3 ms·

It matters because it is believed the Swedish prosecutor does not have enough evidence to actually bring charges. After questioning she will either have to brin

It matters because it is believed the Swedish prosecutor does not have enough evidence to actually bring charges. After questioning she will either have to bring charges or drop the case. On the other hand, as you say, questioning Assange in the UK has no obvious downside for the prosecutor.

philwelch 14y ago
Assange's supporters and conspiracy theorists will believe anything except the possibility that someone with a documented history of narcissistic behavior actually sexually assaulted someone.
- foobarqux 14y ago
  You can believe that Assange had sex with someone without a condom, in violation of their expressed wishes, without believing that 1. sufficient evidence exists for a case to be brought 2. that he is safer in Sweden from onward extradition to the US for what arguably amounts to political persecution.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    If this was how criminal law worked, Hans Reiser would be working on another filesystem from his house in Oakland right now. Nobody on the Internet believed the case brought against him either. You cannot reasonably believe that he is less safe in Sweden than the UK. That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The list of reasons why his safety changes not- at- all after going to Sweden is compelling and widely documented. Occam's razor strongly indicates that Assange isn't going to Sweden because he simply doesn't want to face criminal proceedings.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Or, remaining a "fugitive" is an excellent PR strategy for himself and wikileaks.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Conceded.
    - foobarqux 14y ago
      Some people may believe he is innocent but what I said is that there may not be enough evidence to bring a case, as I imagine is common in sexual molestation cases, and this is a good explanation for why he has not been questioned. Sweden is less safe than the UK primarily because it is a far smaller country that is more susceptible to American influence, because there is less support for Assange there than the UK (and therefore it would politically easier to extradite him) and because the UK has a history of resisting extradition (e.g. McKinnon) while the best example of Sweden's willingness to comply were the rendition cases and that Sweden has complied with essentially every extradition request in the previous few years. The arguments for why he would be as safe in Sweden are essentially that extradition requests are subject to judicial review in Sweden. I would expect the UK's judicial's system to be more refined that Sweden's but putting that aside we would expect the Swedish judiciary to be less reliable for the reasons of outside influence given above. The idea that any judiciary is immune from political pressure or not influenced by current political views is naive. In addition the judiciary can be overridden by the executive branch. The argument for why they wouldn't abuse that power is that the Swedish executive would be violating international law. However this is not an effective deterrent because Assange likely cannot afford to pay for such legal proceedings, the extradition would probably occur before the legal challenge anyway (after which it is game over anyway), and the penalty for violating international law is negligible when the US/UK are on your side. Even when Sweden lost in the rendition cases they only had to pay a fine. The US would gladly pay several millions of dollars to get custody of Assange. Policing the embassy alone is costing the UK something like a million dollars a day. Finally one must consider that thinking Sweden is comparably safe to the UK and being wrong is almost certainly many many years in US prison if not life.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Under Sweden's laws, he can't be questioned until he appears in person to be charged. They didn't make that law up to screw Assange; they did it because it's part of how Sweden protects the rights of the accused. Basically every assertion you made in this comment is wrong: * The UK is a closer ally of the US's than Sweden. * The UK has cooperated more with the US in "renditioning" subjects than Sweden, which stopped cooperation in 2006. * The UK is governed by a coalition led by political conservatives, and Sweden by liberals. * The UK's extradition system is substantially the same as that of Sweden, and both inherit the protections of the ECHR. * The judiciary of Sweden is exactly as accountable to local politics as that of the UK. * By treaty, Sweden is required to obtain the consent of the UK to further extradite Assange.
- ucee054 14y ago
  That's great except the rape warrant was dropped. Then it was re-issued. Here's the timeline: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 Does that seem like normal behaviour to you, that the authorities keeping hitting "retry" on legal proceedings until they get the result they want? Oh I forgot, to point out basic facts is to be a "conspiracy theorist". I guess if you grew up in Iran, you'd find it perfectly plausible when the Islamic Republic claim that the Green Movement are foreign spies. And you'd call anyone who distrusted the authorities on that point a "conspiracy theorist".

philwelch 14y ago

Assange's supporters and conspiracy theorists will believe anything except the possibility that someone with a documented history of narcissistic behavior actually sexually assaulted someone.

foobarqux 14y ago
You can believe that Assange had sex with someone without a condom, in violation of their expressed wishes, without believing that 1. sufficient evidence exists for a case to be brought 2. that he is safer in Sweden from onward extradition to the US for what arguably amounts to political persecution.
- tptacek 14y ago
  If this was how criminal law worked, Hans Reiser would be working on another filesystem from his house in Oakland right now. Nobody on the Internet believed the case brought against him either. You cannot reasonably believe that he is less safe in Sweden than the UK. That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The list of reasons why his safety changes not- at- all after going to Sweden is compelling and widely documented. Occam's razor strongly indicates that Assange isn't going to Sweden because he simply doesn't want to face criminal proceedings.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Or, remaining a "fugitive" is an excellent PR strategy for himself and wikileaks.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Conceded.
  - foobarqux 14y ago
    Some people may believe he is innocent but what I said is that there may not be enough evidence to bring a case, as I imagine is common in sexual molestation cases, and this is a good explanation for why he has not been questioned. Sweden is less safe than the UK primarily because it is a far smaller country that is more susceptible to American influence, because there is less support for Assange there than the UK (and therefore it would politically easier to extradite him) and because the UK has a history of resisting extradition (e.g. McKinnon) while the best example of Sweden's willingness to comply were the rendition cases and that Sweden has complied with essentially every extradition request in the previous few years. The arguments for why he would be as safe in Sweden are essentially that extradition requests are subject to judicial review in Sweden. I would expect the UK's judicial's system to be more refined that Sweden's but putting that aside we would expect the Swedish judiciary to be less reliable for the reasons of outside influence given above. The idea that any judiciary is immune from political pressure or not influenced by current political views is naive. In addition the judiciary can be overridden by the executive branch. The argument for why they wouldn't abuse that power is that the Swedish executive would be violating international law. However this is not an effective deterrent because Assange likely cannot afford to pay for such legal proceedings, the extradition would probably occur before the legal challenge anyway (after which it is game over anyway), and the penalty for violating international law is negligible when the US/UK are on your side. Even when Sweden lost in the rendition cases they only had to pay a fine. The US would gladly pay several millions of dollars to get custody of Assange. Policing the embassy alone is costing the UK something like a million dollars a day. Finally one must consider that thinking Sweden is comparably safe to the UK and being wrong is almost certainly many many years in US prison if not life.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Under Sweden's laws, he can't be questioned until he appears in person to be charged. They didn't make that law up to screw Assange; they did it because it's part of how Sweden protects the rights of the accused. Basically every assertion you made in this comment is wrong: * The UK is a closer ally of the US's than Sweden. * The UK has cooperated more with the US in "renditioning" subjects than Sweden, which stopped cooperation in 2006. * The UK is governed by a coalition led by political conservatives, and Sweden by liberals. * The UK's extradition system is substantially the same as that of Sweden, and both inherit the protections of the ECHR. * The judiciary of Sweden is exactly as accountable to local politics as that of the UK. * By treaty, Sweden is required to obtain the consent of the UK to further extradite Assange.
ucee054 14y ago
That's great except the rape warrant was dropped. Then it was re-issued. Here's the timeline: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 Does that seem like normal behaviour to you, that the authorities keeping hitting "retry" on legal proceedings until they get the result they want? Oh I forgot, to point out basic facts is to be a "conspiracy theorist". I guess if you grew up in Iran, you'd find it perfectly plausible when the Islamic Republic claim that the Green Movement are foreign spies. And you'd call anyone who distrusted the authorities on that point a "conspiracy theorist".