19 ms·

Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

214 points by hownottowrite 7y ago

aliswe 7y ago
Perhaps they are prosecuting him with the intention of granting asylym afterwards. Somehow it feels like a grab.
- benevol 7y ago
  I don't know why you would think that. Nothing has changed recently, has it? Sweden has been in the US' pockets for a long time, just like the other main European countries such as the UK and Germany.
  - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
    Is that why they are now trying to block his extradition to the US, then.
    - benevol 7y ago
      Do you have a source for that?
      - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
        The article? The US has asked for him to be extradited. If Sweden also asks for it, that blocks the US if the UK decides to give him to Sweden.
    - sedeki 7y ago
      Well, that’s new to me. Source, please.
      - labster 7y ago
        Source is OP, please read the article.
    - cal97g 7y ago
      Source?
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    That's laughable
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - asda22sdasd 7y ago
      Why? It's the truth.
    - codedokode 7y ago
      What about a case when NSA was wiretapping phone calls of member of German governments, including Angela Merkel [1]? US got away with this without any consequences and Germany said nothing. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10407282/Barack-Obama-approved-tapping-Angela-Merkels-phone-3-years-ago.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10...
      - roel_v 7y ago
        What did you think was going to happen? German bombers flying to New York?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - lostjohnny 7y ago
        They didn't get away with it. They paid, in money, but they paid. Hell, they even filmed an entire season of Homeland in Berlin soon after...
    - benevol 7y ago
      Were you already born when Edward Snowden made his revelations? Or how about the Evo Morales grounding incident? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
- willvarfar 7y ago
  Perhaps they are prosecuting him because he is accused of committing a crime?
  - piokoch 7y ago
    It seems that the word "rape" is somehow exaggeration. Per Wikipedia (assuming it is reliable source here, hasn't checked sources it cites) "On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm, reported to the Swedish police that Assange had engaged in unprotected sexual activity with them that violated the scope of their consent. "The next day, the case was transferred to Chefsåklagare (Chief Public Prosecutor) Eva Finné. In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Finné declared, >>I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape<<. However, Karin Rosander from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at the time, but continued the investigation."
    - DanBC 7y ago
      That's literally rape. He tried to say (in England) that it wasn't rape, and that was rejected by the court. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html He tried to claim that this wasn't rape in both Sweden and England (the dual criminality element which is required for extradition) and that was rejected by the court.
    - uddoe 7y ago
      I assume there's no proof of this having happened at all?
    - willvarfar 7y ago
      Sweden has a comparatively broad legal definition of rape. My memory of accusations are they they sure meet my personal definition of rape. We may only disagree on the terminology; I trust we don't disagree that what is alleged should be a crime.
    - vesinisa 7y ago
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Would that it were another grand twist in the saga, that Assange was saved from certain trauma, for the sake of a broken condom .. Alas, from the moment he entered the embassy, he has been a dead agent. What is of most import, is how this will affect the whistleblowers. (Whistleblowers, we know you're out there. Got more fake news?)
- acallaghan 7y ago
  No it's because he's a rape suspect in Sweden - it's not a giant conspiracy or 'a grab', he's just a suspect that ran away from the law. The USA have already requested his extradition in the UK - to say that "Sweden only sought rape charges because then the USA can extradite him from Sweden" is clearly bogus. If he actually confronted these charges in Sweden, and found guilty, he may actually be out of prison by now. And at the centre of all of this, that everyone seems to have forgotten, are these two women that have accused him of rape. It seems really inhumane and unjust to simply shrug these accusations off as political, and not that they might be telling the truth, and he's a criminal in Swedish law
  - krageon 7y ago
    > clearly bogus It is not clearly bogus. It was a concern. The concern might be wrong, as they often are. That doesn't make it somehow not legitimate.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      Even if it was true, what's wrong with that? He would be sent to USA to respond of his alleged crimes in front of a public court of justice.
      - kermitismyhero 7y ago
        >He would be sent to USA to respond of his alleged crimes in front of a public court of justice. Haha, no. He'd be sent to a secret FISA Star Chamber. There's no way he'd be tried in public. And if the Swedish authorities wanted Assange to answer for alleged crimes in Sweden, all they had to do was publicly declare that they wouldn't extradite Assange to the US. That was the sole requirement he had made of the Swedish authorities in exchange for his willingness to return to Sweden. The fact that the Swedish authorities refused even that is deeply suspicious.
        ivarb 7y ago
        It's actually not suspicious. It is simply not something the authorities can legally do.
- nabla9 7y ago
  That's not how rules based democracies work. Prosecutor works independently. Sweden has civil law system based on classical Roman law and German model. There is no plea bargaining, everyone who is prosecuted must stand trial. The investigation was just suspended because Assange could not be questioned. They bring him for questioning to get interview. After that, the prosecutor may choose not to press charges. The case seems very weak, so the prosecutor may drop the case.
seanalltogether 7y ago
> “His attitude is that he is happy to cooperate with Sweden and that he wants to be interviewed and that he wants to clear his name,” Samuelson told Reuters. He spent how many years on both UK soil and then the Ecuadorean embassy to fight these Swedish allegations and now he's "happy to cooperate". He's imprisoned himself all these years for nothing.
- chii 7y ago
  perhaps Ecuadorean embassy is better than the swedes, but swedes is better than the USA?
- Vinnl 7y ago
  As I understood it, he fled to the embassy because he was afraid the Swedish allegations would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US. Now that his UK charges can be used for that, that's no longer an objection.
  - gsnedders 7y ago
    What relationship does his English conviction have to any US extradition request? (Be it the one that's been sent, or any hypothetical one to Sweden.)
    - Vinnl 7y ago
      Ehm, good question; it's been a while since I read about this. I think, but don't pin me down on this, that his being kept in a single country would give the US enough time to draw up a formal extradition request for that specific country, whereas if a country isn't able to hold him, the request might not come in time. Hopefully somebody else can chime in with a more reliable explanation.
      - celticninja 7y ago
        He would never leave willingly if there was an existing extradition request for him. So they waited until he was out, however that came about. he was guaranteed to be arrested on exiting if only for the bail breach. At which point he is in custody and you can serve the extradition request. Similarly the US will not request extradition for some suspects and wait until they set foot in the US and arrest them then. Saving the need for an extradition battle. If they really want you and you are Russian, they wait until you go on holiday outside russian borders and grab you as you step off the plane.
sedeki 7y ago
Can someone explain to me why the general public has ”turned” on Assange in the last few years? Is it because Wikileaks revealed those Hillary Clinton emails? And that’s the ”protagonist” party? Or is it the rape accusations initiated in Sweden?
- computerfriend 7y ago
  It's certainly the former, given that the rape accusations have been public for a long time.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Wikileaks changed policy on redacting names. They used to do it, they stopped doing it. People realised that indiscriminately dumping material without any attempt at removing names was dangerous. Assange has released names of gay people who live in countries where they could be killed for that; he's released names of Jewish people in Bagdhad; he's identified rape victims.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  The entire western world is against him, I mean governments with all their power. Aligning with Russia didn't help him, although like Snowden, he had no choice once essentially declaring war to US allies. Never underestimate what nation states can do. They'll bring down your entire economy unless...or they can pay, bribe or blackmail someone into filing rape charges against you. Or plant a bag of cocaine, and then behave like good citizens by calling the equivalent of 911 on you.
- akerro 7y ago
  WL published papers against Clinton, but not much against Trump, therefore he is a traitor.
  - sschueller 7y ago
    The only reason for that is that Trump is too stupid to use email.
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
Because there are already various conspiracies being discussed in this thread, I'd like to invite you to entertain, just momentarily, the possibility that this is simply a functioning system of justice seeking to prosecute what they consider credible evidence of a crime. I know the tech community likes Assange, or at least liked Wikileaks as it was originally conceived. But here are some thoughts that you could maybe run through a bayesian analysis to consider if there is enough of a probability that his accuser is telling the truth and this case should be adjudicated in a court of law. - Even people one sympathises with are capable of making mistakes. - Why would the Obama administration go through the risk and difficulty of organising a breathtaking conspiracy to get at him, yet commute Chelsea Manning's sentence? - Why would the Trump "I love Wikileaks" administration continue that adventure, instead of exposing it, damaging Obama's reputation, and helping their friend? - There were enough portraits of Assange, by former colleagues and reputable journalists, that he has some tendencies somewhere between "overstaying his welcome" and "complete egomaniac". - Sweden is generally considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world. To get from whatever high-ranking politician who would have to sign off on a conspiracy with the US all the way down to some local prosecutors would require an unbroken chain of many people suddenly throwing their principles overboard. - At the time of the supposed rape incident, the most prominent leak was the "Collateral Murder" video. The war cables and Snowden leaks came later. That video was somewhat embarrassing, but in no way important enough to warrant such adventures in diplomatic subterfuge as alleged. - All subsequent leaks, i. e. Snowden, Diplomatic Cables, were published in partnership with media organisations such as the New York Times, Guardian, or Spiegel. Why invest so much ressources and potential risk into going after Assange, and not those organisations that were arguably more important going forward? The Times may be immune because they are domestic. But the Spiegel or Guardian could certainly suffer an embarrassing loss of, say, all their subscriber data? - Assange's credibility isn't actually that important. There is nothing Wikileaks published that I consider fake. The Clinton leak was just... underwhelming? There was nothing even remotely illegal in there, and not even much that made her look bad. The Snowden leaks were important. The earlier, lesser-known stuff from Africa etc. was fantastic. The diplomatic cables were already borderline. - The accuser was some lefty student of Spanish literature at a minor Swedish university. Assange's event there was publicised a few weeks prior. Does anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish feminist literature departments for eight years, just in case some target comes along that needs her couch to crush on? - Assange was travelling all over Europe and other parts of the world in those times. Why not just wait until he is in a country with the perfect extradition treaty and have him arrested at the airport? - Indeed, why the rape allegation? If Sweden would be willing to extradite him, they could just arrest him at the airport and send him to the US. What is gained by an extra round through the Swedish criminal justice system? - If you're intent to discredit Assange among his fanbase, which is largely young, male, and online: isn't rape actually the worst possible crime to smear him? Just look at the prevalence of "obviously fake"/"not rape" and various other character assassination in any thread on this subject. - The specifics, i. e. secretly removing the condom, seem to invite all sorts of "that's not rape" opinions, making them a rather bad choice compared to stereotypical violent rape.
duchenne 7y ago
Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping. (The main problem seems to be the "without a condom" part) This is obviously serious. He could have transmitted STDs to the complainants. Unprotected sex should be agreed by both. But, when someone reads "rape" out of context, he could imagine that Assange used a knife or something to force a woman to have sex. Source: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-ass...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > unprotected sex should be agreed by both This is what forms the definition of “rape”. People might have a different idea when they hear this word, but this is the correct term from a technical standpoint.
  - unwind 7y ago
    Uh, without the "unprotected" part, surely?
  - 5040 7y ago
    That some use the word in its technical sense knowing full well that it will be interpreted to mean something entirely different is troublesome.
- colordrops 7y ago
  And while it doesn't change the ethical and moral landscape around his alleged actions, people should be aware that what he is accused of is not illegal in the US.
  - rayiner 7y ago
finnjohnsen2 7y ago
Maybe he just raped a girl. Case closed. No huge conspiracies. Question is, if he gets freed, what will happen then?
- akerro 7y ago
  I read she never opened a case against him. It was just police officer who did it in her name? I think it's too much misinformation and lies to tell what really happened.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    The facts are she went to the police station to report it. Why would she do that if she didn't want the police to do anything? When the first prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case, her lawyer asked for this decision to be reviewed. Why would her lawyer do this if she didn't want the case resumed?
    - cotelletta 7y ago
      Because her and another woman wanted to compel him to take an STD test. This is not a big secret, the facts of the case are there for everyone to find.
  - FrankenTan 7y ago
    In Sweden, prosecutors have duty to prosecute. "In the case of most crimes, the prosecutor has what is known as an absolute duty to prosecute. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to initiate a prosecution if he or she considers there to be sufficient evidence to prove that a crime has been committed and that a certain person has committed it. This in turn means that not even the victim of the offence can decide what is to happen in connection with the investigations. In other words, there is nothing on the lines of “withdrawing the charges”. The prosecutor must make sure that the crime is investigated, irrespective of the feelings or wishes of those involved. The reason for this is that society has an interest in ensuring that the perpetrators of the crime are also tried for it. Exceptions are made for certain offences where it may be felt that the interests of the general public in instigating legal proceedings are not strong enough. Examples of such offences are defamation, breach of domiciliary peace and crimes of unlawful appropriation, or stealing, within the family (i.e. theft etc.)." https://www.aklagare.se/en/the-legal-process/the-role-of-the-prosecutor/decision-to-prosecute/duty-to-prosecute/ https://www.aklagare.se/en/the-legal-process/the-role-of-the...
brohee 7y ago
Going from "revealing all unconvenient truth" to becoming Putin's pawn in practice didn't help his case anymore than the rape did in my case.
- yostrovs 7y ago
  Strangely, a Russian diplomatic car didn't come to pick him up from the Ecuadorian embassy.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    Yeah because the second Assange had set foot outside the embassy, the UK cops would have arrested him. Even in a car / "diplomatic bag" the UK cops would have the right to search it for Assange, because, well, a smuggled body isn't exactly "articles intended for official use" (per Art. 27 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations).
    - mc32 7y ago
      I think they mean if he were their asset they’d trade horses like they usually do with assets.
      - lostjohnny 7y ago
        Maybe US thought there was nothing to trade and that dealing with Assange in person would convince russians that he's not so valuable, even as an asset
    - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
      Part of Article 27 > The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use. But also part of Article 27 > The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained. So you are stuck in a Catch 22. You suspect the bag doesn’t contain official documents or articles but without searching it you can not be sure. If you believe the leaked documents they actually planned to smuggle Assange out using this method. https://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-julian-assange-freedom-bag/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-j... How it’s usually handled is diplomatically. It’s reported to the higher ups, who will search the bag themselves but they can always refuse. There are cases where a host country has opened diplomatic bags but they usually come with diplomatic protests. There has been attempts to make Assange a diplomat of a country or two in an attempt to allow home to leave the embassy and leave the UK but the host country has to accept the status of a diplomat (usually done before they enter the country) and the UK government refused to recognise Assange's status still leaving him stuck.
josteink 7y ago
Let’s see how long it takes before he is extradited to the US and suddenly disappeared. A year or two?
- gnode 7y ago
  > suddenly disappeared. Why not publicly made an example of?
- kalleboo 7y ago
  The UK already has an extradition request from the US. This would only delay it.
Tycho 7y ago
This is just to save face and make it look like the whole thing wasn't driven by US pressure from the outset. There's no chance he will end up standing trial in Sweden, unlikely they could even bring such a flimsy case to court, and unlikely that the UK would prioritize Sweden's request over the US. I doubt they'll even get round to making a formal extradition request. This is an empty gesture.
- DanBC 7y ago
  You call it a flmisy case but Assange has tried to resist extradition from the UK to Sweden and he failed in court. It's useful to read this court document which sets out some of his claims, and why they fail: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
  - Tycho 7y ago
    Are you being deliberately obtuse? This document evaluates whether the extradition request is legitimate: do the allegations amount to crimes, are they faithful characterisations of the accusations, does the request come from the proper authority, was the correct procedure followed, etc. It does not evaluate the strength of the case or any of the supporting evidence. Eg.: Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as "half asleep" and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail. So, after all this, the case could still fall apart under the slightest scrutiny and be abandoned by the prosecution or dismissed by the judge.
- peteretep 7y ago
  > There's no chance he will end up standing trial in Sweden, unlikely they could even bring such a flimsy case to court, and unlikely that the UK would prioritize Sweden's request over the US Could you link me to the sources you’re using that have you believing this so adamantly?
GordonS 7y ago
I'm not sure why the charges keep being reported as "rape", when there's no suggestion he did any such thing. The charges relate to a Swedish law about not using a condom. The woman alleges that Assange removed the condom at some point during sex, without her consent to do so, and that she noticed afterwards. Is it wrong? Yes, of course it is. Is it "rape"? No, but the media has repeated it often enough that now the general public think Assange is a rapist.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  As has been mentioned multiple times, it was rape. The European Arrest Warrant says: (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) > 4. Rape > 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. This was ruled by the [High Court] to be rape under [English] law. EDIT: Corrected as per gsnedders below.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    That's strange... I really don't recall this claim from when this was discussed on HN years some ago. It's right there in the arrest warrant though, so I guess I'm mistaken, and apologise.
  - gsnedders 7y ago
    > This was ruled by the highest court to be rape under UK law. Technically untrue. That ruling is from the High Court of Justice, making a judgment under English law (they made no declaration as to its criminality under Scots or Irish law, nor are they competent to do so). The later Supreme Court appeal didn't consider the question of dual criminality at all (it almost solely rested on the "judicial authority" of the issuer of the EAW).
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      Yes, English Law. I thank you for the correction.
NoblePublius 7y ago
Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of your actions.
- pitay 7y ago
  That statement just excuses any authority to do what they want. A despotic dictatorship would be absolutely fine for people to repeat 'accepting the consequences of your actions' so that if anything horrible happens to someone it is not okay to criticise the authority on what they did because they are not 'accepting the consequences of their actions'. This simply excuses anyone in power doing anything to any dissenter.
  - NoblePublius 7y ago
    If you commit crimes like Assange, claim you did so in the public interest, and then hide from the consequences, you are merely a criminal. If you commit crimes like Martin Luther King Jr, claim you did so in the public interest, and then sit in jail and let the public see your suffering in the face of injustice, you are a civili dissident. Assange is a whiny criminal, not a hero.
basicplus2 7y ago
Seams odd they closed the case in the first place.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  No that was entirely by the book. The case could not be investigated without access to assange so it was closed. And with access to Assange it could be reopened. And (somewhat surprising perhaps) it was.
daemin 7y ago
One thing I'm wondering, before he fled to the Embassy, he was out on bail, for which supporters of his put up their property for. Given that he skipped bail they would have forfeited that property, now that he's arrested again do they get it back?
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  In a word, no. He broke his bail agreement and was a fugitive for years. The supporters who put money and assets forward where doing it to show their faith that Assange was not a flight risk. This has been proven to be false.
  - dullgiulio 7y ago
    Also (correct me if I am wrong), there is no legal trace that the bail money was not from Assange own funds. In other words, if he did surrender according to terms, the money would have gone back to Assange who would have returned it to the donors himself. I am not sure the donors have any legal way to get the money back now. Unless there were agreements Assange signed, all that money was basically gifts.
    - tommorris 7y ago
      It is a criminal offence under s9 of the Bail Act 1976 to agree to indemnify a bail surety. If Assange's guarantors had entered into an agreement with Assange, that agreement would have been illegal under English criminal law, and thus an unenforceable contract. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/9
- gsnedders 7y ago
  A condition of bail is to surrender himself as requested within a certain timeframe. The surety put forward is a guarantee of that condition; the fact that he was later arrested has no bearing on the fact that that condition was broken.
m00dy 7y ago
This looks like a strategic move to prevent him extradited to US soils. I believe there are strong negotiations going on in the background.
- singularity2001 7y ago
  That was my positive optimistic reading: "You (Brits) can't extradite him to the US, he has to go to a Swedish prison under EU law [0] (for a month or so)" Even lifetime in a Swedish prison would be preferable to solitary confinement torture. [0] ... Which makes the Brexit soap opera a bit more interesting.
ralfn 7y ago
Come on people. We don't have a lot of information to judge on. But if we are having a debate about the meaning of rape, then we are all side stepping the incredible high chance this is politically motivated nonsense. Nobody had ever been extradited for this sort of thing. Sweden is special in that it enabled it based on a testimony, even after the testimony has been revoked and without the victims pressing charges or even agreeing with the interpretation of the police. This is not an example of the legal system taking too much liberty of the notion of rape. This is much more likely an example of state level conspiracy. Men are not under threat, sharing potentially incriminating information about the USA just means that nobody is playing by any rules. Don't embarrass yourself or others to have this debate about rape. As an academic exercise, sure go ahead, but this case does not prove that rape laws in Sweden are used unfairly. It just proves Sweden, like most smaller Western nation's have little choice but do what the big man in Washington whispers in their ears. This also does not prove Assange is guilt free. But at least if we want to maintain any illusion that we live in a free world: he is a deserved a court case about the actual actions that are fuelling this hunt. So please just don't use the word rape and Assange in the same sentence. It's a disservice to actual victims, whistle blowers and our cultural identity as such.
- vkou 7y ago
  > So please just don't use the word rape and Assange in the same sentence. It's a disservice to actual victims, whistle blowers and our cultural identity as such. What would you call having sex without a condom with a sleeping person, whom you barely know, when they have not consented to it? Sorta-rape? Kinda-rape? Minor hooliganism? Did we all forget what the point of consent is, or something? Or are we using the medieval definition, where it is a one-time-good-for-life sort of thing?
  - kenneth 7y ago
    I think the issue had more to do with not using a condom (with the explicit non-consent of the two women) than with the sex (for which he mostly had consent)
    - 7y ago
tarcyanm 7y ago
Assange himself and the rape charges have been politicized to such an extent that I find it essentially meaningless to pontificate about what may or may not have happened in Sweden. His character has been debated endlessly, but when one thinks of what WikiLeaks has actually revealed, I find it totally likely that a systematic effort was made to curtail him: https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1116916146458877952/photo/1 https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1116916146458877952/...
- nvarsj 7y ago
  Exactly. There is almost certainly an organized government sponsored campaign to discredit him in every way possible. That means the things we read in the media about him need to be considered very critically.
  - scoot_718 7y ago
    I agree. Except he's the one running the campaign to discredit himself. Wikileaks has done the damage to his own reputation, all sponsored by Russia. He's actively hurt the goal of radical transparency with his antics. Actual people with principles abandoned Wikileaks a decade ago.
- tdcbfdct3 7y ago
  Who's politicized the rape charges other than Assange himself continuously calling them a government conspiracy against him? The Swedish government doesn't discuss them (which is what's allowed Assange's version of events to get so popular). The US hasn't mentioned it. The UK gave him a fair trial based on them.
  - trevelyan 7y ago
    The UK trial was not on the rape charges (there was no permitted discussion of the evidence or total lack of it). The ruling was over whether the UK was bound to extradite given the Swedish government's refusal to interview Assange in England or indict him in Sweden. The tortured legal conclusion was basically that the UK couldn't definitively conclude the Swedes were acting in bad faith, and they couldn't be entirely sure that Assange was only being extradited for questioning (technically illegal). As far as the Swedes go, the Swedish government discussed the case when it closed it for the first time. If the government hasn't been public about the case since it was re-opened by a political appointee, perhaps it is because there is zero evidence against Assange. We know this because the pretext for re-opening the case was the "discovery" of new physical evidence (a broken condom) that lacked any of Assange's DNA. This is all public knowledge, btw. Funny how it isn't discussed much in the press.
_Microft 7y ago
Would the people who argue that the described situation was not rape please remember that it actually is under swedish law and the situation in your own jurisdiction is irrelevant here?
- Sevrene 7y ago
  The legal definition of rape is one that is restricted by the law, but the moral definition is not. If I say a biscuit is a cake and legally it is made so, does that mean it is actually a cake? I'm sure North Korea or China say some people are criminals and must be executed. As an outsider should we just agree because 'the situation in your own jurisdiction is irrelevant here'? I think not, morality and truth should not be restricted to the definition of the law where it presides. It's possible what Assange allegedly did was in fact rape, but illegal or not shouldn't be the defining factor when assessing the truth of that claim.
- sjwright 7y ago
  If Swedish law used the word arson to describe the situation, would you accept that term and call Assange an arsonist? As a commentator, I am not beholden to novel terminology used elsewhere, let alone in a country that doesn’t even use English as their primary national language.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    I’d hesitate to call anyone a rapist until proven guilty. But I have nothing against the broader use of the term in general.
  - ascorbic 7y ago
    The UK Supreme Court ruled that the accusations would be classified as rape under English law too. That was ones of the ground that he used to challenge the original warrant.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      I don’t care what the UK says any more than I do Sweden. I don’t live in either country. I will use terms that I consider more descriptive than rape. What’s wrong with sexual misconduct, for example? I realise it doesn’t have the emotional charge of “rape”, but isn’t that a good thing? We shouldn’t choose words based on our opinions.
idlewords 7y ago
Flagging this because I can't handle the HN discussion on the nature of rape from first principles.
- cwyers 7y ago
  It is so awful. I came to the site this morning because I expected to see discussion of Assange, but this is just unbearable.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Same. What a disaster of a thread.
  - cpach 7y ago
    I think it would be great if we could avoid Assange threads here on HN. Nothing good will come out of it.
    - cwyers 7y ago
      It would be better if we had a community here that could handle discussing topics like this in a sensitive and respectful way.
      - cpach 7y ago
        Maybe, but I’m afraid I can’t see that happening. Too many people lose their marbles when the topic of Assange comes up.
- dang 7y ago
  Yes, that's bad. I've marked those subthreads offtopic and collapsed them.
alkonaut 7y ago
I think the case is too exposed to just shrug and say “well we could reopen it now, but nah we’re not going to bother”. After 9 of 10 years during some of which the defendant has already been de-facto under house arrest, it doesn’t seem likely that prosecutors would have reopened a case that wasn’t as visible as this one. I don’t believe for a second that this is related to US pressure in any way, I believe the prosecutors simply want to show that they do things by the book and want to show that they are capable of prosecuting “international” cases like this one. Assange isn’t going to be in any deep legal trouble over this. It’s a formality I’d say. That doesn’t make it pointless though. Formality is important.
julienreszka 7y ago
usual bs
gubbrora 7y ago
Maybe he did it maybe he didn't. I'm leaning towards he did it. But it's worth keeping in mind that his punishment would have been less severe than the time he has spent in that embassy. I think that proves that he was scared shitless.
qazpot 7y ago
I knew it. It knew it was going to happen, the moment I heard he has been arrested.

214 points by hownottowrite 7y ago

aliswe 7y ago

Perhaps they are prosecuting him with the intention of granting asylym afterwards. Somehow it feels like a grab.

benevol 7y ago
I don't know why you would think that. Nothing has changed recently, has it? Sweden has been in the US' pockets for a long time, just like the other main European countries such as the UK and Germany.
- WAHa_06x36 7y ago
  Is that why they are now trying to block his extradition to the US, then.
  - benevol 7y ago
    Do you have a source for that?
    - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
      The article? The US has asked for him to be extradited. If Sweden also asks for it, that blocks the US if the UK decides to give him to Sweden.
  - sedeki 7y ago
    Well, that’s new to me. Source, please.
    - labster 7y ago
      Source is OP, please read the article.
  - cal97g 7y ago
    Source?
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  That's laughable
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - asda22sdasd 7y ago
    Why? It's the truth.
  - codedokode 7y ago
    What about a case when NSA was wiretapping phone calls of member of German governments, including Angela Merkel [1]? US got away with this without any consequences and Germany said nothing. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10407282/Barack-Obama-approved-tapping-Angela-Merkels-phone-3-years-ago.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10...
    - roel_v 7y ago
      What did you think was going to happen? German bombers flying to New York?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      They didn't get away with it. They paid, in money, but they paid. Hell, they even filmed an entire season of Homeland in Berlin soon after...
  - benevol 7y ago
    Were you already born when Edward Snowden made his revelations? Or how about the Evo Morales grounding incident? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
willvarfar 7y ago
Perhaps they are prosecuting him because he is accused of committing a crime?
- piokoch 7y ago
  It seems that the word "rape" is somehow exaggeration. Per Wikipedia (assuming it is reliable source here, hasn't checked sources it cites) "On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm, reported to the Swedish police that Assange had engaged in unprotected sexual activity with them that violated the scope of their consent. "The next day, the case was transferred to Chefsåklagare (Chief Public Prosecutor) Eva Finné. In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Finné declared, >>I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape<<. However, Karin Rosander from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at the time, but continued the investigation."
  - DanBC 7y ago
    That's literally rape. He tried to say (in England) that it wasn't rape, and that was rejected by the court. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html He tried to claim that this wasn't rape in both Sweden and England (the dual criminality element which is required for extradition) and that was rejected by the court.
  - uddoe 7y ago
    I assume there's no proof of this having happened at all?
  - willvarfar 7y ago
    Sweden has a comparatively broad legal definition of rape. My memory of accusations are they they sure meet my personal definition of rape. We may only disagree on the terminology; I trust we don't disagree that what is alleged should be a crime.
  - vesinisa 7y ago
fit2rule 7y ago
Would that it were another grand twist in the saga, that Assange was saved from certain trauma, for the sake of a broken condom .. Alas, from the moment he entered the embassy, he has been a dead agent. What is of most import, is how this will affect the whistleblowers. (Whistleblowers, we know you're out there. Got more fake news?)
acallaghan 7y ago
No it's because he's a rape suspect in Sweden - it's not a giant conspiracy or 'a grab', he's just a suspect that ran away from the law. The USA have already requested his extradition in the UK - to say that "Sweden only sought rape charges because then the USA can extradite him from Sweden" is clearly bogus. If he actually confronted these charges in Sweden, and found guilty, he may actually be out of prison by now. And at the centre of all of this, that everyone seems to have forgotten, are these two women that have accused him of rape. It seems really inhumane and unjust to simply shrug these accusations off as political, and not that they might be telling the truth, and he's a criminal in Swedish law
- krageon 7y ago
  > clearly bogus It is not clearly bogus. It was a concern. The concern might be wrong, as they often are. That doesn't make it somehow not legitimate.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    Even if it was true, what's wrong with that? He would be sent to USA to respond of his alleged crimes in front of a public court of justice.
    - kermitismyhero 7y ago
      >He would be sent to USA to respond of his alleged crimes in front of a public court of justice. Haha, no. He'd be sent to a secret FISA Star Chamber. There's no way he'd be tried in public. And if the Swedish authorities wanted Assange to answer for alleged crimes in Sweden, all they had to do was publicly declare that they wouldn't extradite Assange to the US. That was the sole requirement he had made of the Swedish authorities in exchange for his willingness to return to Sweden. The fact that the Swedish authorities refused even that is deeply suspicious.
      - ivarb 7y ago
        It's actually not suspicious. It is simply not something the authorities can legally do.
nabla9 7y ago
That's not how rules based democracies work. Prosecutor works independently. Sweden has civil law system based on classical Roman law and German model. There is no plea bargaining, everyone who is prosecuted must stand trial. The investigation was just suspended because Assange could not be questioned. They bring him for questioning to get interview. After that, the prosecutor may choose not to press charges. The case seems very weak, so the prosecutor may drop the case.

seanalltogether 7y ago

> “His attitude is that he is happy to cooperate with Sweden and that he wants to be interviewed and that he wants to clear his name,” Samuelson told Reuters. He spent how many years on both UK soil and then the Ecuadorean embassy to fight these Swedish allegations and now he's "happy to cooperate". He's imprisoned himself all these years for nothing.

chii 7y ago
perhaps Ecuadorean embassy is better than the swedes, but swedes is better than the USA?
Vinnl 7y ago
As I understood it, he fled to the embassy because he was afraid the Swedish allegations would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US. Now that his UK charges can be used for that, that's no longer an objection.
- gsnedders 7y ago
  What relationship does his English conviction have to any US extradition request? (Be it the one that's been sent, or any hypothetical one to Sweden.)
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    Ehm, good question; it's been a while since I read about this. I think, but don't pin me down on this, that his being kept in a single country would give the US enough time to draw up a formal extradition request for that specific country, whereas if a country isn't able to hold him, the request might not come in time. Hopefully somebody else can chime in with a more reliable explanation.
    - celticninja 7y ago
      He would never leave willingly if there was an existing extradition request for him. So they waited until he was out, however that came about. he was guaranteed to be arrested on exiting if only for the bail breach. At which point he is in custody and you can serve the extradition request. Similarly the US will not request extradition for some suspects and wait until they set foot in the US and arrest them then. Saving the need for an extradition battle. If they really want you and you are Russian, they wait until you go on holiday outside russian borders and grab you as you step off the plane.

sedeki 7y ago

Can someone explain to me why the general public has ”turned” on Assange in the last few years? Is it because Wikileaks revealed those Hillary Clinton emails? And that’s the ”protagonist” party? Or is it the rape accusations initiated in Sweden?

computerfriend 7y ago
It's certainly the former, given that the rape accusations have been public for a long time.
DanBC 7y ago
Wikileaks changed policy on redacting names. They used to do it, they stopped doing it. People realised that indiscriminately dumping material without any attempt at removing names was dangerous. Assange has released names of gay people who live in countries where they could be killed for that; he's released names of Jewish people in Bagdhad; he's identified rape victims.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
The entire western world is against him, I mean governments with all their power. Aligning with Russia didn't help him, although like Snowden, he had no choice once essentially declaring war to US allies. Never underestimate what nation states can do. They'll bring down your entire economy unless...or they can pay, bribe or blackmail someone into filing rape charges against you. Or plant a bag of cocaine, and then behave like good citizens by calling the equivalent of 911 on you.
akerro 7y ago
WL published papers against Clinton, but not much against Trump, therefore he is a traitor.
- sschueller 7y ago
  The only reason for that is that Trump is too stupid to use email.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

Because there are already various conspiracies being discussed in this thread, I'd like to invite you to entertain, just momentarily, the possibility that this is simply a functioning system of justice seeking to prosecute what they consider credible evidence of a crime. I know the tech community likes Assange, or at least liked Wikileaks as it was originally conceived. But here are some thoughts that you could maybe run through a bayesian analysis to consider if there is enough of a probability that his accuser is telling the truth and this case should be adjudicated in a court of law. - Even people one sympathises with are capable of making mistakes. - Why would the Obama administration go through the risk and difficulty of organising a breathtaking conspiracy to get at him, yet commute Chelsea Manning's sentence? - Why would the Trump "I love Wikileaks" administration continue that adventure, instead of exposing it, damaging Obama's reputation, and helping their friend? - There were enough portraits of Assange, by former colleagues and reputable journalists, that he has some tendencies somewhere between "overstaying his welcome" and "complete egomaniac". - Sweden is generally considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world. To get from whatever high-ranking politician who would have to sign off on a conspiracy with the US all the way down to some local prosecutors would require an unbroken chain of many people suddenly throwing their principles overboard. - At the time of the supposed rape incident, the most prominent leak was the "Collateral Murder" video. The war cables and Snowden leaks came later. That video was somewhat embarrassing, but in no way important enough to warrant such adventures in diplomatic subterfuge as alleged. - All subsequent leaks, i. e. Snowden, Diplomatic Cables, were published in partnership with media organisations such as the New York Times, Guardian, or Spiegel. Why invest so much ressources and potential risk into going after Assange, and not those organisations that were arguably more important going forward? The Times may be immune because they are domestic. But the Spiegel or Guardian could certainly suffer an embarrassing loss of, say, all their subscriber data? - Assange's credibility isn't actually that important. There is nothing Wikileaks published that I consider fake. The Clinton leak was just... underwhelming? There was nothing even remotely illegal in there, and not even much that made her look bad. The Snowden leaks were important. The earlier, lesser-known stuff from Africa etc. was fantastic. The diplomatic cables were already borderline. - The accuser was some lefty student of Spanish literature at a minor Swedish university. Assange's event there was publicised a few weeks prior. Does anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish feminist literature departments for eight years, just in case some target comes along that needs her couch to crush on? - Assange was travelling all over Europe and other parts of the world in those times. Why not just wait until he is in a country with the perfect extradition treaty and have him arrested at the airport? - Indeed, why the rape allegation? If Sweden would be willing to extradite him, they could just arrest him at the airport and send him to the US. What is gained by an extra round through the Swedish criminal justice system? - If you're intent to discredit Assange among his fanbase, which is largely young, male, and online: isn't rape actually the worst possible crime to smear him? Just look at the prevalence of "obviously fake"/"not rape" and various other character assassination in any thread on this subject. - The specifics, i. e. secretly removing the condom, seem to invite all sorts of "that's not rape" opinions, making them a rather bad choice compared to stereotypical violent rape.

duchenne 7y ago

Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping. (The main problem seems to be the "without a condom" part) This is obviously serious. He could have transmitted STDs to the complainants. Unprotected sex should be agreed by both. But, when someone reads "rape" out of context, he could imagine that Assange used a knife or something to force a woman to have sex. Source: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-ass...

saagarjha 7y ago
> unprotected sex should be agreed by both This is what forms the definition of “rape”. People might have a different idea when they hear this word, but this is the correct term from a technical standpoint.
- unwind 7y ago
  Uh, without the "unprotected" part, surely?
- 5040 7y ago
  That some use the word in its technical sense knowing full well that it will be interpreted to mean something entirely different is troublesome.
colordrops 7y ago
And while it doesn't change the ethical and moral landscape around his alleged actions, people should be aware that what he is accused of is not illegal in the US.
- rayiner 7y ago

finnjohnsen2 7y ago

Maybe he just raped a girl. Case closed. No huge conspiracies. Question is, if he gets freed, what will happen then?

akerro 7y ago
I read she never opened a case against him. It was just police officer who did it in her name? I think it's too much misinformation and lies to tell what really happened.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  The facts are she went to the police station to report it. Why would she do that if she didn't want the police to do anything? When the first prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case, her lawyer asked for this decision to be reviewed. Why would her lawyer do this if she didn't want the case resumed?
  - cotelletta 7y ago
    Because her and another woman wanted to compel him to take an STD test. This is not a big secret, the facts of the case are there for everyone to find.
- FrankenTan 7y ago
  In Sweden, prosecutors have duty to prosecute. "In the case of most crimes, the prosecutor has what is known as an absolute duty to prosecute. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to initiate a prosecution if he or she considers there to be sufficient evidence to prove that a crime has been committed and that a certain person has committed it. This in turn means that not even the victim of the offence can decide what is to happen in connection with the investigations. In other words, there is nothing on the lines of “withdrawing the charges”. The prosecutor must make sure that the crime is investigated, irrespective of the feelings or wishes of those involved. The reason for this is that society has an interest in ensuring that the perpetrators of the crime are also tried for it. Exceptions are made for certain offences where it may be felt that the interests of the general public in instigating legal proceedings are not strong enough. Examples of such offences are defamation, breach of domiciliary peace and crimes of unlawful appropriation, or stealing, within the family (i.e. theft etc.)." https://www.aklagare.se/en/the-legal-process/the-role-of-the-prosecutor/decision-to-prosecute/duty-to-prosecute/ https://www.aklagare.se/en/the-legal-process/the-role-of-the...

brohee 7y ago

Going from "revealing all unconvenient truth" to becoming Putin's pawn in practice didn't help his case anymore than the rape did in my case.

yostrovs 7y ago
Strangely, a Russian diplomatic car didn't come to pick him up from the Ecuadorian embassy.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  Yeah because the second Assange had set foot outside the embassy, the UK cops would have arrested him. Even in a car / "diplomatic bag" the UK cops would have the right to search it for Assange, because, well, a smuggled body isn't exactly "articles intended for official use" (per Art. 27 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations).
  - mc32 7y ago
    I think they mean if he were their asset they’d trade horses like they usually do with assets.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      Maybe US thought there was nothing to trade and that dealing with Assange in person would convince russians that he's not so valuable, even as an asset
  - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
    Part of Article 27 > The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use. But also part of Article 27 > The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained. So you are stuck in a Catch 22. You suspect the bag doesn’t contain official documents or articles but without searching it you can not be sure. If you believe the leaked documents they actually planned to smuggle Assange out using this method. https://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-julian-assange-freedom-bag/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/ecuador-considered-smuggling-j... How it’s usually handled is diplomatically. It’s reported to the higher ups, who will search the bag themselves but they can always refuse. There are cases where a host country has opened diplomatic bags but they usually come with diplomatic protests. There has been attempts to make Assange a diplomat of a country or two in an attempt to allow home to leave the embassy and leave the UK but the host country has to accept the status of a diplomat (usually done before they enter the country) and the UK government refused to recognise Assange's status still leaving him stuck.

josteink 7y ago

Let’s see how long it takes before he is extradited to the US and suddenly disappeared. A year or two?

gnode 7y ago
> suddenly disappeared. Why not publicly made an example of?
kalleboo 7y ago
The UK already has an extradition request from the US. This would only delay it.

Tycho 7y ago

This is just to save face and make it look like the whole thing wasn't driven by US pressure from the outset. There's no chance he will end up standing trial in Sweden, unlikely they could even bring such a flimsy case to court, and unlikely that the UK would prioritize Sweden's request over the US. I doubt they'll even get round to making a formal extradition request. This is an empty gesture.

DanBC 7y ago
You call it a flmisy case but Assange has tried to resist extradition from the UK to Sweden and he failed in court. It's useful to read this court document which sets out some of his claims, and why they fail: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
- Tycho 7y ago
  Are you being deliberately obtuse? This document evaluates whether the extradition request is legitimate: do the allegations amount to crimes, are they faithful characterisations of the accusations, does the request come from the proper authority, was the correct procedure followed, etc. It does not evaluate the strength of the case or any of the supporting evidence. Eg.: Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as "half asleep" and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail. So, after all this, the case could still fall apart under the slightest scrutiny and be abandoned by the prosecution or dismissed by the judge.
peteretep 7y ago
> There's no chance he will end up standing trial in Sweden, unlikely they could even bring such a flimsy case to court, and unlikely that the UK would prioritize Sweden's request over the US Could you link me to the sources you’re using that have you believing this so adamantly?

GordonS 7y ago

I'm not sure why the charges keep being reported as "rape", when there's no suggestion he did any such thing. The charges relate to a Swedish law about not using a condom. The woman alleges that Assange removed the condom at some point during sex, without her consent to do so, and that she noticed afterwards. Is it wrong? Yes, of course it is. Is it "rape"? No, but the media has repeated it often enough that now the general public think Assange is a rapist.

ChrisSD 7y ago
As has been mentioned multiple times, it was rape. The European Arrest Warrant says: (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) > 4. Rape > 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. This was ruled by the [High Court] to be rape under [English] law. EDIT: Corrected as per gsnedders below.
- GordonS 7y ago
  That's strange... I really don't recall this claim from when this was discussed on HN years some ago. It's right there in the arrest warrant though, so I guess I'm mistaken, and apologise.
- gsnedders 7y ago
  > This was ruled by the highest court to be rape under UK law. Technically untrue. That ruling is from the High Court of Justice, making a judgment under English law (they made no declaration as to its criminality under Scots or Irish law, nor are they competent to do so). The later Supreme Court appeal didn't consider the question of dual criminality at all (it almost solely rested on the "judicial authority" of the issuer of the EAW).
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    Yes, English Law. I thank you for the correction.

NoblePublius 7y ago

Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of your actions.

pitay 7y ago
That statement just excuses any authority to do what they want. A despotic dictatorship would be absolutely fine for people to repeat 'accepting the consequences of your actions' so that if anything horrible happens to someone it is not okay to criticise the authority on what they did because they are not 'accepting the consequences of their actions'. This simply excuses anyone in power doing anything to any dissenter.
- NoblePublius 7y ago
  If you commit crimes like Assange, claim you did so in the public interest, and then hide from the consequences, you are merely a criminal. If you commit crimes like Martin Luther King Jr, claim you did so in the public interest, and then sit in jail and let the public see your suffering in the face of injustice, you are a civili dissident. Assange is a whiny criminal, not a hero.

basicplus2 7y ago

Seams odd they closed the case in the first place.

alkonaut 7y ago
No that was entirely by the book. The case could not be investigated without access to assange so it was closed. And with access to Assange it could be reopened. And (somewhat surprising perhaps) it was.

daemin 7y ago

One thing I'm wondering, before he fled to the Embassy, he was out on bail, for which supporters of his put up their property for. Given that he skipped bail they would have forfeited that property, now that he's arrested again do they get it back?

ChrisSD 7y ago
In a word, no. He broke his bail agreement and was a fugitive for years. The supporters who put money and assets forward where doing it to show their faith that Assange was not a flight risk. This has been proven to be false.
- dullgiulio 7y ago
  Also (correct me if I am wrong), there is no legal trace that the bail money was not from Assange own funds. In other words, if he did surrender according to terms, the money would have gone back to Assange who would have returned it to the donors himself. I am not sure the donors have any legal way to get the money back now. Unless there were agreements Assange signed, all that money was basically gifts.
  - tommorris 7y ago
    It is a criminal offence under s9 of the Bail Act 1976 to agree to indemnify a bail surety. If Assange's guarantors had entered into an agreement with Assange, that agreement would have been illegal under English criminal law, and thus an unenforceable contract. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/9
gsnedders 7y ago
A condition of bail is to surrender himself as requested within a certain timeframe. The surety put forward is a guarantee of that condition; the fact that he was later arrested has no bearing on the fact that that condition was broken.

m00dy 7y ago

This looks like a strategic move to prevent him extradited to US soils. I believe there are strong negotiations going on in the background.

singularity2001 7y ago
That was my positive optimistic reading: "You (Brits) can't extradite him to the US, he has to go to a Swedish prison under EU law [0] (for a month or so)" Even lifetime in a Swedish prison would be preferable to solitary confinement torture. [0] ... Which makes the Brexit soap opera a bit more interesting.

ralfn 7y ago

Come on people. We don't have a lot of information to judge on. But if we are having a debate about the meaning of rape, then we are all side stepping the incredible high chance this is politically motivated nonsense. Nobody had ever been extradited for this sort of thing. Sweden is special in that it enabled it based on a testimony, even after the testimony has been revoked and without the victims pressing charges or even agreeing with the interpretation of the police. This is not an example of the legal system taking too much liberty of the notion of rape. This is much more likely an example of state level conspiracy. Men are not under threat, sharing potentially incriminating information about the USA just means that nobody is playing by any rules. Don't embarrass yourself or others to have this debate about rape. As an academic exercise, sure go ahead, but this case does not prove that rape laws in Sweden are used unfairly. It just proves Sweden, like most smaller Western nation's have little choice but do what the big man in Washington whispers in their ears. This also does not prove Assange is guilt free. But at least if we want to maintain any illusion that we live in a free world: he is a deserved a court case about the actual actions that are fuelling this hunt. So please just don't use the word rape and Assange in the same sentence. It's a disservice to actual victims, whistle blowers and our cultural identity as such.

vkou 7y ago
> So please just don't use the word rape and Assange in the same sentence. It's a disservice to actual victims, whistle blowers and our cultural identity as such. What would you call having sex without a condom with a sleeping person, whom you barely know, when they have not consented to it? Sorta-rape? Kinda-rape? Minor hooliganism? Did we all forget what the point of consent is, or something? Or are we using the medieval definition, where it is a one-time-good-for-life sort of thing?
- kenneth 7y ago
  I think the issue had more to do with not using a condom (with the explicit non-consent of the two women) than with the sex (for which he mostly had consent)
  - 7y ago

tarcyanm 7y ago

Assange himself and the rape charges have been politicized to such an extent that I find it essentially meaningless to pontificate about what may or may not have happened in Sweden. His character has been debated endlessly, but when one thinks of what WikiLeaks has actually revealed, I find it totally likely that a systematic effort was made to curtail him: https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1116916146458877952/photo/1 https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1116916146458877952/...

nvarsj 7y ago
Exactly. There is almost certainly an organized government sponsored campaign to discredit him in every way possible. That means the things we read in the media about him need to be considered very critically.
- scoot_718 7y ago
  I agree. Except he's the one running the campaign to discredit himself. Wikileaks has done the damage to his own reputation, all sponsored by Russia. He's actively hurt the goal of radical transparency with his antics. Actual people with principles abandoned Wikileaks a decade ago.
tdcbfdct3 7y ago
Who's politicized the rape charges other than Assange himself continuously calling them a government conspiracy against him? The Swedish government doesn't discuss them (which is what's allowed Assange's version of events to get so popular). The US hasn't mentioned it. The UK gave him a fair trial based on them.
- trevelyan 7y ago
  The UK trial was not on the rape charges (there was no permitted discussion of the evidence or total lack of it). The ruling was over whether the UK was bound to extradite given the Swedish government's refusal to interview Assange in England or indict him in Sweden. The tortured legal conclusion was basically that the UK couldn't definitively conclude the Swedes were acting in bad faith, and they couldn't be entirely sure that Assange was only being extradited for questioning (technically illegal). As far as the Swedes go, the Swedish government discussed the case when it closed it for the first time. If the government hasn't been public about the case since it was re-opened by a political appointee, perhaps it is because there is zero evidence against Assange. We know this because the pretext for re-opening the case was the "discovery" of new physical evidence (a broken condom) that lacked any of Assange's DNA. This is all public knowledge, btw. Funny how it isn't discussed much in the press.

_Microft 7y ago

Would the people who argue that the described situation was not rape please remember that it actually is under swedish law and the situation in your own jurisdiction is irrelevant here?

Sevrene 7y ago
The legal definition of rape is one that is restricted by the law, but the moral definition is not. If I say a biscuit is a cake and legally it is made so, does that mean it is actually a cake? I'm sure North Korea or China say some people are criminals and must be executed. As an outsider should we just agree because 'the situation in your own jurisdiction is irrelevant here'? I think not, morality and truth should not be restricted to the definition of the law where it presides. It's possible what Assange allegedly did was in fact rape, but illegal or not shouldn't be the defining factor when assessing the truth of that claim.
sjwright 7y ago
If Swedish law used the word arson to describe the situation, would you accept that term and call Assange an arsonist? As a commentator, I am not beholden to novel terminology used elsewhere, let alone in a country that doesn’t even use English as their primary national language.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  I’d hesitate to call anyone a rapist until proven guilty. But I have nothing against the broader use of the term in general.
- ascorbic 7y ago
  The UK Supreme Court ruled that the accusations would be classified as rape under English law too. That was ones of the ground that he used to challenge the original warrant.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    I don’t care what the UK says any more than I do Sweden. I don’t live in either country. I will use terms that I consider more descriptive than rape. What’s wrong with sexual misconduct, for example? I realise it doesn’t have the emotional charge of “rape”, but isn’t that a good thing? We shouldn’t choose words based on our opinions.

idlewords 7y ago

Flagging this because I can't handle the HN discussion on the nature of rape from first principles.

cwyers 7y ago
It is so awful. I came to the site this morning because I expected to see discussion of Assange, but this is just unbearable.
tptacek 7y ago
Same. What a disaster of a thread.
- cpach 7y ago
  I think it would be great if we could avoid Assange threads here on HN. Nothing good will come out of it.
  - cwyers 7y ago
    It would be better if we had a community here that could handle discussing topics like this in a sensitive and respectful way.
    - cpach 7y ago
      Maybe, but I’m afraid I can’t see that happening. Too many people lose their marbles when the topic of Assange comes up.
dang 7y ago
Yes, that's bad. I've marked those subthreads offtopic and collapsed them.

alkonaut 7y ago

I think the case is too exposed to just shrug and say “well we could reopen it now, but nah we’re not going to bother”. After 9 of 10 years during some of which the defendant has already been de-facto under house arrest, it doesn’t seem likely that prosecutors would have reopened a case that wasn’t as visible as this one. I don’t believe for a second that this is related to US pressure in any way, I believe the prosecutors simply want to show that they do things by the book and want to show that they are capable of prosecuting “international” cases like this one. Assange isn’t going to be in any deep legal trouble over this. It’s a formality I’d say. That doesn’t make it pointless though. Formality is important.

julienreszka 7y ago

usual bs

gubbrora 7y ago

Maybe he did it maybe he didn't. I'm leaning towards he did it. But it's worth keeping in mind that his punishment would have been less severe than the time he has spent in that embassy. I think that proves that he was scared shitless.

qazpot 7y ago

I knew it. It knew it was going to happen, the moment I heard he has been arrested.