4 ms·

He could also just have used his fame to end up in bed with two women and maybe, Swedish women are not as easily intimidated by exterior circumstances (the publ

He could also just have used his fame to end up in bed with two women and maybe, Swedish women are not as easily intimidated by exterior circumstances (the public shame associated with a rape case etc.) as others. It has been reported before that Assange is not exactly an easy character. It's possible that it's a set up, it's also possible that he's at the same time a person that made an important move with wikileaks and an asshole that coerced two women to have sex with him. It's just something that the courts will have to clear up. On a related note: It don't believe punishment for the charges brought against him is not severe enough to really warrant such a move from the side of the spy agencies. The damage had already been done, bringing the allegations against him in a public court in Sweden might retroactively damage Assanges credentials a little, but the documents stood quite well on their own and the expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low prison sentence in a Swedish prison. I just don't buy that. It's not worth the effort.

eyko 12y ago
A lot of maybes and no proof. If the women had been sexually assaulted, and if these assumptions are to be taken seriously (e.g. that they are not easily intimidated by exterior circumstances) then much of what happened after the alleged rape would make no sense whatsoever (their friendly behaviour, their tweets, their comments with other friends/witnesses). In fact, there is so much that has been put into question that it's ridiculous how the swedish government even took the case seriously. And let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape and he's only wanted for questioning. I believe that this is what they are saying because it's impossible to justify any other stance based on the lack of evidence...
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  Except the case went to the UK Supreme Court and the extradition was found to be justified. The English legal system has a very good track record of standing up to the government so unless you're suggesting that they too have somehow "been got at" as well... Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets I do love the blind belief that Assange is the victim of a highly successful multi-government conspiracy over a number of years.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    > Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets How do you come to the conclusion that governments are poor at keeping secrets? There have been relatively few leaks of consequence, and governments have done a great job of making an example of the people doing the leaking. Manning is in prison, Snowden is in exile, Assange is locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Serious journalists like Greenwald have to base themselves in third-world countries. So while governments are perhaps mediocre at protecting data, they can certainly go after anybody who places it in the public domain, and this fear effect is a much stronger deterrent than anything else they could do.
    - cmdkeen 12y ago
      Greenwald seems to base himself there for publicity purposes. No-one else from the New York Times has moved, the Guardian is still firmly based in the UK.
- dagw 12y ago
  let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to trial.
  - contingencies 12y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement for custody before questioning and Sweden along with other European nations have a frequent history of using remote questioning via video conference or telephone. The prosecutor in this case has just refused to do that, for no legally stated reason except further slurs such as she considers him a 'flight risk' (even though he received permission to leave Sweden, and the case has already been thrown out of court once, and at this point it's blatantly clear that it's a politically motivated case with no chance of a fair trial). The prosecutor is, in fact, in breach of Sweden's own rules which require a speedy and fair trial with the minimum assertion of guilt on the party being questioned.
    - Tomte 12y ago
      You're wrong. "Questioning" is an awkward translation and does not mean what you think it means. It has been debated to death in all those Assange threads. Please read the article in New Statesman that another poster helpfully linked to somewhere in this thread.
      - contingencies 12y ago
        I note that you have a personal interest in Sweden and are German. I am glad that you are able to tell me about what questioning means in English. Thanks for telling me I'm wrong, and to go and look up why. That was really useful and added a lot to the conversation. Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): Even though Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some, including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a fugitive on the run. In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge. I wonder if you will read it? http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html
jnbiche 12y ago
>but the documents stood quite well on their own and the expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low prison sentence in a Swedish prison. The concern has not been the sexual assault changes. The concern been that once Assange is in Swedish hands, the U.S. will unveil a warrant for his arrest, and Sweden will happily extradite him. And then he's tortured and rots in a maximum security prison. That's the concern. Given the lengths the U.S. has gone to in order to obtain people associated with intelligence leaks, including forcing a presidential plane to the ground, I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.
- xorcist 12y ago
  As has been said many times, that is not a legitimate concern. The rules are much harder to extradite from Sweden than from the UK. Why the elaborate set up to make things harder? And the current situation makes it even more absurd. They would first need to extradite him back to the UK, and then to the US. No one has so far been able to show how it could be done in any other way.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    Probably because there would be a big public outcry in the UK, in the event of a direct extradition to the US. Both because Wikileaks has a lot of support in the UK, and because the general public feels extradition laws are unfairly tilted to US advantage. Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      > Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition. But they couldn't, that's the whole point.
      - msandford 12y ago
        > But they couldn't You've presupposed that the various organizations that are quite literally the only "legitimate" authorities in their respective jurisdictions are above bending/changing the rules ever so slightly for this one case. What prevents the UK from just storming the Ecuadorian embassy and arresting Assange? Hundreds or possibly thousands of years of foreign relations precedent and agreement. Is it worth breaking with that tradition to arrest Assange? Probably not. But whatever treaty "prevents" Sweden from extraditing him to the US without first sending him back to the UK is probably a lot flimsier. And easier to say "look we only sent him to Sweden since we knew he had to come back through the UK in order to be extradited to the US" and the UK govt officials look good, the US is happy and Sweden doesn't have the US do whatever it is they'll be holding over their heads. Before you say "but the law prevents this!" just look at the UN. Why is that body such a joke? Because none of the nations are really bound by whatever the UN rules because they're all sovereign governments. They are the ultimate authorities in the territories that they administer and as such are not accustomed to HAVING to play by any rules. Any rules they do play by are part of a complicated calculus to get what they also want. Diplomatic immunity and embassies being "sovereign" territory aren't because anyone really believes in it for anyone else. They just want it for themselves so they go along with it for others such that it doesn't get taken away from them. Torture is against international law but the US has been doing precisely that under two different administrations at gitmo. Given that this is a FACT please explain what MAKES Sweden not extradite Assange to the US after they get him from the UK.

eyko 12y ago

A lot of maybes and no proof. If the women had been sexually assaulted, and if these assumptions are to be taken seriously (e.g. that they are not easily intimidated by exterior circumstances) then much of what happened after the alleged rape would make no sense whatsoever (their friendly behaviour, their tweets, their comments with other friends/witnesses). In fact, there is so much that has been put into question that it's ridiculous how the swedish government even took the case seriously. And let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape and he's only wanted for questioning. I believe that this is what they are saying because it's impossible to justify any other stance based on the lack of evidence...

cmdkeen 12y ago
Except the case went to the UK Supreme Court and the extradition was found to be justified. The English legal system has a very good track record of standing up to the government so unless you're suggesting that they too have somehow "been got at" as well... Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets I do love the blind belief that Assange is the victim of a highly successful multi-government conspiracy over a number of years.
- atlantic 12y ago
  > Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets How do you come to the conclusion that governments are poor at keeping secrets? There have been relatively few leaks of consequence, and governments have done a great job of making an example of the people doing the leaking. Manning is in prison, Snowden is in exile, Assange is locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Serious journalists like Greenwald have to base themselves in third-world countries. So while governments are perhaps mediocre at protecting data, they can certainly go after anybody who places it in the public domain, and this fear effect is a much stronger deterrent than anything else they could do.
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    Greenwald seems to base himself there for publicity purposes. No-one else from the New York Times has moved, the Guardian is still firmly based in the UK.
dagw 12y ago
let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to trial.
- contingencies 12y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement for custody before questioning and Sweden along with other European nations have a frequent history of using remote questioning via video conference or telephone. The prosecutor in this case has just refused to do that, for no legally stated reason except further slurs such as she considers him a 'flight risk' (even though he received permission to leave Sweden, and the case has already been thrown out of court once, and at this point it's blatantly clear that it's a politically motivated case with no chance of a fair trial). The prosecutor is, in fact, in breach of Sweden's own rules which require a speedy and fair trial with the minimum assertion of guilt on the party being questioned.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    You're wrong. "Questioning" is an awkward translation and does not mean what you think it means. It has been debated to death in all those Assange threads. Please read the article in New Statesman that another poster helpfully linked to somewhere in this thread.
    - contingencies 12y ago
      I note that you have a personal interest in Sweden and are German. I am glad that you are able to tell me about what questioning means in English. Thanks for telling me I'm wrong, and to go and look up why. That was really useful and added a lot to the conversation. Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): Even though Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some, including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a fugitive on the run. In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge. I wonder if you will read it? http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

jnbiche 12y ago

>but the documents stood quite well on their own and the expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low prison sentence in a Swedish prison. The concern has not been the sexual assault changes. The concern been that once Assange is in Swedish hands, the U.S. will unveil a warrant for his arrest, and Sweden will happily extradite him. And then he's tortured and rots in a maximum security prison. That's the concern. Given the lengths the U.S. has gone to in order to obtain people associated with intelligence leaks, including forcing a presidential plane to the ground, I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.

xorcist 12y ago
As has been said many times, that is not a legitimate concern. The rules are much harder to extradite from Sweden than from the UK. Why the elaborate set up to make things harder? And the current situation makes it even more absurd. They would first need to extradite him back to the UK, and then to the US. No one has so far been able to show how it could be done in any other way.
- atlantic 12y ago
  Probably because there would be a big public outcry in the UK, in the event of a direct extradition to the US. Both because Wikileaks has a lot of support in the UK, and because the general public feels extradition laws are unfairly tilted to US advantage. Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    > Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition. But they couldn't, that's the whole point.
    - msandford 12y ago
      > But they couldn't You've presupposed that the various organizations that are quite literally the only "legitimate" authorities in their respective jurisdictions are above bending/changing the rules ever so slightly for this one case. What prevents the UK from just storming the Ecuadorian embassy and arresting Assange? Hundreds or possibly thousands of years of foreign relations precedent and agreement. Is it worth breaking with that tradition to arrest Assange? Probably not. But whatever treaty "prevents" Sweden from extraditing him to the US without first sending him back to the UK is probably a lot flimsier. And easier to say "look we only sent him to Sweden since we knew he had to come back through the UK in order to be extradited to the US" and the UK govt officials look good, the US is happy and Sweden doesn't have the US do whatever it is they'll be holding over their heads. Before you say "but the law prevents this!" just look at the UN. Why is that body such a joke? Because none of the nations are really bound by whatever the UN rules because they're all sovereign governments. They are the ultimate authorities in the territories that they administer and as such are not accustomed to HAVING to play by any rules. Any rules they do play by are part of a complicated calculus to get what they also want. Diplomatic immunity and embassies being "sovereign" territory aren't because anyone really believes in it for anyone else. They just want it for themselves so they go along with it for others such that it doesn't get taken away from them. Torture is against international law but the US has been doing precisely that under two different administrations at gitmo. Given that this is a FACT please explain what MAKES Sweden not extradite Assange to the US after they get him from the UK.