9 ms·

Sweden rejects Assange appeal to drop arrest warrant

39 points by ghosh 11y ago

peteretep 11y ago
From: https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-... > the next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second > interview with him before making a decision whether to formally > charge him ... If a decision is taken to formally charge him, > Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision > being made. It is difficult to see how this could happen if > the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in > Knightsbridge. I wonder what's changed in the eyes of the Swedish prosecutor. I seemed to remember they were coming under some other deadline?
- vacri 11y ago
  There's a five-year limit for some of the charges (but not all), from memory. As he turned out to be quite willing to wait it out, they are looking to retake the initiative.
  - belorn 11y ago
    Beyond that, the courts has been quite clear that the Swedish prosecutor must move forward with the case or it would be dismissed. The Supreme Court decision uses the recent decision by the Swedish prosecutor as the primary argument for rejecting the appeal.
Tomte 11y ago
Cannot be long until he would have had a better deal by going to the police, confessing everything (even if he didn't do it) and served his time. Sitting in some embassy for years, without any possibility of having this time count towards a possible sentence.
- stuaxo 11y ago
  He is probably balancing it against getting extradited to the U.S. and what could happen there.
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    Easier to extradite him directly from the UK.
- pantalaimon 11y ago
  I think the main problem is Sweden would extraditing him to the US
  - peteretep 11y ago
    Why do you think that's more likely than the UK extraditing him to the US?
    - vacri 11y ago
      Sweden has a documented history of sending political prisoners to other countries. The UK has at least some records of standing on principle - for example, they made a big stink about UK citizens sitting in Guantanamo Bay and the inhumane conditions they were in.
      - PJDK 11y ago
        What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? (and indeed what would the US law be that Assange would be charged under - and why has that not happened yet?) And what documented history?
        geon 11y ago
        > What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? Probably the same one that permitted US lobby organizations to order an unconstitutional raid on tpb.
timwaagh 11y ago
its simple. guy is guilty probably. sweden is tough on that kind of thing. its got nothing to do with the leaks.
- efdee 11y ago
  Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.
xname 11y ago
Many comments here fail to see the difference between: A: lack of certainty of being extradited to the US B: the certainty of not being extradited to the US Many comments claim A, but logically Assange needs B.

39 points by ghosh 11y ago

From: https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-... > the next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second > interview with him before making a decision whether to formally > charge him ... If a decision is taken to formally charge him, > Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision > being made. It is difficult to see how this could happen if > the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in > Knightsbridge. I wonder what's changed in the eyes of the Swedish prosecutor. I seemed to remember they were coming under some other deadline?

vacri 11y ago
There's a five-year limit for some of the charges (but not all), from memory. As he turned out to be quite willing to wait it out, they are looking to retake the initiative.
- belorn 11y ago
  Beyond that, the courts has been quite clear that the Swedish prosecutor must move forward with the case or it would be dismissed. The Supreme Court decision uses the recent decision by the Swedish prosecutor as the primary argument for rejecting the appeal.

Tomte 11y ago

Cannot be long until he would have had a better deal by going to the police, confessing everything (even if he didn't do it) and served his time. Sitting in some embassy for years, without any possibility of having this time count towards a possible sentence.

stuaxo 11y ago
He is probably balancing it against getting extradited to the U.S. and what could happen there.
- ghshephard 11y ago
  Easier to extradite him directly from the UK.
pantalaimon 11y ago
I think the main problem is Sweden would extraditing him to the US
- peteretep 11y ago
  Why do you think that's more likely than the UK extraditing him to the US?
  - vacri 11y ago
    Sweden has a documented history of sending political prisoners to other countries. The UK has at least some records of standing on principle - for example, they made a big stink about UK citizens sitting in Guantanamo Bay and the inhumane conditions they were in.
    - PJDK 11y ago
      What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? (and indeed what would the US law be that Assange would be charged under - and why has that not happened yet?) And what documented history?
      - geon 11y ago
        > What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? Probably the same one that permitted US lobby organizations to order an unconstitutional raid on tpb.

timwaagh 11y ago

its simple. guy is guilty probably. sweden is tough on that kind of thing. its got nothing to do with the leaks.

efdee 11y ago
Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.

xname 11y ago

Many comments here fail to see the difference between: A: lack of certainty of being extradited to the US B: the certainty of not being extradited to the US Many comments claim A, but logically Assange needs B.