4 ms·

The Swedish people want his blood too, as does the Swedish Prime Minister. He is going to go into a secret trial, and possibly just disappear. Also the Austra

by illumen 15y ago

The Swedish people want his blood too, as does the Swedish Prime Minister. He is going to go into a secret trial, and possibly just disappear. Also the Australian Prime minister wants him locked up, so I wouldn't be surprised they don't do something. It's likely they will help the US take him away somewhere nasty rather than do it themselves though. When you have multiple world leaders going after you, there's not much you can do. Basically Julian is fucked.

Steer 15y ago
Don't know where you are from, but since I am from Sweden and live in Sweden I can assure you that what you are writing is simply not true. There isn't a concensus on Assange's possible guilt in this case, opinions are divided (while most people don't care about this at all of course). Can you give an example of any previous cases that has gone to a "secret trial" here in Sweden?
- illumen 15y ago
  "Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said evidence from a trial would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public." That is a secret trial. The Swedish Prime Minister has declared the man guilty, as well major Swedish news sources have declared his guilt. Those are the best evidence I can give - elected members, and the press. I can only give anecdotal evidence of the Swedish people accusing him of being a misogynist and a rapist - without hearing evidence. There is even an element of racism, as he is an Australia, so obviously he must have done it. My experience based on friends, and friends of friends in Sweden is that many of them think he is guilty. There have been many instances of secret trials in Sweden. Not including the old Swedish Nazi trials of course, but more recently. See the quote from the prosecuting QC as evidence that the trial will not be public. The Swedish Parliament make the laws, and the Prime Minister has proclaimed the man guilty. Do you not see the lack of justice there?
  - piers 15y ago
    And can you link to reliable sources with that stuff? And there's a different between a rape trial being held in private (see fun2have's post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3186245 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3186245) and some secret committee. Personally, I think there are too many contradictions (like the fact that the stories have changed) for this to be something other than politically motivated. But we shall see.
  - gyardley 15y ago
    The Swedish Parliament make the laws, and the head of the Parliament has proclaimed the man guilty. Do you not see the lack of justice there? Is the head of Parliament also the judge at his trial? Will the Swedish people be voting on the verdict American Idol-style? If not, then no, I don't see 'the lack of justice there'. The legislative and judicial functions are kept separate for a reason.
  - Steer 15y ago
    It is always hard to grasp the nuances of the political system in other countries. The prime minister is not the head of the parliament; he is the head of the government. The head of the parliament is called "talman" (the "speaker" if I would hazard a guess at translating it). You are right in that it is the parliament that make the laws. What the Swedish prime minister has done is defending the Swedish judicial system which, at least to me, seem like a reasonable thing for him to do. You can read more about it here for example http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/8437-swedish-pm-slams-julian-assanges-claims- http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/8437-swedish-pm-slams-ju.... I can not find any reputable sources where he is quoted as saying that Assange is guilty. Regarding the media they have written the same gossip/sensationalistic crap the media of all western countries seem to write in these circumstances, varying wildly between "totally innocent" and "guilty" with a lot of erroneous reporting and misunderstandings in between. Oh, now I understand what you mean with "secret trials", a better way of putting it is "trials that are closed to the public" which is often done here in Sweden in trials concerning rape or children. That is put in place to protect the victims and although I don't know for sure I can't image that we are the only country in the world to practice it. All affected parties are of course allowed in to the court room, but you and I ("the public") are not. The verdict is made public as usual.
mike-cardwell 15y ago
Secret trial? We're talking about Sweden here, not the USA. Besides, this case is far too public for him to be "disappeared". I wouldn't even expect that to happen in Iran for this case.
- eli 15y ago
  "Secret trial" is a bit of stretch, but it's the way Assange's lawyer is spinning it: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/assange-lawyer-tells-u-k-court-swedish-prosecutor-abusing-power.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/assange-lawyer-tell... (I'm generally a strong advocate for transparency, but I think you could make a very convincing case for preventing the public and the press from observing every detail of a trial where a rape victim is confronting her accuser.)
fun2have 15y ago
The issue is that rape trials are held not in public in Sweden. There is still a record of the trial kept, but the public and press are chucked out. See http://www.thelocal.se/31908/20110208/# http://www.thelocal.se/31908/20110208/#
niklasl 15y ago
As a Swede, I can tell you we don't give a flying fuck about Assange and neither does the prime minister. If he had just come here and had his trial, he would have had about 95% chance of being acquitted (the courts being rather more cautious on sexual matters than the prosecutors here) and could go back to doing what he does. As for the secret trials and disappearing thing. Sweden has such a good reputation on freedom that Wikileaks wanted to relocate here before Assange got into trouble. He's certainly no worse off here than in the UK.
- illumen 15y ago
  You are wrong. The Swedish Prime minister has made public statements that the man is guilty. So has the Swedish press.
  - marcusf 15y ago
    Neither of them have any control of the courts, though. And of course our press will latch on to a juicy story, as would any.
    - illumen 15y ago
      The Prime Minister creates law. The press influence the courts through criticism and informing public opinion. The courts have already been subjected to almost a year of media coverage influencing them, and the politicians influencing them. There is a reason why the politicians are not supposed to comment on criminal cases. There is also a reason why people are supposed to make their decisions on the evidence and arguments in the court rather than being influenced by the media. Search on the internet for "Julian Assange is a rapist" on google.se and you will find countless claims that he is guilty coming from people in Sweden. Julian Assange är en våldtäktsman, brings up 1.5 million results on google.se. Having a secret trial, in a country proven to declare the guilt of the accused - without hearing the evidence - is not a fair trial. The whole thing makes a mockery of justice. He should be given a fair trial - as should anyone else on this planet. Let's try and flip nationalism around for the moment. Assume You personally were accused of something by the prosecutors of Finland, or the USA. Then the president of the USA comes out and says that you are "an enemy of the people", and states that you have bad ideas on committing crimes. Then you are going to be shipped off to the USA for a trial - but of course the evidence will not be made public, people will just have to trust the courts. There is a great risk of an unfair trial in Sweden for this case(not all cases). There is also a high risk that he will be sent to the USA and face execution once in Sweden - as stated by the Swedish prosecution. International law, and human rights should apply. This should be taken to a higher court in the UK.
peteretep 15y ago
> He is going to go into a secret trial, and possibly just disappear Ironically, had his defense been able to show any of that was vaguely true, he probably would have been able to resist the extradition request.

by illumen 15y ago

Steer 15y ago

Don't know where you are from, but since I am from Sweden and live in Sweden I can assure you that what you are writing is simply not true. There isn't a concensus on Assange's possible guilt in this case, opinions are divided (while most people don't care about this at all of course). Can you give an example of any previous cases that has gone to a "secret trial" here in Sweden?

illumen 15y ago
"Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said evidence from a trial would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public." That is a secret trial. The Swedish Prime Minister has declared the man guilty, as well major Swedish news sources have declared his guilt. Those are the best evidence I can give - elected members, and the press. I can only give anecdotal evidence of the Swedish people accusing him of being a misogynist and a rapist - without hearing evidence. There is even an element of racism, as he is an Australia, so obviously he must have done it. My experience based on friends, and friends of friends in Sweden is that many of them think he is guilty. There have been many instances of secret trials in Sweden. Not including the old Swedish Nazi trials of course, but more recently. See the quote from the prosecuting QC as evidence that the trial will not be public. The Swedish Parliament make the laws, and the Prime Minister has proclaimed the man guilty. Do you not see the lack of justice there?
- piers 15y ago
  And can you link to reliable sources with that stuff? And there's a different between a rape trial being held in private (see fun2have's post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3186245 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3186245) and some secret committee. Personally, I think there are too many contradictions (like the fact that the stories have changed) for this to be something other than politically motivated. But we shall see.
- gyardley 15y ago
  The Swedish Parliament make the laws, and the head of the Parliament has proclaimed the man guilty. Do you not see the lack of justice there? Is the head of Parliament also the judge at his trial? Will the Swedish people be voting on the verdict American Idol-style? If not, then no, I don't see 'the lack of justice there'. The legislative and judicial functions are kept separate for a reason.
- Steer 15y ago
  It is always hard to grasp the nuances of the political system in other countries. The prime minister is not the head of the parliament; he is the head of the government. The head of the parliament is called "talman" (the "speaker" if I would hazard a guess at translating it). You are right in that it is the parliament that make the laws. What the Swedish prime minister has done is defending the Swedish judicial system which, at least to me, seem like a reasonable thing for him to do. You can read more about it here for example http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/8437-swedish-pm-slams-julian-assanges-claims- http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/8437-swedish-pm-slams-ju.... I can not find any reputable sources where he is quoted as saying that Assange is guilty. Regarding the media they have written the same gossip/sensationalistic crap the media of all western countries seem to write in these circumstances, varying wildly between "totally innocent" and "guilty" with a lot of erroneous reporting and misunderstandings in between. Oh, now I understand what you mean with "secret trials", a better way of putting it is "trials that are closed to the public" which is often done here in Sweden in trials concerning rape or children. That is put in place to protect the victims and although I don't know for sure I can't image that we are the only country in the world to practice it. All affected parties are of course allowed in to the court room, but you and I ("the public") are not. The verdict is made public as usual.

mike-cardwell 15y ago

Secret trial? We're talking about Sweden here, not the USA. Besides, this case is far too public for him to be "disappeared". I wouldn't even expect that to happen in Iran for this case.

eli 15y ago
"Secret trial" is a bit of stretch, but it's the way Assange's lawyer is spinning it: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/assange-lawyer-tells-u-k-court-swedish-prosecutor-abusing-power.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/assange-lawyer-tell... (I'm generally a strong advocate for transparency, but I think you could make a very convincing case for preventing the public and the press from observing every detail of a trial where a rape victim is confronting her accuser.)

fun2have 15y ago

The issue is that rape trials are held not in public in Sweden. There is still a record of the trial kept, but the public and press are chucked out. See http://www.thelocal.se/31908/20110208/# http://www.thelocal.se/31908/20110208/#

niklasl 15y ago

As a Swede, I can tell you we don't give a flying fuck about Assange and neither does the prime minister. If he had just come here and had his trial, he would have had about 95% chance of being acquitted (the courts being rather more cautious on sexual matters than the prosecutors here) and could go back to doing what he does. As for the secret trials and disappearing thing. Sweden has such a good reputation on freedom that Wikileaks wanted to relocate here before Assange got into trouble. He's certainly no worse off here than in the UK.

illumen 15y ago
You are wrong. The Swedish Prime minister has made public statements that the man is guilty. So has the Swedish press.
- marcusf 15y ago
  Neither of them have any control of the courts, though. And of course our press will latch on to a juicy story, as would any.
  - illumen 15y ago
    The Prime Minister creates law. The press influence the courts through criticism and informing public opinion. The courts have already been subjected to almost a year of media coverage influencing them, and the politicians influencing them. There is a reason why the politicians are not supposed to comment on criminal cases. There is also a reason why people are supposed to make their decisions on the evidence and arguments in the court rather than being influenced by the media. Search on the internet for "Julian Assange is a rapist" on google.se and you will find countless claims that he is guilty coming from people in Sweden. Julian Assange är en våldtäktsman, brings up 1.5 million results on google.se. Having a secret trial, in a country proven to declare the guilt of the accused - without hearing the evidence - is not a fair trial. The whole thing makes a mockery of justice. He should be given a fair trial - as should anyone else on this planet. Let's try and flip nationalism around for the moment. Assume You personally were accused of something by the prosecutors of Finland, or the USA. Then the president of the USA comes out and says that you are "an enemy of the people", and states that you have bad ideas on committing crimes. Then you are going to be shipped off to the USA for a trial - but of course the evidence will not be made public, people will just have to trust the courts. There is a great risk of an unfair trial in Sweden for this case(not all cases). There is also a high risk that he will be sent to the USA and face execution once in Sweden - as stated by the Swedish prosecution. International law, and human rights should apply. This should be taken to a higher court in the UK.

peteretep 15y ago

> He is going to go into a secret trial, and possibly just disappear Ironically, had his defense been able to show any of that was vaguely true, he probably would have been able to resist the extradition request.