that one of the women is standing behind is that Assange tampered with a condom. How the heck is anyone supposed to investigate that? * the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor * once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist * for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward * now that they have a chance to prosecute him, of course they will not bother
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  Again, he was scared of the US so he fled to the UK. That makes sense to you? He had sex with someone who is asleep. Some who is asleep cannot consent. You understand that this is rape, right? The women involved does still want to take him to court and the Swedish Prosecution Authority is currently reviewing the matter. The other allegations have passed the statue of limitation and cannot be prosecuted. To be clear, the alleged offenses happened between 13 August 2010 and 18 August 2010. They were reported to the police on 20 August. Assange was interviewed on the 30th and had left Sweden by 27th September 2010, after an arrest warrant had been issued. They had tried to interview him before he left. On the 26 November 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued after hearings in both Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal (in which Assange's lawyer was present). The arrest warrant was issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Subsequently this warrant was certified by the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency. It was also upheld by a district judge on 24 February 2011 and by the High Court on 2 November 2011. So it's been thoroughly reviewed by two legal systems that both agree there is a case to answer.
  - Tycho 7y ago
    It is not established that he 'fled' to the UK, versus leaving with permission, and obviously if they really wanted to they could have stopped him leaving. It's not clear what exactly the accusation is or what the injured party actually wants. But the odds are that this is a ruse.
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      His own lawyer admits[0] that Assange was informed that Swedish authority were seeking Assange for interrogation, although the lawyer apparently suffers from a certain amount of selective amnesia (as many lawyers do). It's incredibly clear what the accusations are even if you don't speak Swedish as they're spelled out in the European Arrest Warrant[1]: > On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. > It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-texts https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange... [1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

DanBC 7y ago

> The case was ridiculous. So ridiculous he chose to hide in a broom cupboard for yearss rather than go to court for a trial.

Tycho 7y ago
He was hiding from extradition to the US. It's incredible that this is not obvious to you.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  Hiding... in the UK initially. He would have been safer from the US in almost any other country aside from the US itself.
  - Tycho 7y ago
    I doubt it. Look at Gary Mckinnon. I would rather be in the UK than Sweden. But regardless, he was on Ecuadorian soil.
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      Sweden disallows extradition for political reasons. If, after fleeing to the UK, he'd agreed to be extradited back to Sweden then both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to any extradition request, which would have been a far better situation then the UK alone. Instead he ran from the UK authorities too. So it seems that Assange didn't have your faith in the UK. Either that or he was fleeing Sweden and not the US.
      - Tycho 7y ago
        Why would he be worried about standing trial in Sweden? There's no way the accusations can be proven. Explain to me how the prosecution would work? If Sweden has a remotely sane legal system the case would be thrown out of court.