60 ms·

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 r

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.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > He'd be sent to a secret FISA Star Chamber. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review only are empowered to handle foreign intelligence surveillance warrant process. Criminal charges are handled in US District Courts, and are Constitutionally guaranteed to be public.
      - kermitismyhero 7y ago
        >Criminal charges are handled in US District Courts, and are Constitutionally guaranteed to be public. If you think that the US DOJ hasn't spent a million man-hours to find some way to keep everything as secret as possible, you haven't been paying attention to their actions thus far. They will find some way to kangaroo-court him out of the public eye. They do it with foreign nationals all the time.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > If you think that the US DOJ hasn't spent a million man-hours to find some way to keep everything as secret as possible, you haven't been paying attention to their actions thus far. I'm pretty sure that they have neither spent that many man-hours nor would get much value from spending anywhere close to that, because the parameters of “as secret as possible” are, while always subject to further litigation around the borders, not so mysterious or difficult to assess that it would take that much work to get a solid idea both where the boundaries were and what the relative risks of various ways of probing the areas where there is remaining uncertainty. > They will find some way to kangaroo-court him out of the public eye. They do it with foreign nationals all the time. Not with foreign nationals subjected to formal criminal extradition they don't. Foreign, allegedly unawful, combatants detained by the US military or transferred to their custody by America’s cobelligerents in the context of military conflict, all completely outside of the civilian criminal justice system, sure; foreign parties where the government covertly intervenes with overseas regimes to detain them without involving the US criminal justice system to, that too. But none of those are applicable here.
sedeki 7y ago
”And at the centre of all of this, that everyone seems to have forgotten, are these two women that have accused him of rape.” As far as I know, and at least Assange has claimed this publicly in a video at least once, these two women themselves did not make rape charges against Assange. The case was picked up by some prosecutor who initiated the charges.
- Maxious 7y ago
  One of the victims' lawyer said a month ago when he left the embassy they still wanted to re-open the case: "We are going to do everything we possibly can to get the swedish police investigation re-opened so that Assange can be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted for rape. No rape victim should have to wait 9 years to see justice be served." https://twitter.com/ElisabethMFritz/status/1116292951125180416 https://twitter.com/ElisabethMFritz/status/11162929511251804...
- DanBC 7y ago
  "Pressing charges" may be a thing in US law, but it isn't elsewhere. In many jurisdictions prosecutors don't need the permission, nor cooperation, of the victims to bring a case to court. This is especially important in crimes of sexual violence because the fear of retribution causes many victims not to report; and because some victims will be being coercively controlled by their partners.
  - learc83 7y ago
    It's not a thing in US law either (at least in the states I'm aware of). "Do you want to press charges" is just a colloquialism that means "do you want the prosecutor to press charges, and will you cooperate as a witness." In less serious cases the victim's wishes are taken into account. However, the prosecutor is the one who charges the accused, and consent or cooperation from the victim isn't needed. It is hard to convict in cases where an uncooperative victim is the only witness, but it happens in domestic abuse cases all the time.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  They did in fact file rape charges, but as is common they didn't do it immediately but after talking about the event with friends. They have also, wisely avoiding much of the media, enlisted a lawyer to speak on their behalf on the matter, and it was the lawyers filing that led to the investigation being reopened again. For a pretty complete chronology, see this page on the Swedish prosecution authority: https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-...
colordrops 7y ago
If it's such a problem why don't you advocate for getting the laws changed in the US? While his alleged actions are shady, they are not illegal in the US, so anyone who plays the humanity angle without also suggesting changing US law is just using it for political purposes.
aliswe 7y ago
Okay, now I get it. They cancelled prosecuting him because he couldn't be reached. But now they can. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/aklagaren-vill-hava-haktningen-mot-julian-assange https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/aklagaren-vill-hava-haktn...

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.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > He'd be sent to a secret FISA Star Chamber. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review only are empowered to handle foreign intelligence surveillance warrant process. Criminal charges are handled in US District Courts, and are Constitutionally guaranteed to be public.
    - kermitismyhero 7y ago
      >Criminal charges are handled in US District Courts, and are Constitutionally guaranteed to be public. If you think that the US DOJ hasn't spent a million man-hours to find some way to keep everything as secret as possible, you haven't been paying attention to their actions thus far. They will find some way to kangaroo-court him out of the public eye. They do it with foreign nationals all the time.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > If you think that the US DOJ hasn't spent a million man-hours to find some way to keep everything as secret as possible, you haven't been paying attention to their actions thus far. I'm pretty sure that they have neither spent that many man-hours nor would get much value from spending anywhere close to that, because the parameters of “as secret as possible” are, while always subject to further litigation around the borders, not so mysterious or difficult to assess that it would take that much work to get a solid idea both where the boundaries were and what the relative risks of various ways of probing the areas where there is remaining uncertainty. > They will find some way to kangaroo-court him out of the public eye. They do it with foreign nationals all the time. Not with foreign nationals subjected to formal criminal extradition they don't. Foreign, allegedly unawful, combatants detained by the US military or transferred to their custody by America’s cobelligerents in the context of military conflict, all completely outside of the civilian criminal justice system, sure; foreign parties where the government covertly intervenes with overseas regimes to detain them without involving the US criminal justice system to, that too. But none of those are applicable here.

sedeki 7y ago

”And at the centre of all of this, that everyone seems to have forgotten, are these two women that have accused him of rape.” As far as I know, and at least Assange has claimed this publicly in a video at least once, these two women themselves did not make rape charges against Assange. The case was picked up by some prosecutor who initiated the charges.

Maxious 7y ago
One of the victims' lawyer said a month ago when he left the embassy they still wanted to re-open the case: "We are going to do everything we possibly can to get the swedish police investigation re-opened so that Assange can be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted for rape. No rape victim should have to wait 9 years to see justice be served." https://twitter.com/ElisabethMFritz/status/1116292951125180416 https://twitter.com/ElisabethMFritz/status/11162929511251804...
DanBC 7y ago
"Pressing charges" may be a thing in US law, but it isn't elsewhere. In many jurisdictions prosecutors don't need the permission, nor cooperation, of the victims to bring a case to court. This is especially important in crimes of sexual violence because the fear of retribution causes many victims not to report; and because some victims will be being coercively controlled by their partners.
- learc83 7y ago
  It's not a thing in US law either (at least in the states I'm aware of). "Do you want to press charges" is just a colloquialism that means "do you want the prosecutor to press charges, and will you cooperate as a witness." In less serious cases the victim's wishes are taken into account. However, the prosecutor is the one who charges the accused, and consent or cooperation from the victim isn't needed. It is hard to convict in cases where an uncooperative victim is the only witness, but it happens in domestic abuse cases all the time.
SiempreViernes 7y ago
They did in fact file rape charges, but as is common they didn't do it immediately but after talking about the event with friends. They have also, wisely avoiding much of the media, enlisted a lawyer to speak on their behalf on the matter, and it was the lawyers filing that led to the investigation being reopened again. For a pretty complete chronology, see this page on the Swedish prosecution authority: https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-...

colordrops 7y ago

If it's such a problem why don't you advocate for getting the laws changed in the US? While his alleged actions are shady, they are not illegal in the US, so anyone who plays the humanity angle without also suggesting changing US law is just using it for political purposes.

aliswe 7y ago

Okay, now I get it. They cancelled prosecuting him because he couldn't be reached. But now they can. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/aklagaren-vill-hava-haktningen-mot-julian-assange https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/aklagaren-vill-hava-haktn...