36 ms·

Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation

803 points by schappim 7y ago

ivl 7y ago
> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question." I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Memory weakens over time, and the case would've largely hinged on memory-based testimony.
  - Shihan 7y ago
    Yeah, but the testimony was surely recorded already some years ago? Or did they just wait.. I doubt so.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      If admissible, there'd still be the opportunity for cross examination. Any competent defense attorney should be able to easily impeach ten year old testimony by eliciting a whole bunch of "I don't remember" responses.
      - walterstucco666 7y ago
        Sweden is not U.S.
    - vertex-four 7y ago
      Sure, except that the victims would be called to the stand and get to answer everything they're asked with "I don't really remember", which isn't amazingly convincing.
    - ptaipale 7y ago
      The defence can still challenge the reliability of the testimony based on the time passed.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      Assange for one haven't been properly questioned, and he could well make relevant claims that are not covered in the old testimonies.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    This is true, but "people are unable to retrieve roughly 50% of information one hour after encoding" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/). Memory distortion can happen all kinds of ways, but it doesn't take very long at all for it to happen. The idea that after 9 years they would finally decide that maybe the witness's memory might be degraded, that ship has already sailed around the world several times. Prosecutors will wait until the end of time and still trot out memory-based testimony (as long as it still supports their case), so I think the claim about why they dropped the case is specious.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Eyewitnesses’ memories get worse, records get lost, etc. This is one of the reasons that statutes of limitations exist.
  - willis936 7y ago
    And they probably shouldn’t. Statute of limitations should only be to protect against fast changes to the law that apply retroactively.
    - rzwitserloot 7y ago
      The notion that a new law does NOT retroactively apply to acts done before the law was enacted is not called a 'statute of limitations'. A statue of limitations serves a few purposes. 1. At some point closure is better than justice, or at least, that's a theory. Better to get a crime on record because the committer of it confesses to it than not. The idea being that after, say, 10 years, the odds that the criminal would get caught have drifted off to as near to 0 as can be. 2. Records eventually get shredded if you wait long enough; eyewitness recollections in particular slowly mutate into conjecture (whilst said eyewitnesses will believe what they remember is accurate, there's plenty of proof out there that given enough time what they remember is not at all accurate and it gets worse over time). This makes it easier to accidentally convict on flawed evidence, and makes it harder for the defendant to defend themselves.
      - willis936 7y ago
        The only cases I’ve seen it become relevant is when a crime, typically sexual assault, becomes impossible to prosecute. The assumption made is that all evidence becomes irrelevant after x number of years. x happens to be well within a human lifetime and it clearly is not accurate when using 1970s technology, let alone 2010s. There are a myriad of reasons that victims don’t charge crimes that have been committed against them. Its existence points towards having a “legal system” rather than a “justice system”.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
- lettergram 7y ago
  If I recall the evidence was always pretty weak. I don’t have time to find the news article from back then, but it was “sexual assault” because he didn’t wear a condom and at the time the woman (perhaps plural) didn’t want to really participate. Could be wrong though... Does anyone have some news from back then?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-assange-explainer-819208/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-ass... > 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, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge. > 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.
    - Nerdfest 7y ago
      There was also some chatter about the woman being a former CIA operative. The whole thing has smelled so bad right from the start.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        There's chatter that the Queen of England is a lizard shapeshifter. The claims that one accuser was a CIA operative appear very, very thin. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-ju... > What has most engaged the conspiracy theorists and Assange's more excitable defenders, however, are a few key incidents in Miss A career, in particular that she is said to have worked in the Swedish embassy in the US, and wrote her university thesis in 2007 on a vision of Cuba after the death of Castro.
- trentnix 7y ago
  The charge had served its purpose and the evidence was eventually going to actually be scrutinized. It was just lawfare all along.
  - toxik 7y ago
    While this is certainly part of the answer, it is not the whole answer. Staying on your ally’s good side is important, but there really seems to be weakened evidence; new hearings have been made, and they _are_ substantially less impactful due to it being ten years ago.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I don't think there's any reason to believe the prosecutor is going to tell the BBC the full story behind the decision making for dropping the case, versus a sound bite that seems reasonable. If they had obtained internal first-person memos discussion the reasons for dropping the case, then you could probably assume those would be credible.
- injb 7y ago
  He's now safely in police custody and the US has already revealed its plans to extradite him, so there's no longer any need for the charges in Sweden. That's what's meant by this, imo.
  - mtgx 7y ago
    Or they never had any strong charges to begin with and the whole plan was to hand over Assange to the US, just Assange said.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    Or they never had any strong charges to begin with and the whole plan was to hand over Assange to the US, just Assange said. This is a copy of a dead comment. Not mine.
    - Forbo 7y ago
      You can vouch for dead comments if you believe they are contributing to the conversation. Click on the timestamp to see if the option is available, I'd imagine it is karma dependent.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        I know my vouching ability was taken away for reasons never really clear to me.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
      To hand him over to the US they would, under EU law, need the UK's permission. So it would be harder to hand him over from Sweden than from the UK, and the latter is well-known for being America's lapdog. If the accausation is false, why did they not make it in the UK instead of Sweden and make things easier?
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    Why is he in police custody? Excuse my ignorance, I don't know a lot about him other than he's a popular whistleblower who was involved in WikiLeaks. Is he in police custody for that?
- kkarakk 7y ago
  He got picked up in a country that the US can extradite from and they would actually have to look at the case now. This thing has been so transparent. Stay safe Snowden and all you other possible whistleblowers/leakers out there! To people downvoting me - check out the vox article on this earlier this year. 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... The women were "vehement" about restarting the case. Reportedly were "willing to do whatever it takes to force case to be re-opened" The statute of limitations is August,2020. But suddenly it doesn't matter according to sweden
- gutnor 7y ago
  Maybe the victim have moved on. Rape without physical violence like this rely entirely on the victim testimony and even if there is a record and everything that will weaken the case terribly if the victim is no longer on board.
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    The alleged victims never pressed to have Assange questioned or charged for sexual assault.
- geofft 7y ago
  Sweden already announced in 2017 they were giving up prosecuting the case because of the futility of proceeding. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/19/sweden-withdraws-arrest-warrant-for-julian-assange-but-he-still-faces-serious-legal-jeopardy/ https://theintercept.com/2017/05/19/sweden-withdraws-arrest-...
- philwelch 7y ago
  Sometimes a rape victim will just want to move on with her life instead of being unfairly smeared as a CIA puppet by a bunch of neckbeards on the internet.
- mikl 7y ago
  There was no evidence, just two women accusing him of sexual misconduct (if memory serves, it wasn’t even rape in the classical sense, but Assange not wearing a condom when he’d said he would).
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  They had new interviews after reopening the case to check the reliability of the various old testimonies, as well as talking to some new people, and I guess they concluded that the totality of the evidence wasn't as strong. Presumably some people have changed their testimony somewhat. In any case, this was always the most likely outcome: very few sexual assault cases ever make it to court in Sweden.
Kenji 7y ago
So the rape allegations were in fact bogus and just an excuse to persecute him. Now he's in prison and has to fight extradition to the US. It's ridiculous how transparent and shallow this entire ruse is, and how the public just doesn't get how everyone involved here was a US puppet. Shame on Sweden, the UK and the US, honestly.
kuu 7y ago
Does it mean he is free again?
- djsumdog 7y ago
  No, he still has to serve 50 weeks for jumping bail in the UK.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    And after that, the US wants a crack at him.
  - Aser 7y ago
    He's served that time already. He's now being held awaiting extradition to the US.
    - olalonde 7y ago
      > The 48-year-old Australian was evicted in April and sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions. Still a couple of months to go (April + 50 weeks = ~March).
      - celticninja 7y ago
        He was due to be released on 22 September after serving his sentence for breaching bail conditions. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49689167 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49689167
      - pmyteh 7y ago
        In England, you get (essentially automatic) early release at the half way point. He's now held on remand for the extradition proceedings: didn't ask for bail, and essentially no chance of him being granted it given what happened last time he was bailed...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
djsumdog 7y ago
So he still gets almost another full year in a UK jail. After that, where can he go? Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely), he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying. Australia did little to help him in his situation, and it would be likely America could extradite him from there. There's a good chance it may never be safe for him to return home.
- pjc50 7y ago
  If not extradited to the US, he would most likely end up being deported to his country of origin (Australia) directly.
- Roark66 7y ago
  If he is released from UK jail he can hop onto a ferry and go to mainland EU. There he could travel to anywhere within the Shengen zone. I'm not sure about western countries, but Poland(as well as other eastern countries I believe) will not extradite anyone anywhere unless the crime is also considered a crime here, there is no possibility of death penalty, and there is strong evidence submitted that makes a conviction likely. By its definition treason against a country can be committed, by a citizen of that country. Assange is not a US citizen so he can't commit a crime of treason against US - end of story. US could try to get him on some other charges - espionage perhaps, but there would have to be strong evidence which allegedly is severely lacking. This is why it is very important for US to have Assange extradited from UK. UK has a "special" extradition deal with US that simplifies the procedure.
  - me_me_me 7y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure about Poland though. CIA secret prisons and politicians begging any US politician to just wave in their general direction as sign of recognition. US has a lot power over UK and Sweden, what makes u think western Europe is different?
    - 7y ago
criley2 7y ago
Sad that powerful people can avoid regular people justice by complaining loudly enough and throwing big enough fits. The Donald Trump model of avoiding prosecution: make it too painful to follow through with the rule of law.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Assange isn't a great example of someone escaping justice (or "the arm of the law", if you'd prefer). He spent years in a prison-like environment, and is now in prison for skipping out on bail - he's been in jail-like conditions far longer than the original crime would've incurred. He's likely to wind up in US hands later on, too.
  - criley2 7y ago
    1. His self-imposed sequester was not in prison and had NOTHING to do with justice or serving time. He willingly chose his location and is allowed to leave it at any moment. Can you say that of any prisoner? He had free access to internet and visitors and many many luxuries rightfully denied to criminals serving time 2. Even if you think his "self-imposed punishment" was bad, it categorically by definition is not justice, and as this point, he raped a woman (understood the limits of her consent, and violated that consent to engage in non-consensual sex) and has gotten away with it with literally zero repercussion. Even from a rehabilitation standpoint, does anyway seriously think Julian learned his lesson and will respect consent after he literally got away with raping someone?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      His embassy conditions, by all accounts, were pretty similar to a Nordic prison. "Allowed to leave at any moment" is a bit of a disingenuous way of describing "be immediately arrested and taken to real-jail". His freedom of movement was severely restricted for a good part of a decade - that's a significant repercussion, even if not directly inflicted by a court. > Even from a rehabilitation standpoint, does anyway seriously think Julian learned his lesson and will respect consent after he literally got away with raping someone? Oh, not at all, but the same is true for many of those who go through the normal justice system.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
m00dy 7y ago
well, hmmm, looks like you can't dodge US
sample2448 7y ago
Ah, sweden and rape, name a more iconic duo
k1m 7y ago
Worth mentioning that Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, visited Assange and described his treatment as psychological torture: > “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma. > “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... This article by the UN expert is also well worth reading: Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange - https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
- duxup 7y ago
  I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of "torture" a bit questionable. It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Assange has been under conditions a little worse than "threat of prosecution."
  - maze-le 7y ago
    "free country"... oxymoron of the century by now...
    - duxup 7y ago
      What would you define a "free country" as?
pjc50 7y ago
It's not torture if you can leave at any time. He wasn't being held in the embassy, he was hiding there.
- EthanHeilman 7y ago
  I'm not weighing in on this particular example because I haven't looked at in sufficient depth. However I want to strongly push back on the argument that: something can't be torture or abuse because the person is physically able to leave. The absence of a locked door does not capture the full scope of coercion and psychological in many situations. This sort of excuse is often used by cults and domestic abusers to justify why the terrible things they do are not abusive. People die or have life long psychological trauma from hazing rituals that they are "free to leave at any point".
  - qubex 7y ago
    I concur with you on this. The availability of a theoretical ‘out’ does not automatically mean that the victim is consenting to the ongoing mistreatment. Often it is intrinsic that taking that ‘out’ has perceived costs that make it less preferable than enduring the experience the victim is being subjected to. This is in and of itself a source of great angst for the victim.
    - EthanHeilman 7y ago
      Given the sunk cost fallacy, the magnitude of increasing suffering someone might put up with is unbounded.
- k1m 7y ago
  "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment." Are you saying we should take your word over theirs?
  - sambe 7y ago
    He could leave the embassy at any time, which is where the purported damage was done. He is now in prison, where he cannot leave it any time. Melzer visited him recently in prison, thus your quote. It seems pretty clear. The parent may be lacking in nuance for his situation, but it is correct.
acollins1331 7y ago
How does that prosecutor sleep at night knowing they lie for a foreign government? I also thought Sweden was supposed to be one of the countries that actually cared about human rights, too.
jaimex2 7y ago
Title should really be 'US takes hand out of Swedish puppet now that its free to extradite Assange' The take away here is stay anonymous when whistle blowing or handling leaks. Don't talk to anyone, don't say anything just take a USB stick to an Internet cafe while disguised and host a torrent. Then email the press the magnet link using a throw away email service.
- geofft 7y ago
  Er, Assange himself was the press, here. Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower who tried to keep her identity safe until Adrian Lamo (may God have mercy on his soul, because I sure won't) reported her to US authorities.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I don't want to defend Lamo, but he surely got pressure from the government and some kind of deal.
    - ohithereyou 7y ago
      That makes it worse, not better. Take the punishment for the shit you did and say nothing about what someone else did if what they did saved lives and served the public good.
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
        True. As I said, it is no excuse. Just that I believe that the government can be quite convincing and has methods to let people do something they wouldn't be proud of.
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    >Adrian Lamo The same Adrian Lamo who told Chelsea Manning that he'd treat what she told him as a confession (he was an ordained minister and the implication was that he'd never tell anybody) to gain her trust[1]. Let's not forget Kevin Poulsen's complicity in this. The hacker community is not your friend, and you need to assume that members will sell you out for glory or to save their own asses. I've never celebrated the death of anybody, but I did feel the world was a better place after Adrian Lamo died. [1] https://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html https://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html
wolco 7y ago
That's nice of them to drop the trumped up charges 10 years later.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  There were never any charges. He was only wanted for questioning.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
walterstucco666 7y ago
Well, this is another proof that Assange is the worst enemy of Assange. He was so convinced that Hillary Clinton was going to kill him that actively put wikileaks to work to take her down, so Donald Trump won and "after the election of Donald Trump, UC Global's espionage activities registered a true escalation." He also made enemies at the Embassy of Ecuador in London with his behaviour, so when Moreno rose to power it was easy game for him to collaborate with the new U.S. administration, Assange was a problem either for foreign politics and personally he wasn't making things easy to deal with. Getting rid of him was probably a liberation for the embassy personnell. He escaped Swedish justice, that now confirms being a just justice system, after 10 years of stall on Assange side they drop the case because it would be impossible to prove he did what we know he did (force a woman into sex intercourse without condom) - because he confirmed he did it, calling Sweden "the Saudi Arabia of feminism" and also adding "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism". Now it is clear that had he gone through the Swedish justice system, the worst that could happen to him would be a few years of jail in Sweden, which is an hotel compared to most of the rest of the world, now his "friend" Trump wants his head on a spike and he risks up to 175 years in jail. And it's all Assange's fault.
trpc 7y ago
There were, not long ago, times when Assange was considered a saint of freedom after he exposed the corrupt Bush administration, the liberals everywhere were defending him and his case everywhere, they even made a Hollywood film about him. But he then made the mistake of his life, he exposed the corruption of the Clintons and got implicated in the Russia gate meme because Trump somehow won. Now he is totally on his own. Nobody will defend him even if these corrupt governments burnt him alive and broadcasted it live. Makes you think if these liberals actually give a single shit about freedom anyway. I know that this is an ultra liberal community and I will get downvoted and flagged within a few minutes. But if someone is too scared to even lose a worthless website account to say what he sees as the right opinion, he should not live anyway.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  In fairness to the ultra liberals of HN, there is still plenty of support for Assange around here so your brush may be a touch broad.
  - objektif 7y ago
    Well he still has a valid point about spineless partizans.
- deiznof 7y ago
  If you were on reddit this would be true, but here people aren't on "I hate Assange" autopilot.
- alwaysanagenda 7y ago
  Good to see this voice among the masses who have a memory long enough to understand the big picture. I think Assange will be taken care of when all is said and done. This is from 2016, Dr. Steve Pieczenik explains it all -- Assange was part of a 'counter-coup' from within the US Government to take down the Clinton cabal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&feature=emb_title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&feature=emb_titl...
- ur-whale 7y ago
sebow 7y ago
No shit, it was most likely false and a pressure investigation to have Assange in the public eye's crosshair.(negatively of course) They got him though, too bad his message is nowhere near spread enough for people to give a damn.
auslander 7y ago
So sick seeing how UK judges listen to US.
- u10 7y ago
  ? They were responding to a valid extradition request by Sweden. How does the US factor in here?
  - auslander 7y ago
    In 2013, Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition but the English Crown Prosecution Service dissuaded them from doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
    - u10 7y ago
      Ok, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the United States
      - Iv 7y ago
        Sure.
        u10 7y ago
        astute observation, how on earth did I miss that?
turtlesdown11 7y ago
He is an odious figure who has been improperly deified. I'm not sure why folks love his self-aggrandizing, reckless behavior. The guy helped Russia destabilize the globe, resulting in our current geopolitical situation, for his own selfish goals rather than any other. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate released information exposing bad behavior by governments (Snowden, etc). Just not this guys selfishness and cooperation with Russia.
- proffeature8 7y ago
  I agree with what you say and still support him. This has nothing to do with his personality and everything to do with the fact that a free press is more important than any one of the particular things you stated.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  A lot of people liked Assange back when he had only yet published information about corrupt politicians in the Third World. Some people abandoned Assange when he published information about US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people abandoned him when he published information about the back-room dealing of US diplomacy. Some people abandoned him when he published embarrassing information about a Democratic Presidential candidate. As for destabilizing the globe: some would say the people Assange has exposed are the ones destabilizing the world.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
  >The guy helped Russia destabilize the globe, resulting in our current geopolitical situation Who still thinks Russia is most responsible for destabilizing the globe? Did you miss some history classes or haven't your heard yet of the USA?
geofft 7y ago
By the way, Chelsea Manning (the actual leaker) has been in jail for just over 6 months - again - for refusing to testify in the Assange extradition case. If you're so inclined, send something to her legal defense fund: https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-legal-funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpoena https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...
- Bostonian 7y ago
  Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years, but her sentence was commuted by Obama in part because she was transgender. She deserves to be in prison. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/chelsea-manning-sentence-commuted/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/chelsea-manning-sent... President Barack Obama on Tuesday overruled his secretary of defense to commute the sentence of former Army soldier Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of stealing and disseminating 750,000 pages of documents and videos to WikiLeaks. The decision -- which a senior defense official told CNN was made over the objections of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter -- immediately touched off a controversy in the closing days of the Obama administration. A former intelligence official described being "shocked" to learn of Obama's decision, adding that the "entire intelligence community is deflated by this inexplicable use of executive power." The official said the move was "deeply hypocritical given Obama's denunciation of WikiLeaks' role in the hacking of the (Democratic National Committee)."
  - femiagbabiaka 7y ago
    Whistleblowers do not deserve to be in prison. Exposing war crimes is good.
    - kpU8efre7r 7y ago
      Manning should have used whistleblower channels then. They did not because Manning is not a whistleblower.
    - mariorossi666 7y ago
      She wasn't technically a whistleblower, technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect. The military have a different way of dealing with justice, especially in U.S. She was in fact sentenced by court-martial not by a regular court.
hugi 7y ago
Sure thing, Eichmann.
throwaway-hn123 7y ago
I will shed no tears if Assange has 'an accident' in prision,
dominotw 7y ago
What a weird statment. How can a country decide to drop a crime against its citizen. Shouldn't the person who got raped be deciding that.
- mikl 7y ago
  In most European countries, the state prosecutor decides who to charge with a crime, regardless what purported victims think. It might be a bit foreign, but it does help with some cases, like partner violence, where the victim might not want to press charges against a violent partner. Under this model, if the police learns of the crime, they are obliged to prosecute it if possible.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > the state prosecutor decides who to charge with a crime, regardless what purported victims think. So state prosecutor can simply drop the charges if she feels like it? in usa people have the right to jury trial. Seems really unfair that prosecutor can unilaterally simply drop your case, wonder why its that way.
    - whamlastxmas 7y ago
      In the US, any alleged victims can sue in civil court, separate from any criminal charges
    - favorited 7y ago
      This is absolutely no different than in the US. A government prosecutor needs to press criminal charges. The accused has the right to a jury trial. An alleged victim has no such right.
      - mikl 7y ago
        Ok, maybe I’ve seen too many movies, but I had the impression that at least for some crimes (misdemeanors?) the victim can opt to not "press charges"?
forgetfulusr 7y ago
Thank you Julian for confirming my long held beliefs of the atrocities the US government continues to do on our world. I'm sorry that we are not as strong as you but your actions have breathed hope. Hope that there still are breathing humans with their heads together,fighting for a better world. You have convinced at least this soul to be a shittier brick. I apologize for my comfy cowardness. You deserve better citizens alongside you. By the looks of things, they are likely to be behind bars as well. Good luck sir.
wnevets 7y ago
He fled and ran the clock out. He's a coward and should stay in prison
mikl 7y ago
Yeah, now Assange’s extradition to the U.S. is ensured, there’s no reason to keep the sham investigation going any longer. Sweden’s involvement in the extrajudicial persecution of Assange is downright shameful.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
liquidify 7y ago
>the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation. This is bullshit. Either they had real evidence or not. Evidence does not "weaken" with time. The truth is they never had evidence because the charges were BS in the first place. The only thing that has weakened is the fact that that the U.S. and other powers that want him dead already have him... so they no longer need trumped up charges to snare him. He should be freed immediately and damages should be paid to him by all those involved in his illegal detention.
jasonzemos 7y ago
> Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation. I used to think Sweden was "woke" and progressive but I was mistaken. A statement like this by law enforcement in California would be unacceptable.
dwoozle 7y ago
You mean it was just a pretext to exfiltrate him to the US, and that Sweden does not in fact have a long national track record of pursuing rapists across international boundaries without prejudice, using the full arsenal of state power?
- lostmyoldone 7y ago
  I don't know if it was only a pretext, probably not only, but Sweden certainly doesn't have a track record of either pursuing rape suspects using the full arsenal of state powers, or of publicly announcing rape allegations as was done in this case. The accusations might very well be true, but the Swedish prosecutions actions and statements has baffled me from day one. His legal representation acted quite strange too. I read some court proceedings from some of the UK hearings, among other things the lawyer had called witnesses that had no business being there, it was rather embarrassing to read.
  - dwoozle 7y ago
    It’s obvious that the rape charges were a highly selective enforcement action. It would be great if Sweden pursued every rapist as though they were Osama Bin Laden but the fact is they only pursued one.
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      What makes it obvious?
earthboundkid 7y ago
"Jeffery Epstein didn't commit suicide."
praptak 7y ago
Worth reminding: "Sweden’s Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange’s Arrest" https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/797188 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/797188
- monocasa 7y ago
  Lolz > 404 Not Found
spodek 7y ago
> Ms Persson said: "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. > "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation." Did Ms Persson also clarify that a lack of evidence suggests that the state consider that Assange may be the injured party. Presuming the accuser injured seems to deprive Assange of an assumption of innocence (not sure if applicable there). Were Assange's statements not coherent, extensive, and detailed? If so, why favor the accuser? Why deprive Assange of fair treatment?
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  No, lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of crime. Evidence is material. A lack of evidence by definition is not material.
nkurz 7y ago
I'm surprised that I haven't seen this more widely reported, but over the weekend it was announced that the Judge who has been presiding over Assange's detention hearings appears to have been removed from the case due to her conflicts of interests: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/16/arbuthnot-out-as-assanges-judge-says-wikileaks-lawyer-jen-robinson/ https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/16/arbuthnot-out-as-assan...
Allower 7y ago
>"Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma" These read like symptoms of being a human being in the modern world...
sunstone 7y ago
So now that Assange is in custody in the UK Sweden drops the transparently bogus charges. Not Sweden's finest hour.
thecleaner 7y ago
This is a win for democracy.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Assange is being prosecuted for his journalistic activities, while the news media that happily profited by republishing WikiLeaks material sits by, hardly raising any objection. That's the really shameful aspect of this entire drama. You'd think they'd be raising all hell right now in order to protect the freedom of the press.
RickJWagner 7y ago
Given that Assange greatly benefited Donald Trump's campaign (by publishing damaging but authentic emails from Clinton's campaign), I won't be one bit surprised if the US charges somehow disappear as well.
cookie_monsta 7y ago
The guy conspired to hack govt computers with the intent of publishing classified information. This much we know from the Manning chat transcript. What those secrets were and if Assange is a journalist or publisher or rapist or saint or martyr or useful idiot is all moot. The guy is going to spend time in a US prison at some point unless he dies or flees. If he doesn't go via Sweden is almost immaterial (unless you're a rape victim wanting their day in court). What exactly is it about Assange that says he should be immune from prosecution and what other loopholes exist to the rule of law?

803 points by schappim 7y ago

ivl 7y ago

> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question." I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?

ceejayoz 7y ago
Memory weakens over time, and the case would've largely hinged on memory-based testimony.
- Shihan 7y ago
  Yeah, but the testimony was surely recorded already some years ago? Or did they just wait.. I doubt so.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    If admissible, there'd still be the opportunity for cross examination. Any competent defense attorney should be able to easily impeach ten year old testimony by eliciting a whole bunch of "I don't remember" responses.
    - walterstucco666 7y ago
      Sweden is not U.S.
  - vertex-four 7y ago
    Sure, except that the victims would be called to the stand and get to answer everything they're asked with "I don't really remember", which isn't amazingly convincing.
  - ptaipale 7y ago
    The defence can still challenge the reliability of the testimony based on the time passed.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Assange for one haven't been properly questioned, and he could well make relevant claims that are not covered in the old testimonies.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  This is true, but "people are unable to retrieve roughly 50% of information one hour after encoding" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/). Memory distortion can happen all kinds of ways, but it doesn't take very long at all for it to happen. The idea that after 9 years they would finally decide that maybe the witness's memory might be degraded, that ship has already sailed around the world several times. Prosecutors will wait until the end of time and still trot out memory-based testimony (as long as it still supports their case), so I think the claim about why they dropped the case is specious.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
Eyewitnesses’ memories get worse, records get lost, etc. This is one of the reasons that statutes of limitations exist.
- willis936 7y ago
  And they probably shouldn’t. Statute of limitations should only be to protect against fast changes to the law that apply retroactively.
  - rzwitserloot 7y ago
    The notion that a new law does NOT retroactively apply to acts done before the law was enacted is not called a 'statute of limitations'. A statue of limitations serves a few purposes. 1. At some point closure is better than justice, or at least, that's a theory. Better to get a crime on record because the committer of it confesses to it than not. The idea being that after, say, 10 years, the odds that the criminal would get caught have drifted off to as near to 0 as can be. 2. Records eventually get shredded if you wait long enough; eyewitness recollections in particular slowly mutate into conjecture (whilst said eyewitnesses will believe what they remember is accurate, there's plenty of proof out there that given enough time what they remember is not at all accurate and it gets worse over time). This makes it easier to accidentally convict on flawed evidence, and makes it harder for the defendant to defend themselves.
    - willis936 7y ago
      The only cases I’ve seen it become relevant is when a crime, typically sexual assault, becomes impossible to prosecute. The assumption made is that all evidence becomes irrelevant after x number of years. x happens to be well within a human lifetime and it clearly is not accurate when using 1970s technology, let alone 2010s. There are a myriad of reasons that victims don’t charge crimes that have been committed against them. Its existence points towards having a “legal system” rather than a “justice system”.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
lettergram 7y ago
If I recall the evidence was always pretty weak. I don’t have time to find the news article from back then, but it was “sexual assault” because he didn’t wear a condom and at the time the woman (perhaps plural) didn’t want to really participate. Could be wrong though... Does anyone have some news from back then?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-assange-explainer-819208/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-ass... > 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, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge. > 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.
  - Nerdfest 7y ago
    There was also some chatter about the woman being a former CIA operative. The whole thing has smelled so bad right from the start.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      There's chatter that the Queen of England is a lizard shapeshifter. The claims that one accuser was a CIA operative appear very, very thin. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-ju... > What has most engaged the conspiracy theorists and Assange's more excitable defenders, however, are a few key incidents in Miss A career, in particular that she is said to have worked in the Swedish embassy in the US, and wrote her university thesis in 2007 on a vision of Cuba after the death of Castro.
trentnix 7y ago
The charge had served its purpose and the evidence was eventually going to actually be scrutinized. It was just lawfare all along.
- toxik 7y ago
  While this is certainly part of the answer, it is not the whole answer. Staying on your ally’s good side is important, but there really seems to be weakened evidence; new hearings have been made, and they _are_ substantially less impactful due to it being ten years ago.
zaroth 7y ago
I don't think there's any reason to believe the prosecutor is going to tell the BBC the full story behind the decision making for dropping the case, versus a sound bite that seems reasonable. If they had obtained internal first-person memos discussion the reasons for dropping the case, then you could probably assume those would be credible.
injb 7y ago
He's now safely in police custody and the US has already revealed its plans to extradite him, so there's no longer any need for the charges in Sweden. That's what's meant by this, imo.
- mtgx 7y ago
  Or they never had any strong charges to begin with and the whole plan was to hand over Assange to the US, just Assange said.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Or they never had any strong charges to begin with and the whole plan was to hand over Assange to the US, just Assange said. This is a copy of a dead comment. Not mine.
  - Forbo 7y ago
    You can vouch for dead comments if you believe they are contributing to the conversation. Click on the timestamp to see if the option is available, I'd imagine it is karma dependent.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      I know my vouching ability was taken away for reasons never really clear to me.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    To hand him over to the US they would, under EU law, need the UK's permission. So it would be harder to hand him over from Sweden than from the UK, and the latter is well-known for being America's lapdog. If the accausation is false, why did they not make it in the UK instead of Sweden and make things easier?
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  Why is he in police custody? Excuse my ignorance, I don't know a lot about him other than he's a popular whistleblower who was involved in WikiLeaks. Is he in police custody for that?
kkarakk 7y ago
He got picked up in a country that the US can extradite from and they would actually have to look at the case now. This thing has been so transparent. Stay safe Snowden and all you other possible whistleblowers/leakers out there! To people downvoting me - check out the vox article on this earlier this year. 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... The women were "vehement" about restarting the case. Reportedly were "willing to do whatever it takes to force case to be re-opened" The statute of limitations is August,2020. But suddenly it doesn't matter according to sweden
gutnor 7y ago
Maybe the victim have moved on. Rape without physical violence like this rely entirely on the victim testimony and even if there is a record and everything that will weaken the case terribly if the victim is no longer on board.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  The alleged victims never pressed to have Assange questioned or charged for sexual assault.
geofft 7y ago
Sweden already announced in 2017 they were giving up prosecuting the case because of the futility of proceeding. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/19/sweden-withdraws-arrest-warrant-for-julian-assange-but-he-still-faces-serious-legal-jeopardy/ https://theintercept.com/2017/05/19/sweden-withdraws-arrest-...
philwelch 7y ago
Sometimes a rape victim will just want to move on with her life instead of being unfairly smeared as a CIA puppet by a bunch of neckbeards on the internet.
mikl 7y ago
There was no evidence, just two women accusing him of sexual misconduct (if memory serves, it wasn’t even rape in the classical sense, but Assange not wearing a condom when he’d said he would).
SiempreViernes 7y ago
They had new interviews after reopening the case to check the reliability of the various old testimonies, as well as talking to some new people, and I guess they concluded that the totality of the evidence wasn't as strong. Presumably some people have changed their testimony somewhat. In any case, this was always the most likely outcome: very few sexual assault cases ever make it to court in Sweden.

Kenji 7y ago

So the rape allegations were in fact bogus and just an excuse to persecute him. Now he's in prison and has to fight extradition to the US. It's ridiculous how transparent and shallow this entire ruse is, and how the public just doesn't get how everyone involved here was a US puppet. Shame on Sweden, the UK and the US, honestly.

kuu 7y ago

Does it mean he is free again?

djsumdog 7y ago
No, he still has to serve 50 weeks for jumping bail in the UK.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  And after that, the US wants a crack at him.
- Aser 7y ago
  He's served that time already. He's now being held awaiting extradition to the US.
  - olalonde 7y ago
    > The 48-year-old Australian was evicted in April and sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions. Still a couple of months to go (April + 50 weeks = ~March).
    - celticninja 7y ago
      He was due to be released on 22 September after serving his sentence for breaching bail conditions. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49689167 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49689167
    - pmyteh 7y ago
      In England, you get (essentially automatic) early release at the half way point. He's now held on remand for the extradition proceedings: didn't ask for bail, and essentially no chance of him being granted it given what happened last time he was bailed...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

djsumdog 7y ago

So he still gets almost another full year in a UK jail. After that, where can he go? Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely), he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying. Australia did little to help him in his situation, and it would be likely America could extradite him from there. There's a good chance it may never be safe for him to return home.

pjc50 7y ago
If not extradited to the US, he would most likely end up being deported to his country of origin (Australia) directly.
Roark66 7y ago
If he is released from UK jail he can hop onto a ferry and go to mainland EU. There he could travel to anywhere within the Shengen zone. I'm not sure about western countries, but Poland(as well as other eastern countries I believe) will not extradite anyone anywhere unless the crime is also considered a crime here, there is no possibility of death penalty, and there is strong evidence submitted that makes a conviction likely. By its definition treason against a country can be committed, by a citizen of that country. Assange is not a US citizen so he can't commit a crime of treason against US - end of story. US could try to get him on some other charges - espionage perhaps, but there would have to be strong evidence which allegedly is severely lacking. This is why it is very important for US to have Assange extradited from UK. UK has a "special" extradition deal with US that simplifies the procedure.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure about Poland though. CIA secret prisons and politicians begging any US politician to just wave in their general direction as sign of recognition. US has a lot power over UK and Sweden, what makes u think western Europe is different?
  - 7y ago

criley2 7y ago

Sad that powerful people can avoid regular people justice by complaining loudly enough and throwing big enough fits. The Donald Trump model of avoiding prosecution: make it too painful to follow through with the rule of law.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Assange isn't a great example of someone escaping justice (or "the arm of the law", if you'd prefer). He spent years in a prison-like environment, and is now in prison for skipping out on bail - he's been in jail-like conditions far longer than the original crime would've incurred. He's likely to wind up in US hands later on, too.
- criley2 7y ago
  1. His self-imposed sequester was not in prison and had NOTHING to do with justice or serving time. He willingly chose his location and is allowed to leave it at any moment. Can you say that of any prisoner? He had free access to internet and visitors and many many luxuries rightfully denied to criminals serving time 2. Even if you think his "self-imposed punishment" was bad, it categorically by definition is not justice, and as this point, he raped a woman (understood the limits of her consent, and violated that consent to engage in non-consensual sex) and has gotten away with it with literally zero repercussion. Even from a rehabilitation standpoint, does anyway seriously think Julian learned his lesson and will respect consent after he literally got away with raping someone?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    His embassy conditions, by all accounts, were pretty similar to a Nordic prison. "Allowed to leave at any moment" is a bit of a disingenuous way of describing "be immediately arrested and taken to real-jail". His freedom of movement was severely restricted for a good part of a decade - that's a significant repercussion, even if not directly inflicted by a court. > Even from a rehabilitation standpoint, does anyway seriously think Julian learned his lesson and will respect consent after he literally got away with raping someone? Oh, not at all, but the same is true for many of those who go through the normal justice system.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

m00dy 7y ago

well, hmmm, looks like you can't dodge US

sample2448 7y ago

Ah, sweden and rape, name a more iconic duo

k1m 7y ago

Worth mentioning that Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, visited Assange and described his treatment as psychological torture: > “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma. > “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... This article by the UN expert is also well worth reading: Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange - https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768 https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...

duxup 7y ago
I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of "torture" a bit questionable. It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Assange has been under conditions a little worse than "threat of prosecution."
- maze-le 7y ago
  "free country"... oxymoron of the century by now...
  - duxup 7y ago
    What would you define a "free country" as?

pjc50 7y ago

It's not torture if you can leave at any time. He wasn't being held in the embassy, he was hiding there.

EthanHeilman 7y ago
I'm not weighing in on this particular example because I haven't looked at in sufficient depth. However I want to strongly push back on the argument that: something can't be torture or abuse because the person is physically able to leave. The absence of a locked door does not capture the full scope of coercion and psychological in many situations. This sort of excuse is often used by cults and domestic abusers to justify why the terrible things they do are not abusive. People die or have life long psychological trauma from hazing rituals that they are "free to leave at any point".
- qubex 7y ago
  I concur with you on this. The availability of a theoretical ‘out’ does not automatically mean that the victim is consenting to the ongoing mistreatment. Often it is intrinsic that taking that ‘out’ has perceived costs that make it less preferable than enduring the experience the victim is being subjected to. This is in and of itself a source of great angst for the victim.
  - EthanHeilman 7y ago
    Given the sunk cost fallacy, the magnitude of increasing suffering someone might put up with is unbounded.
k1m 7y ago
"Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment." Are you saying we should take your word over theirs?
- sambe 7y ago
  He could leave the embassy at any time, which is where the purported damage was done. He is now in prison, where he cannot leave it any time. Melzer visited him recently in prison, thus your quote. It seems pretty clear. The parent may be lacking in nuance for his situation, but it is correct.

acollins1331 7y ago

How does that prosecutor sleep at night knowing they lie for a foreign government? I also thought Sweden was supposed to be one of the countries that actually cared about human rights, too.

jaimex2 7y ago

Title should really be 'US takes hand out of Swedish puppet now that its free to extradite Assange' The take away here is stay anonymous when whistle blowing or handling leaks. Don't talk to anyone, don't say anything just take a USB stick to an Internet cafe while disguised and host a torrent. Then email the press the magnet link using a throw away email service.

geofft 7y ago
Er, Assange himself was the press, here. Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower who tried to keep her identity safe until Adrian Lamo (may God have mercy on his soul, because I sure won't) reported her to US authorities.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I don't want to defend Lamo, but he surely got pressure from the government and some kind of deal.
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    That makes it worse, not better. Take the punishment for the shit you did and say nothing about what someone else did if what they did saved lives and served the public good.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      True. As I said, it is no excuse. Just that I believe that the government can be quite convincing and has methods to let people do something they wouldn't be proud of.
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  >Adrian Lamo The same Adrian Lamo who told Chelsea Manning that he'd treat what she told him as a confession (he was an ordained minister and the implication was that he'd never tell anybody) to gain her trust[1]. Let's not forget Kevin Poulsen's complicity in this. The hacker community is not your friend, and you need to assume that members will sell you out for glory or to save their own asses. I've never celebrated the death of anybody, but I did feel the world was a better place after Adrian Lamo died. [1] https://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html https://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html

wolco 7y ago

That's nice of them to drop the trumped up charges 10 years later.

whamlastxmas 7y ago
There were never any charges. He was only wanted for questioning.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

walterstucco666 7y ago

Well, this is another proof that Assange is the worst enemy of Assange. He was so convinced that Hillary Clinton was going to kill him that actively put wikileaks to work to take her down, so Donald Trump won and "after the election of Donald Trump, UC Global's espionage activities registered a true escalation." He also made enemies at the Embassy of Ecuador in London with his behaviour, so when Moreno rose to power it was easy game for him to collaborate with the new U.S. administration, Assange was a problem either for foreign politics and personally he wasn't making things easy to deal with. Getting rid of him was probably a liberation for the embassy personnell. He escaped Swedish justice, that now confirms being a just justice system, after 10 years of stall on Assange side they drop the case because it would be impossible to prove he did what we know he did (force a woman into sex intercourse without condom) - because he confirmed he did it, calling Sweden "the Saudi Arabia of feminism" and also adding "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism". Now it is clear that had he gone through the Swedish justice system, the worst that could happen to him would be a few years of jail in Sweden, which is an hotel compared to most of the rest of the world, now his "friend" Trump wants his head on a spike and he risks up to 175 years in jail. And it's all Assange's fault.

trpc 7y ago

There were, not long ago, times when Assange was considered a saint of freedom after he exposed the corrupt Bush administration, the liberals everywhere were defending him and his case everywhere, they even made a Hollywood film about him. But he then made the mistake of his life, he exposed the corruption of the Clintons and got implicated in the Russia gate meme because Trump somehow won. Now he is totally on his own. Nobody will defend him even if these corrupt governments burnt him alive and broadcasted it live. Makes you think if these liberals actually give a single shit about freedom anyway. I know that this is an ultra liberal community and I will get downvoted and flagged within a few minutes. But if someone is too scared to even lose a worthless website account to say what he sees as the right opinion, he should not live anyway.

homonculus1 7y ago
In fairness to the ultra liberals of HN, there is still plenty of support for Assange around here so your brush may be a touch broad.
- objektif 7y ago
  Well he still has a valid point about spineless partizans.
deiznof 7y ago
If you were on reddit this would be true, but here people aren't on "I hate Assange" autopilot.
alwaysanagenda 7y ago
Good to see this voice among the masses who have a memory long enough to understand the big picture. I think Assange will be taken care of when all is said and done. This is from 2016, Dr. Steve Pieczenik explains it all -- Assange was part of a 'counter-coup' from within the US Government to take down the Clinton cabal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&feature=emb_title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&feature=emb_titl...
ur-whale 7y ago

sebow 7y ago

No shit, it was most likely false and a pressure investigation to have Assange in the public eye's crosshair.(negatively of course) They got him though, too bad his message is nowhere near spread enough for people to give a damn.

auslander 7y ago

So sick seeing how UK judges listen to US.

u10 7y ago
? They were responding to a valid extradition request by Sweden. How does the US factor in here?
- auslander 7y ago
  In 2013, Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition but the English Crown Prosecution Service dissuaded them from doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
  - u10 7y ago
    Ok, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the United States
    - Iv 7y ago
      Sure.
      - u10 7y ago
        astute observation, how on earth did I miss that?

turtlesdown11 7y ago

He is an odious figure who has been improperly deified. I'm not sure why folks love his self-aggrandizing, reckless behavior. The guy helped Russia destabilize the globe, resulting in our current geopolitical situation, for his own selfish goals rather than any other. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate released information exposing bad behavior by governments (Snowden, etc). Just not this guys selfishness and cooperation with Russia.

proffeature8 7y ago
I agree with what you say and still support him. This has nothing to do with his personality and everything to do with the fact that a free press is more important than any one of the particular things you stated.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
A lot of people liked Assange back when he had only yet published information about corrupt politicians in the Third World. Some people abandoned Assange when he published information about US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people abandoned him when he published information about the back-room dealing of US diplomacy. Some people abandoned him when he published embarrassing information about a Democratic Presidential candidate. As for destabilizing the globe: some would say the people Assange has exposed are the ones destabilizing the world.
rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
>The guy helped Russia destabilize the globe, resulting in our current geopolitical situation Who still thinks Russia is most responsible for destabilizing the globe? Did you miss some history classes or haven't your heard yet of the USA?

geofft 7y ago

By the way, Chelsea Manning (the actual leaker) has been in jail for just over 6 months - again - for refusing to testify in the Assange extradition case. If you're so inclined, send something to her legal defense fund: https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-legal-funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpoena https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...

Bostonian 7y ago
Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years, but her sentence was commuted by Obama in part because she was transgender. She deserves to be in prison. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/chelsea-manning-sentence-commuted/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/chelsea-manning-sent... President Barack Obama on Tuesday overruled his secretary of defense to commute the sentence of former Army soldier Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of stealing and disseminating 750,000 pages of documents and videos to WikiLeaks. The decision -- which a senior defense official told CNN was made over the objections of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter -- immediately touched off a controversy in the closing days of the Obama administration. A former intelligence official described being "shocked" to learn of Obama's decision, adding that the "entire intelligence community is deflated by this inexplicable use of executive power." The official said the move was "deeply hypocritical given Obama's denunciation of WikiLeaks' role in the hacking of the (Democratic National Committee)."
- femiagbabiaka 7y ago
  Whistleblowers do not deserve to be in prison. Exposing war crimes is good.
  - kpU8efre7r 7y ago
    Manning should have used whistleblower channels then. They did not because Manning is not a whistleblower.
  - mariorossi666 7y ago
    She wasn't technically a whistleblower, technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect. The military have a different way of dealing with justice, especially in U.S. She was in fact sentenced by court-martial not by a regular court.

hugi 7y ago

Sure thing, Eichmann.

throwaway-hn123 7y ago

I will shed no tears if Assange has 'an accident' in prision,

dominotw 7y ago

What a weird statment. How can a country decide to drop a crime against its citizen. Shouldn't the person who got raped be deciding that.

mikl 7y ago
In most European countries, the state prosecutor decides who to charge with a crime, regardless what purported victims think. It might be a bit foreign, but it does help with some cases, like partner violence, where the victim might not want to press charges against a violent partner. Under this model, if the police learns of the crime, they are obliged to prosecute it if possible.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > the state prosecutor decides who to charge with a crime, regardless what purported victims think. So state prosecutor can simply drop the charges if she feels like it? in usa people have the right to jury trial. Seems really unfair that prosecutor can unilaterally simply drop your case, wonder why its that way.
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    In the US, any alleged victims can sue in civil court, separate from any criminal charges
  - favorited 7y ago
    This is absolutely no different than in the US. A government prosecutor needs to press criminal charges. The accused has the right to a jury trial. An alleged victim has no such right.
    - mikl 7y ago
      Ok, maybe I’ve seen too many movies, but I had the impression that at least for some crimes (misdemeanors?) the victim can opt to not "press charges"?

forgetfulusr 7y ago

Thank you Julian for confirming my long held beliefs of the atrocities the US government continues to do on our world. I'm sorry that we are not as strong as you but your actions have breathed hope. Hope that there still are breathing humans with their heads together,fighting for a better world. You have convinced at least this soul to be a shittier brick. I apologize for my comfy cowardness. You deserve better citizens alongside you. By the looks of things, they are likely to be behind bars as well. Good luck sir.

wnevets 7y ago

He fled and ran the clock out. He's a coward and should stay in prison

mikl 7y ago

Yeah, now Assange’s extradition to the U.S. is ensured, there’s no reason to keep the sham investigation going any longer. Sweden’s involvement in the extrajudicial persecution of Assange is downright shameful.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

liquidify 7y ago

>the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation. This is bullshit. Either they had real evidence or not. Evidence does not "weaken" with time. The truth is they never had evidence because the charges were BS in the first place. The only thing that has weakened is the fact that that the U.S. and other powers that want him dead already have him... so they no longer need trumped up charges to snare him. He should be freed immediately and damages should be paid to him by all those involved in his illegal detention.

jasonzemos 7y ago

> Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation. I used to think Sweden was "woke" and progressive but I was mistaken. A statement like this by law enforcement in California would be unacceptable.

dwoozle 7y ago

You mean it was just a pretext to exfiltrate him to the US, and that Sweden does not in fact have a long national track record of pursuing rapists across international boundaries without prejudice, using the full arsenal of state power?

lostmyoldone 7y ago
I don't know if it was only a pretext, probably not only, but Sweden certainly doesn't have a track record of either pursuing rape suspects using the full arsenal of state powers, or of publicly announcing rape allegations as was done in this case. The accusations might very well be true, but the Swedish prosecutions actions and statements has baffled me from day one. His legal representation acted quite strange too. I read some court proceedings from some of the UK hearings, among other things the lawyer had called witnesses that had no business being there, it was rather embarrassing to read.
- dwoozle 7y ago
  It’s obvious that the rape charges were a highly selective enforcement action. It would be great if Sweden pursued every rapist as though they were Osama Bin Laden but the fact is they only pursued one.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    What makes it obvious?

earthboundkid 7y ago

"Jeffery Epstein didn't commit suicide."

praptak 7y ago

Worth reminding: "Sweden’s Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange’s Arrest" https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/797188 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/797188

monocasa 7y ago
Lolz > 404 Not Found

spodek 7y ago

> Ms Persson said: "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. > "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation." Did Ms Persson also clarify that a lack of evidence suggests that the state consider that Assange may be the injured party. Presuming the accuser injured seems to deprive Assange of an assumption of innocence (not sure if applicable there). Were Assange's statements not coherent, extensive, and detailed? If so, why favor the accuser? Why deprive Assange of fair treatment?

erikpukinskis 7y ago
No, lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of crime. Evidence is material. A lack of evidence by definition is not material.

nkurz 7y ago

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this more widely reported, but over the weekend it was announced that the Judge who has been presiding over Assange's detention hearings appears to have been removed from the case due to her conflicts of interests: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/16/arbuthnot-out-as-assanges-judge-says-wikileaks-lawyer-jen-robinson/ https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/16/arbuthnot-out-as-assan...

Allower 7y ago

>"Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma" These read like symptoms of being a human being in the modern world...

sunstone 7y ago

So now that Assange is in custody in the UK Sweden drops the transparently bogus charges. Not Sweden's finest hour.

thecleaner 7y ago

This is a win for democracy.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Assange is being prosecuted for his journalistic activities, while the news media that happily profited by republishing WikiLeaks material sits by, hardly raising any objection. That's the really shameful aspect of this entire drama. You'd think they'd be raising all hell right now in order to protect the freedom of the press.

RickJWagner 7y ago

Given that Assange greatly benefited Donald Trump's campaign (by publishing damaging but authentic emails from Clinton's campaign), I won't be one bit surprised if the US charges somehow disappear as well.

cookie_monsta 7y ago

The guy conspired to hack govt computers with the intent of publishing classified information. This much we know from the Manning chat transcript. What those secrets were and if Assange is a journalist or publisher or rapist or saint or martyr or useful idiot is all moot. The guy is going to spend time in a US prison at some point unless he dies or flees. If he doesn't go via Sweden is almost immaterial (unless you're a rape victim wanting their day in court). What exactly is it about Assange that says he should be immune from prosecution and what other loopholes exist to the rule of law?