3 ms·

Here's a 2012 article detailing what Sweden provided: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange https://www.ne

by kemayo 8y ago

Here's a 2012 article detailing what Sweden provided: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho... i.e. basically they showed Sweden had charged him with stuff which was a crime in both Sweden and the U.K., a bunch of courts agreed that the charges looked at least reasonable and were valid grounds for extradition to Sweden, and then Assange went to the Equadorian embassy. I think that extraditing him to the U.S. looks like petty revenge from their government given what he's charged with, but the Swedish extradition seems fair, and arguably was in his best interest to have gone along with at the time.

ivanhoe 8y ago
Sweden never charged him with anything. As the link you've provided clearly states they've issued the "request for interrogation", and since he wasn't available prosecutor gave order for him to be brought in for the interrogation, followed by an Interpol warrant for arrest since he was now in another country. Only after interviewing him Swedish prosecutor would decide whether to proceed with the case and officially charge him with the crime, or would drop the whole thing.
- kemayo 8y ago
  Sorry, yes, imprecise wording on my part. That said, I think what I said isn't materially affected by switching from "charged" to "issued a warrant on suspicion"?