4 ms·

Sweden seemed to have a valid legal case that he avoided for multiple years taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Tycho 7y ago
Which they conspicuously are suddenly no longer interested in pursuing, now that he has lost his asylum. You would almost think the whole case had been a ruse from the start.
- WAHa_06x36 7y ago
  How does that make any sense?
- jeltz 7y ago
  I am pretty sure the case was real (the names of the accusers leaked and I have no reason to think they were on the payroll of any government), but I also find it very likely that the case was dragged on to an absurd degree to harass Assange. Sweden wanted to drop the case already in 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-t...
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Not so much to harass Assange as to uphold the image of the justice department, do you think any law agency will take a fugitive escaping to a different county and then being very public about their whereabouts quietly? Especially when they flee from accusations of a serous crime that the government has pretty lousy track record at solving. He flees to the UK, and you expect the prosecution to go "oh well, that's like 2 hours flight away, we'll never get him now"?
    - einpoklum 7y ago
      Assange did not flee Sweden, and please stop repeating that false claim.
- compuguy 7y ago
  They stopped perusing the case (I believe) partially because of they passed the statue of limitations on the accused crime.
  - jeltz 7y ago
    As far as I know the statue of limitations has not been reached yet. The reason he investigation was dropped was that Swedish law requires coercive measures to be proportionate, but I have no idea why they decided that it was too much in 2017 specifically. They had been talking about dropping the investigation since 2013. Basically the Swedish authorities thought that going after him more than they already had would be too much for the level of suspicion and the crime.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Only the less serious charges had passed the statute of limitations.
    - compuguy 7y ago
      Thank you for the clarification. I've honestly not followed all of the ins and outs of all this that closely.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Yes, it's entirely unheard of that cases get dropped. Must have been a ruse.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  Indeed, although to be fair - the statute of limitation on the fourth offense he was suspected of expires in 2020.
einpoklum 7y ago
> Sweden seemed to have a valid legal case that he avoided for multiple years taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy. No, it had not seemed to have such cause. First, even assuming the complaint against merited an investigation to begin with, the fact that the prosecution did not choose to charge him formally on the basis of the evidence available to it means the charge did not merit an international investigation (especially one which amounts to just questioning the accused). Second, Sweden asked that Assange be held and/or extradited for questioning or interrogation. It is not clear why an uncharged person (even if not a journalist) should be arrested without even being officially officially charged. I am not well-versed in UK law (especially UK constitutional law, as they don't have a constitution) - but I doubt that's valid. Third, suppose Sweden did have a legal right to require a questioning/investigation. Assange offered, throughout his time at the embassy, to undergo this at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedish authorities did not accept this offer. Remember, by Swedish law Assange was never considered more than a suspect, and assumed to be innocent; meaning there needed to be a good reason to refuse such an arrangement. Fourth, the person whose claims opened the investigation against Assange withdrew (most? all?) of those claims; and Swedish authorities eventually closed the case. and there's more... but the last point worth mentioning is that as early as 2013, Sweden wanted to _drop_ the extradition request, but the UK authorities _dissuaded_ Swedish representatives from doing so (!) More reading and references on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
- notahacker 7y ago
  > Second, Sweden asked that Assange be held and/or extradited for questioning or interrogation. It is not clear why an uncharged person (even if not a journalist) should be arrested without even being officially officially charged. I am not well-versed in UK law (especially UK constitutional law, as they don't have a constitution) - but I doubt that's valid. People who are very well versed in UK law heard these arguments from Assange's excellent lawyers and decided otherwise. [Actually it's quite normal to be arrested on suspicion of something before being charged in the UK, so their arguments were more focused on equivalence for international warrants and extradition purposes...] > Third, suppose Sweden did have a legal right to require a questioning/investigation. Assange offered, throughout his time at the embassy, to undergo this at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedish authorities did not accept this offer. Remember, by Swedish law Assange was never considered more than a suspect, and assumed to be innocent; meaning there needed to be a good reason to refuse such an arrangement. I'd have said the fact that the Swedish prosecutor requested the interview whilst he was in Sweden in order to formally charge him and arrest him, and he responded by leaving the country and insisting on only holding the interview in an environment where the second part wasn't possible seemed like a pretty good reason tbh. Similarly, if you are a fugitive charges from the US, the police are unlikely to accept your gracious offer of allowing them to do the reading Miranda rights bit by telephone video link or on foreign territory without an extradition treaty, which says absolutely nothing about the strength of the case. > Fourth, the person whose claims opened the investigation against Assange withdrew (most? all?) of those claims; and Swedish authorities eventually closed the case. The Swedish authorities closed the case and [publicly] reopened it after at the request of the lawyer acting for the women, which is nearly as unhelpful to the argument that Swedish prosecutors were desperate to pin things on Assange for foreign policy reasons as it is to the argument that the women aren't interested. Every time the case gets closed by Swedish prosecutors there's a statement from the women's lawyer that she's working on getting it reopened, and they're on at least their second by now... Obviously because it involves Assange, the majority of articles covering the case have some sort of slant and assumption about Assange's motivations one way or another, but one of the few things that isn't seriously in dispute is that Swedish prosecutors had already interviewed Assange and the difference between this interview and the ones he turned up as requested for in Sweden was that this one was intended to end with him being detained awaiting trial. That's why Assange turned up multiple times in person to speak with both Swedish and UK law enforcement when they didn't have a valid basis to detain him for any period of time, but didn't attend this particular interview in Sweden and wouldn't go back there to do so.

Which they conspicuously are suddenly no longer interested in pursuing, now that he has lost his asylum. You would almost think the whole case had been a ruse from the start.

WAHa_06x36 7y ago
How does that make any sense?
jeltz 7y ago
I am pretty sure the case was real (the names of the accusers leaked and I have no reason to think they were on the payroll of any government), but I also find it very likely that the case was dragged on to an absurd degree to harass Assange. Sweden wanted to drop the case already in 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-t...
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Not so much to harass Assange as to uphold the image of the justice department, do you think any law agency will take a fugitive escaping to a different county and then being very public about their whereabouts quietly? Especially when they flee from accusations of a serous crime that the government has pretty lousy track record at solving. He flees to the UK, and you expect the prosecution to go "oh well, that's like 2 hours flight away, we'll never get him now"?
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    Assange did not flee Sweden, and please stop repeating that false claim.
compuguy 7y ago
They stopped perusing the case (I believe) partially because of they passed the statue of limitations on the accused crime.
- jeltz 7y ago
  As far as I know the statue of limitations has not been reached yet. The reason he investigation was dropped was that Swedish law requires coercive measures to be proportionate, but I have no idea why they decided that it was too much in 2017 specifically. They had been talking about dropping the investigation since 2013. Basically the Swedish authorities thought that going after him more than they already had would be too much for the level of suspicion and the crime.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Only the less serious charges had passed the statute of limitations.
  - compuguy 7y ago
    Thank you for the clarification. I've honestly not followed all of the ins and outs of all this that closely.
FireBeyond 7y ago
Yes, it's entirely unheard of that cases get dropped. Must have been a ruse.
einpoklum 7y ago
Indeed, although to be fair - the statute of limitation on the fourth offense he was suspected of expires in 2020.

einpoklum 7y ago

> Sweden seemed to have a valid legal case that he avoided for multiple years taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy. No, it had not seemed to have such cause. First, even assuming the complaint against merited an investigation to begin with, the fact that the prosecution did not choose to charge him formally on the basis of the evidence available to it means the charge did not merit an international investigation (especially one which amounts to just questioning the accused). Second, Sweden asked that Assange be held and/or extradited for questioning or interrogation. It is not clear why an uncharged person (even if not a journalist) should be arrested without even being officially officially charged. I am not well-versed in UK law (especially UK constitutional law, as they don't have a constitution) - but I doubt that's valid. Third, suppose Sweden did have a legal right to require a questioning/investigation. Assange offered, throughout his time at the embassy, to undergo this at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedish authorities did not accept this offer. Remember, by Swedish law Assange was never considered more than a suspect, and assumed to be innocent; meaning there needed to be a good reason to refuse such an arrangement. Fourth, the person whose claims opened the investigation against Assange withdrew (most? all?) of those claims; and Swedish authorities eventually closed the case. and there's more... but the last point worth mentioning is that as early as 2013, Sweden wanted to _drop_ the extradition request, but the UK authorities _dissuaded_ Swedish representatives from doing so (!) More reading and references on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

notahacker 7y ago
> Second, Sweden asked that Assange be held and/or extradited for questioning or interrogation. It is not clear why an uncharged person (even if not a journalist) should be arrested without even being officially officially charged. I am not well-versed in UK law (especially UK constitutional law, as they don't have a constitution) - but I doubt that's valid. People who are very well versed in UK law heard these arguments from Assange's excellent lawyers and decided otherwise. [Actually it's quite normal to be arrested on suspicion of something before being charged in the UK, so their arguments were more focused on equivalence for international warrants and extradition purposes...] > Third, suppose Sweden did have a legal right to require a questioning/investigation. Assange offered, throughout his time at the embassy, to undergo this at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedish authorities did not accept this offer. Remember, by Swedish law Assange was never considered more than a suspect, and assumed to be innocent; meaning there needed to be a good reason to refuse such an arrangement. I'd have said the fact that the Swedish prosecutor requested the interview whilst he was in Sweden in order to formally charge him and arrest him, and he responded by leaving the country and insisting on only holding the interview in an environment where the second part wasn't possible seemed like a pretty good reason tbh. Similarly, if you are a fugitive charges from the US, the police are unlikely to accept your gracious offer of allowing them to do the reading Miranda rights bit by telephone video link or on foreign territory without an extradition treaty, which says absolutely nothing about the strength of the case. > Fourth, the person whose claims opened the investigation against Assange withdrew (most? all?) of those claims; and Swedish authorities eventually closed the case. The Swedish authorities closed the case and [publicly] reopened it after at the request of the lawyer acting for the women, which is nearly as unhelpful to the argument that Swedish prosecutors were desperate to pin things on Assange for foreign policy reasons as it is to the argument that the women aren't interested. Every time the case gets closed by Swedish prosecutors there's a statement from the women's lawyer that she's working on getting it reopened, and they're on at least their second by now... Obviously because it involves Assange, the majority of articles covering the case have some sort of slant and assumption about Assange's motivations one way or another, but one of the few things that isn't seriously in dispute is that Swedish prosecutors had already interviewed Assange and the difference between this interview and the ones he turned up as requested for in Sweden was that this one was intended to end with him being detained awaiting trial. That's why Assange turned up multiple times in person to speak with both Swedish and UK law enforcement when they didn't have a valid basis to detain him for any period of time, but didn't attend this particular interview in Sweden and wouldn't go back there to do so.