18 ms·

Julian Assange case: Sweden offers to question him in UK

217 points by joosters 12y ago

raverbashing 12y ago
"Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward." Or maybe his lawyer should drop the offer and just let the statute run out now, since the prosecutor couldn't be bothered when it wasn't to her advantage.
- tomp 12y ago
  He's also charged with rape, which has a longer statute of limitations (10 years, until 2020). Edit: wukerplank is right, he wasn't charged, but (a kind of) rape is one of the crimes he allegedly committed and is wanted for questioning for (according to Wikipedia[1], it's "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape"), and this article and the Wikipedia[2] suggest that the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_legal_position http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_legal_po... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Statute_of_limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...
  - wukerplank 12y ago
    I don't think he was charged. They want him for questioning about allegations.
    - Tomte 12y ago
      He was not "charged", because that's not a Swedish word. But all the courts involved in the matter, in Sweden and abroad, have come to the conclusion, that the procedural state Assange is in, is equivalent to the English word "charged".
      - belorn 12y ago
        If we are analyzing the words, then the term rape also get a qualifier. He is accused of initiating sex with a women who was half-asleep, which falls under "helpless state" in the rape laws. The confusion is caused by Swedish laws having specific crimes and categories of crimes, in which "rape" is both a specific crime and a category.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Rule of thumb: If you have a law that allows someone to say the words "legitimate rape" without sounding like an idiot, change it.
      - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
        In the law of England & Wales can you be charged without being taken in to custody? I thought those on the run were "wanted for questioning concerning allegations of ..." and then when arrested they would be "charged under $statute for $crime" and read their rights, etc.? In Assange's case, he didn't escape after being charged did he so ...? Can someone clear this up for me, thanks. See for example: https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/overview https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/overview which doesn't quite answer this specific question. But https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights says [roughly] after arrest you will be "charged with a crime" or released.
        toyg 12y ago
        The critical point here is that British law has nothing to do with it. British police is co-operating only because of international treaties and obligations (europol etc) on handling fugitives from other countries. The effort intensity is suspect and likely politically motivated, but it's quite clear that Assange did not break any British law.
        spiralpolitik 12y ago
        He did not break any British law until he jumped bail into the embassy. Once he exits the embassy Assange will still have to clean that up. Based on the amount of money being spent to monitor him in embassy I wouldn't expect them to let Assange off lightly.
- SloopJon 12y ago
  > Or maybe his lawyer should drop the offer and just let the statute run out now Would the statute of limitations be tolled for the duration of Assange's stay at the embassy?
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    This is an interesting question. If someone purposely hid out somewhere with no extradition treaty and the whole time was saying, "Nah, nah you can't catch me," to the authorities, should statutes be respected by the courts? I would think not.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      While the conventional justification for statutes of limitations is to protect the defendant from late claims - something that I would agree would not make sense here -, in some countries - this certainly applies in Norway, for example - part of the argument for statutes of limitations is to give society a chance at closure by increasing the chance that a perpetrator that has been able to evade justice will be willing to confess in some form or other.
  - sangnoir 12y ago
    > Would the statute of limitations be tolled for the duration of Assange's stay at the embassy? IANAL, but that sounds unreasonable: his presence isn't required in order for him to be charged. The statute limits the time in which he can be charged (regardless of his geographic location). I know for certain under Roman-Dutch law, one can be charged (tried, and sentenced) in absentia. I suspect other justice systems have similar allowances
NhanH 12y ago
Now it would be interesting if he agree to answer. But can Assange leave the ambassador now? I thought that he would be arrested the moment he left because he broke the house arrest thing a few years ago.
- nailer 12y ago
  He's consistently asked to be interviewed by the prosecutor, so I imagine he'll agree.
- draugadrotten 12y ago
  His Swedish lawyer, Thomas Olsson , has stated that Assange will cooperate fully. Now what Ecuador will reply is another matter... Edit: Timeline of case. http://www.thelocal.se/20141028/timeline-julian-assange http://www.thelocal.se/20141028/timeline-julian-assange
  - gsnedders 12y ago
    Note that if he leaves the embassy he can be arrested by the British police and tried in English courts for failure to comply with conditions of bail. And I'm not sure anyone can reasonably argue that he didn't do that. He was bailed, and didn't show up to court upon summons — it's the textbook case.
    - Tomte 12y ago
      Yes, I think he would be arrested immediately, but I guess there's no reason to keep him. The bail has been forfeited. And if the prime cause for the arrest warrant is gone, he would (and should) walk free. At least I think so.
      - gsnedders 12y ago
        From the point of view of English law, contempt of court and breach of bail are entirely unrelated to why you are in the court in the first place. It doesn't matter if the prosecution withdraws the case (or, in an extradition hearing, the Home Office stops seeking extradition), you have not followed the will of the court. I'd expect him either to be found to have been under effective house arrest for the period, and let go with a slap on the wrist, or be made an example of for running away to somewhere where the police could not enter, and sentenced to at least six months in prison (there's a maximum sentence of twelve).
kzrdude 12y ago
Not mentioned, the supreme court is right now starting their review of the case, and mentions the principle of proportionality (size of investigation in relation to size of the crime). Link: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Mer-om-Hogsta-domstolen/Nyheter-fran-Hogsta-domstolen/The-Supreme-Court-requests-an-opinion-from-the-Prosecutor-General-concerning-the-pre-trial-detention-of-Julian-Assange/ http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Mer-om-Hogsta-domstolen/Nyhete...
- peteretep 12y ago
  > the principle of proportionality Sets a pretty bad precedent to not pursue someone because they've managed to evade the law...
  - netrus 12y ago
    Not if the cost of evasion is similar to the expected punishment.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      [I'm specifically not talking about Assange here but a generalised situation.] So, if there's a suspected rapist (someone accused of rape for example) who has been on the run for years then you wouldn't bother to take them to court as you'd consider their sentence to be served out whilst on the run? Would you apply this to all crimes? How do you determine the length of "sentence" without having a court case? Or is it just "well, he says it wasn't a bad rape and he's been hiding out for a few months let's call it even"?? The 'statute of limitations' for a crime needs to be much longer than the crime's potential maximum sentence. Paying a high cost now is necessary to avoid the well connected from being able to bypass the justice system in the future. It's not just about this one case; that can be seen as a flaw in precedence based systems.
      - nailer 12y ago
        If someone else accused of the crime was in a similar predicament - actively willing to speak to the prosecutor, but not willing to be extradited for questioning as the state may pursue them for other matters - then I imagine we'd apply the same reasoning, believing that we should perform the questioning as invited to rather than extraditing them.
madaxe_again 12y ago
This seems like a remarkably sane resolution to the current situation, and I'm surprised it hasn't previously been proffered.
- onli 12y ago
  It is only not surprising if one believes that all of this is a plot to get him extradited to the US. Which always seems far fetched, till the behaviour of the prosecution made it clear that is the only sane explication - apart from complete incompetence combined with arrogance, a "he has to come crawling to us if we say so" attitude.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    An alternate hypothesis involving a legal system being a bit legalistic (maybe throw in a hardline "we're definitely not making an exception to our usual procedure for you because you're a public figure who fled the country and then claimed it was a conspiracy" stance, if that counts as arrogant) has a lot to recommend it over a null hypothesis involving a conspiracy to use the most difficult, legally complex and embarrassing procedures imaginable to try to get a target to a third party country (a third party country which often takes a very direct and efficient approach to extraordinary rendition)
    - vidarh 12y ago
      During the UK extradition hearing, Swedish police travelled to an Eastern European country (can't remember which) to interrogate two murder suspect. In other words, they had no problems carrying out interrogations outside of Sweden at the time. Just not of Assange. If the Swedish legal system had been "a bit legalistic" and not wanted to make exceptions, a lot of what happened in the Assange case could not have happened. E.g. illegal leaks of lots of information to the press, irregular interview procedures, and this curious stubbornness about interviewing him abroad when Swedish police does not seem to have a problem with that in other cases.
      - 12y ago
Svip 12y ago
I guess it's easier to wait it out when it's not your tax payers footing the bill.
higherpurpose 12y ago
He doesn't have to actually leave the embassy, though, does he?
- onion2k 12y ago
  Technically I think he would as the inside of the embassy isn't considered part of the UK.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    Of course it's part of the UK. Will the old urban legend about extraterritoriality never die?
    - Kiro 12y ago
      So how come the British police can't just walk in and arrest him?
      - ctz 12y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...
      - Tomte 12y ago
        Why can't the police just enter your house and use your LEGO toys? Because the laws forbid them to. Not because your house is extraterritorial.
        Kiro 12y ago
        Why the snarky comment? I was just wondering how it works.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - wcummings 12y ago
Kiro 12y ago
So I haven't been following this case for a very long time. What are the current theories regarding whether he did it or not?
- gillianseed 12y ago
  I made a swedish to english translation of the actual allegation (as in the actual case file), the original can be found here, naturally it's in swedish: http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange?file=files/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avs... Anyway, here's my translation of the accusation (to the best of my ability): Sexual Assault They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass. They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'. She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night. She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards. She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian. Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby. They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills. His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour. After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would. She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills). After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'.
raldi 12y ago
Interesting that under Swedish law, the statute of limitations keeps ticking even while the suspect is a fugitive. That's not the way it works in the US: "If the criminal is a fugitive, out of the state in which the crime was committed or otherwise living in hiding, this tolls, or suspends, the statute. (Once the criminal reenters the state the statute resumes running.)" http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-...
ddingus 12y ago
Finally! Isn't this what he put on the table years ago?
ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview," Marianne Ny said in a statement. Can anyone explain to me why they couldn't simply question him over a teleconferencing connection? Are they seriously claiming that this has gone on as long as it has simply because they couldn't figure out a way to talk to him? This seems ludicrous.
- godgod 12y ago
  He's been kept in limbo at the direction of the US government. You don't mess with the bull and not get the horns. If you keep in mind that this is a man exposing some of the deepest darkest secrets of the most powerful governments in the world...is there nothing they would do to silence him? Rape seems like a good charge as any.
- netcan 12y ago
  It's even worse than that. I believe before he was living in the Ecuadorian embassy, he offered to cooperate with the investigation in the UK. Swede could have sent investigators to interview him in person. The UK police would have assisted. They could have gone further with their investigation, without extradition. The worst part of this is Australia's role. Where are they in protecting their citizen? Can you imagine an American journalist (wikileaks is journalism) pissing off the German Government, then being subjected to these insane attempts at extradition without the US stepping in? Australia need to arrange safe passage for Assange to Australia and guarantee him his legal rights.
  - koenigdavidmj 12y ago
    > Where are they in protecting their citizen? Australia fails to do anything when their citizens are killed for a bit of cannabis, about as blatantly disproportionate as a government could possibly get. They're in a perfect position to economically encourage Indonesia to be reasonable, and they would have the backing of a fair bit of the western world. And yet they don't do anything. Why would you think they would do anything when it's less politically expedient?
downandout 12y ago
It's pretty clear, given the resources being put into serving this warrant, that Sweden is going to charge him with at least some of these crimes regardless of what he says (or doesn't say) during the interview. That's probably why they are conceding here. After all, even if he were successfully arrested and brought to Sweden, he could refuse to answer any questions during the interview. Once charges are filed, Ecuador will have to face the question of whether or not they want to be viewed by the world as shielding an accused rapist from justice. I'm just guessing here, but I see no scenario in which he doesn't eventually wind up in Sweden to face these charges (and if he did it, then he should IMO).
- spiralpolitik 12y ago
  The purpose of the European Arrest Warrant is to "arrest and transfer" a suspect for criminal prosecution. It shouldn't be issued just for "an investigation". So yes unless the Swedish prosecutor wants to open herself up to charges of abuse of power then at this point she will have to prosecute Assange.
coldtea 12y ago
Julian Assange case: BS allegations that hide their true political motivations...
mehedi_ku06 12y ago
Hello! Thank you for your article. I’d like to try your service to compare it to my previous experience of learning English through Skype on online. I did around 10 conversations over Skype with a native speaker from http://preply.com/en/english-by-skype http://preply.com/en/english-by-skype. And I was pretty satisfied with their Quality. I think they have a strong teaching quality, following their course curriculum now I can speak English like a native, but I want to try another option.

217 points by joosters 12y ago

"Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward." Or maybe his lawyer should drop the offer and just let the statute run out now, since the prosecutor couldn't be bothered when it wasn't to her advantage.

tomp 12y ago
He's also charged with rape, which has a longer statute of limitations (10 years, until 2020). Edit: wukerplank is right, he wasn't charged, but (a kind of) rape is one of the crimes he allegedly committed and is wanted for questioning for (according to Wikipedia[1], it's "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape"), and this article and the Wikipedia[2] suggest that the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_legal_position http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_legal_po... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Statute_of_limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...
- wukerplank 12y ago
  I don't think he was charged. They want him for questioning about allegations.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    He was not "charged", because that's not a Swedish word. But all the courts involved in the matter, in Sweden and abroad, have come to the conclusion, that the procedural state Assange is in, is equivalent to the English word "charged".
    - belorn 12y ago
      If we are analyzing the words, then the term rape also get a qualifier. He is accused of initiating sex with a women who was half-asleep, which falls under "helpless state" in the rape laws. The confusion is caused by Swedish laws having specific crimes and categories of crimes, in which "rape" is both a specific crime and a category.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Rule of thumb: If you have a law that allows someone to say the words "legitimate rape" without sounding like an idiot, change it.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      In the law of England & Wales can you be charged without being taken in to custody? I thought those on the run were "wanted for questioning concerning allegations of ..." and then when arrested they would be "charged under $statute for $crime" and read their rights, etc.? In Assange's case, he didn't escape after being charged did he so ...? Can someone clear this up for me, thanks. See for example: https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/overview https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/overview which doesn't quite answer this specific question. But https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights says [roughly] after arrest you will be "charged with a crime" or released.
      - toyg 12y ago
        The critical point here is that British law has nothing to do with it. British police is co-operating only because of international treaties and obligations (europol etc) on handling fugitives from other countries. The effort intensity is suspect and likely politically motivated, but it's quite clear that Assange did not break any British law.
        spiralpolitik 12y ago
        He did not break any British law until he jumped bail into the embassy. Once he exits the embassy Assange will still have to clean that up. Based on the amount of money being spent to monitor him in embassy I wouldn't expect them to let Assange off lightly.
SloopJon 12y ago
> Or maybe his lawyer should drop the offer and just let the statute run out now Would the statute of limitations be tolled for the duration of Assange's stay at the embassy?
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  This is an interesting question. If someone purposely hid out somewhere with no extradition treaty and the whole time was saying, "Nah, nah you can't catch me," to the authorities, should statutes be respected by the courts? I would think not.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    While the conventional justification for statutes of limitations is to protect the defendant from late claims - something that I would agree would not make sense here -, in some countries - this certainly applies in Norway, for example - part of the argument for statutes of limitations is to give society a chance at closure by increasing the chance that a perpetrator that has been able to evade justice will be willing to confess in some form or other.
- sangnoir 12y ago
  > Would the statute of limitations be tolled for the duration of Assange's stay at the embassy? IANAL, but that sounds unreasonable: his presence isn't required in order for him to be charged. The statute limits the time in which he can be charged (regardless of his geographic location). I know for certain under Roman-Dutch law, one can be charged (tried, and sentenced) in absentia. I suspect other justice systems have similar allowances

NhanH 12y ago

Now it would be interesting if he agree to answer. But can Assange leave the ambassador now? I thought that he would be arrested the moment he left because he broke the house arrest thing a few years ago.

nailer 12y ago
He's consistently asked to be interviewed by the prosecutor, so I imagine he'll agree.
draugadrotten 12y ago
His Swedish lawyer, Thomas Olsson , has stated that Assange will cooperate fully. Now what Ecuador will reply is another matter... Edit: Timeline of case. http://www.thelocal.se/20141028/timeline-julian-assange http://www.thelocal.se/20141028/timeline-julian-assange
- gsnedders 12y ago
  Note that if he leaves the embassy he can be arrested by the British police and tried in English courts for failure to comply with conditions of bail. And I'm not sure anyone can reasonably argue that he didn't do that. He was bailed, and didn't show up to court upon summons — it's the textbook case.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    Yes, I think he would be arrested immediately, but I guess there's no reason to keep him. The bail has been forfeited. And if the prime cause for the arrest warrant is gone, he would (and should) walk free. At least I think so.
    - gsnedders 12y ago
      From the point of view of English law, contempt of court and breach of bail are entirely unrelated to why you are in the court in the first place. It doesn't matter if the prosecution withdraws the case (or, in an extradition hearing, the Home Office stops seeking extradition), you have not followed the will of the court. I'd expect him either to be found to have been under effective house arrest for the period, and let go with a slap on the wrist, or be made an example of for running away to somewhere where the police could not enter, and sentenced to at least six months in prison (there's a maximum sentence of twelve).

kzrdude 12y ago

Not mentioned, the supreme court is right now starting their review of the case, and mentions the principle of proportionality (size of investigation in relation to size of the crime). Link: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Mer-om-Hogsta-domstolen/Nyheter-fran-Hogsta-domstolen/The-Supreme-Court-requests-an-opinion-from-the-Prosecutor-General-concerning-the-pre-trial-detention-of-Julian-Assange/ http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Mer-om-Hogsta-domstolen/Nyhete...

peteretep 12y ago
> the principle of proportionality Sets a pretty bad precedent to not pursue someone because they've managed to evade the law...
- netrus 12y ago
  Not if the cost of evasion is similar to the expected punishment.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    [I'm specifically not talking about Assange here but a generalised situation.] So, if there's a suspected rapist (someone accused of rape for example) who has been on the run for years then you wouldn't bother to take them to court as you'd consider their sentence to be served out whilst on the run? Would you apply this to all crimes? How do you determine the length of "sentence" without having a court case? Or is it just "well, he says it wasn't a bad rape and he's been hiding out for a few months let's call it even"?? The 'statute of limitations' for a crime needs to be much longer than the crime's potential maximum sentence. Paying a high cost now is necessary to avoid the well connected from being able to bypass the justice system in the future. It's not just about this one case; that can be seen as a flaw in precedence based systems.
    - nailer 12y ago
      If someone else accused of the crime was in a similar predicament - actively willing to speak to the prosecutor, but not willing to be extradited for questioning as the state may pursue them for other matters - then I imagine we'd apply the same reasoning, believing that we should perform the questioning as invited to rather than extraditing them.

madaxe_again 12y ago

This seems like a remarkably sane resolution to the current situation, and I'm surprised it hasn't previously been proffered.

onli 12y ago
It is only not surprising if one believes that all of this is a plot to get him extradited to the US. Which always seems far fetched, till the behaviour of the prosecution made it clear that is the only sane explication - apart from complete incompetence combined with arrogance, a "he has to come crawling to us if we say so" attitude.
- notahacker 12y ago
  An alternate hypothesis involving a legal system being a bit legalistic (maybe throw in a hardline "we're definitely not making an exception to our usual procedure for you because you're a public figure who fled the country and then claimed it was a conspiracy" stance, if that counts as arrogant) has a lot to recommend it over a null hypothesis involving a conspiracy to use the most difficult, legally complex and embarrassing procedures imaginable to try to get a target to a third party country (a third party country which often takes a very direct and efficient approach to extraordinary rendition)
  - vidarh 12y ago
    During the UK extradition hearing, Swedish police travelled to an Eastern European country (can't remember which) to interrogate two murder suspect. In other words, they had no problems carrying out interrogations outside of Sweden at the time. Just not of Assange. If the Swedish legal system had been "a bit legalistic" and not wanted to make exceptions, a lot of what happened in the Assange case could not have happened. E.g. illegal leaks of lots of information to the press, irregular interview procedures, and this curious stubbornness about interviewing him abroad when Swedish police does not seem to have a problem with that in other cases.
    - 12y ago

Svip 12y ago

I guess it's easier to wait it out when it's not your tax payers footing the bill.

higherpurpose 12y ago

He doesn't have to actually leave the embassy, though, does he?

onion2k 12y ago
Technically I think he would as the inside of the embassy isn't considered part of the UK.
- Tomte 12y ago
  Of course it's part of the UK. Will the old urban legend about extraterritoriality never die?
  - Kiro 12y ago
    So how come the British police can't just walk in and arrest him?
    - ctz 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...
    - Tomte 12y ago
      Why can't the police just enter your house and use your LEGO toys? Because the laws forbid them to. Not because your house is extraterritorial.
      - Kiro 12y ago
        Why the snarky comment? I was just wondering how it works.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - wcummings 12y ago

Kiro 12y ago

So I haven't been following this case for a very long time. What are the current theories regarding whether he did it or not?

gillianseed 12y ago
I made a swedish to english translation of the actual allegation (as in the actual case file), the original can be found here, naturally it's in swedish: http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange?file=files/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avs... Anyway, here's my translation of the accusation (to the best of my ability): Sexual Assault They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass. They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'. She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night. She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards. She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian. Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby. They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills. His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour. After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would. She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills). After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'.

raldi 12y ago

Interesting that under Swedish law, the statute of limitations keeps ticking even while the suspect is a fugitive. That's not the way it works in the US: "If the criminal is a fugitive, out of the state in which the crime was committed or otherwise living in hiding, this tolls, or suspends, the statute. (Once the criminal reenters the state the statute resumes running.)" http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-...

ddingus 12y ago

Finally! Isn't this what he put on the table years ago?

ChikkaChiChi 12y ago

"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview," Marianne Ny said in a statement. Can anyone explain to me why they couldn't simply question him over a teleconferencing connection? Are they seriously claiming that this has gone on as long as it has simply because they couldn't figure out a way to talk to him? This seems ludicrous.

godgod 12y ago
He's been kept in limbo at the direction of the US government. You don't mess with the bull and not get the horns. If you keep in mind that this is a man exposing some of the deepest darkest secrets of the most powerful governments in the world...is there nothing they would do to silence him? Rape seems like a good charge as any.
netcan 12y ago
It's even worse than that. I believe before he was living in the Ecuadorian embassy, he offered to cooperate with the investigation in the UK. Swede could have sent investigators to interview him in person. The UK police would have assisted. They could have gone further with their investigation, without extradition. The worst part of this is Australia's role. Where are they in protecting their citizen? Can you imagine an American journalist (wikileaks is journalism) pissing off the German Government, then being subjected to these insane attempts at extradition without the US stepping in? Australia need to arrange safe passage for Assange to Australia and guarantee him his legal rights.
- koenigdavidmj 12y ago
  > Where are they in protecting their citizen? Australia fails to do anything when their citizens are killed for a bit of cannabis, about as blatantly disproportionate as a government could possibly get. They're in a perfect position to economically encourage Indonesia to be reasonable, and they would have the backing of a fair bit of the western world. And yet they don't do anything. Why would you think they would do anything when it's less politically expedient?

downandout 12y ago

It's pretty clear, given the resources being put into serving this warrant, that Sweden is going to charge him with at least some of these crimes regardless of what he says (or doesn't say) during the interview. That's probably why they are conceding here. After all, even if he were successfully arrested and brought to Sweden, he could refuse to answer any questions during the interview. Once charges are filed, Ecuador will have to face the question of whether or not they want to be viewed by the world as shielding an accused rapist from justice. I'm just guessing here, but I see no scenario in which he doesn't eventually wind up in Sweden to face these charges (and if he did it, then he should IMO).

spiralpolitik 12y ago
The purpose of the European Arrest Warrant is to "arrest and transfer" a suspect for criminal prosecution. It shouldn't be issued just for "an investigation". So yes unless the Swedish prosecutor wants to open herself up to charges of abuse of power then at this point she will have to prosecute Assange.

coldtea 12y ago

Julian Assange case: BS allegations that hide their true political motivations...

mehedi_ku06 12y ago

Hello! Thank you for your article. I’d like to try your service to compare it to my previous experience of learning English through Skype on online. I did around 10 conversations over Skype with a native speaker from http://preply.com/en/english-by-skype http://preply.com/en/english-by-skype. And I was pretty satisfied with their Quality. I think they have a strong teaching quality, following their course curriculum now I can speak English like a native, but I want to try another option.