If the US does take him from Sweden, then it will only serve as huge negative PR against them, and call into question the motives of the UK courts. The backlash could be huge.
Their basic goal is to make an example out of him. Since this will obviously not put the cat back in the bag, it is just about setting an example and revenge. They are doing this to Manning as well. But it is harder to get a hold of Assange directly but they can use Sweden. Swedes, are surprisingly friendly with US govt (see jka's post above).
This confuses me. Are the Swedes more likely to extradite people to the US than the UK are? If not, I don't understand your point...
I'm a Brit, and I was under the impression that our government bends over and gives the US anyone they want, whereas the Swedes give a shit about peoples rights...
I'd have thought Assange is safer from the US in Sweden than he was in the UK. Plus he'll find it a lot easier to travel to different countries if he's on mainland Europe (assuming he's not imprisoned for this rape stuff)
It's difficult to tell - the U.K. courts until recently had seemed (following heavy lawyering from Assange) to be allowing him to stay in the country under curfew, but this recent ruling seems to overturn that.
There was a bit of an outcry last year when it turned out that the U.S. had been performing surveillance around their embassies in Norway, and I remember reading some suggestions at the time that there was actually Norwegian co-operation to some extent - but I'd have to dig back in detail to find the reports.
There was also an admission around the same time that similar monitoring had been taking place in Sweden.
And finally, one of the Swedish prosecutors raised very early on the possibility of extraditing Assange to the U.S. following prosecution.
Here are a few reading references to back these up - as mentioned in this thread, it's far from clear without knowing the full details, but here are some pieces to fill out the context:
Something else worth noting which the last url suggests is that Sweden can't just extradite him to the US at their own will. It would also have to be approved by Britain.
"our government bends over and gives the US anyone they want"
I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't hand over people who may face the death penalty - although it wouldn't surprise me if there was an exclusion to this sensible rule for the US.
-"whereas the Swedes give a shit about peoples rights..."
You must be thinking about the days when we had guys like Olof Palme (who incidentally got shot).
Nowadays we are being run by a right-wing coalition dominated by 'Moderaterna', which is the only political party in Sweden refusing to declare from where they get their campaign money. Just recently they also tried to take credit for being part of the movement for equal vote and against apartheid, when in reality they were against womens right to vote and also was the only party who did not want sanctions against apartheid, hilarious.
Not that our government being right-wing has anything to do with Assange, no matter what government we'd have sitting today (left,right) they would bend to US pressure just as quickly.
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.
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?
"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?
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.
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
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.
This trial happened in a UK court. Not a Swedish one.
If the the evidence is not made public in the Swedish trial, then it is a mockery of justice. How can anyone take the word of the court that it was a fair trial? It is not transparent.
Saying "Asange is an enemy of the people" is not just defending the Swedish legal system.
International law covering human rights applies in Sweden, and those rights will be violated by a secret trial. A country either respects international law and human rights, or it does not. Sweden does not respect this facet of the law, or this human right.
In some countries media can be taken to task for declaring someone a rapist without proof. How many of the media has been taken to task in Sweden for doing so? It is strange how the Swedish legal system has been suspiciously quiet in this regard.
Count the number of Swedish people sticking up for this Human in this thread. I guess flag sales are up in Sweden, because there does not seem to be many Swedish people arguing that the Swedish state could possibly be wrong here.
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.
(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.)
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/#
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.
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.
I really don't want to argue the point too much. We've obviously got different views on this, and differing experiences with the swedish judiciary system. PM Reinfeldt would not sign anything in to law regarding this, and parliament would never approve it. There's no basis in history for assuming anything like remotely like that would occur.
Also "Julian Assange är en våldtäktsman" returns 360 hits, not 1.5 mil, where most of them are the suffix of the meaning "If Julian Assange is a rapist...", so your interpretation is a bit off. As others have stated, the verdict is still out. Swedes are not smelling blood, and I resent that interpretation of Swedes as a collective and the accusation that he would not get a fair trial in Sweden.
The motives of the UK courts aren't really in question, whatever happens. No lawyers with any knowledge of EU law actually expected his appeal to succeed.
I suspect a lot of people here will rush to call some kind of politically motivated conspiracy. I suspect they don't really understand how the UK legal system works.
If you actually read the judgment [0], you'll see it's pretty iron-clad. Very few people in the field thought this appeal was going to succeed. The simple fact is that the UK has obligations to Europe, including turning over those accused of committing crimes in other member states. It is extremely hard to get out of those obligations.
I cannot overstate just how detailed the judgement is. There is very little room for maneuverer by Assange, and his legal defence during the appeal was pretty poor. His entire defence is ripped apart.
People seem to be under the mistaken impression it is somehow up to the English courts to determine whether Assange is guilty or not. It isn't. It's up to the English courts to determine whether the warrant for his arrest was issued properly, and whether it meets the relevant dual-criminality standards. Which it was, and does, on every level.
The issue of whether Assange is at risk of extradition to the US from Sweden is not relevant to this case, in any way, shape, or form.
Every time I read about this I'm struck by the number of people who see Assange's treatment as politically motivated and seem unable to accept the possibility that he assaulted two women.
its hard to believe he assaulted the woman when you read what she says, did you read it?
its like your gf complaining that you had sex last night and she didn't agree to it, cause she was asleep that time - oh wait - in fact she wasn't asleep.
He's saying that it is necessary to face a trial to determine it, and he isn't going to just brush the charges away and say they were definitely nothing. He's saying there's enough uncertainty that there should be a trial to answer it.
What's odd is that they only want to question him. Can't they question him, and if they don't like the answers, then extradite him? It all sounds a little odd to me.
I would just say, "I'm not going to answer your questions, so save yourself the cost of the flight and arrest me when you get some evidence."
This is something which has been brought up here in Sweden by people with legal background:
First the prosecutor at call (Marianne Ny) decided to arrest Julian Assange on the accusations from the two women. Meanwhile the news of his arrest has somehow been leaked to Expressen (a daily newspaper) the same evening.
Next day the chief prosecutor dismisses the case, this should have been the end of it.
However once Assange leaves the country, Marianne Ny (prosecutor on call) brings up the case again, and somehow manages to have Assange arrested on suspicion of rape, sexual assault, and has issued a european arrest order in order to question him.
This makes no sense, Marianne Ny says that the purpose of the international arrest is to 'question him', why couldn't she do that while he was still in Sweden? Why turn down the offers to question him on video conference or at an embassy in England BEFORE extraditing him given that Marianne Ny herself says that she doesn't have enough evidence to prosecute Assange and only wants to hear him at this time? Also given the huge costs that an 'international arrest order' brings along, to do so for questioning a suspect in such a weak case as this is unprecedented.
Any particular reason that you believe the alleged rape allegations more than the fact that they may _actually_ have been politically motivated? I mean, it's difficult to take sides without knowing what did transpire.
What I believe is what I see happening. Sweden has asked for him to be extradited to face charges for alleged crimes in their country. It doesn't seem unreasonable for them to ask for that, nor for Britain to comply.
My point was that I am surprised by the people who do take sides. Surely, the right thing is for him to be tried in Sweden as that's what the rule of law would require and to see what the outcome is.
At the same time, it's good that we have judicial oversite on this and he wasn't just extradited by default. I don't want to live in a country where I can be forcibly deported at any time, just because some foreign country wants to question me.
I didn't say that. I was referring to the 'rule of law' not the 'law' itself.
For example, was it right that Turing was tried for his homosexuality? Yes, it was right. I believe that the law itself was despicable but it was right that he was tried as that was the law at the time of his 'offences'.
I believe that same standard applies to Assange. He is alleged to have broken Swedish law, the British courts believe that under European law the right procedure has been undertaken for the extradition and so we see the process of law operating.
The voice comes from behind a nearby Rhododendron, as you are unlocking your front door. The stage whisper belongs to Alan Turing, the scene is: the past.
"The police are after me", he says, "and I think you know why. Please let me hide in your house".
You haven't adjusted to the spontaneous time travel or meeting the living dead very well, and you're staring without answering for too long; he continues: "It's only for a couple of days until I can make a run for the continent. I guarantee you with the power of suspended disbelief that none of your neighbours or the police will ever know".
"But it's just an enquiry", you say, "that's what the police do all the time, at this stage there's nothing to fear. Hire a lawyer and go with it".
"We both know that in this case (unlike your future Julian Assange, whoever he is) I'm certainly guilty under the law, and they have strong evidence to show it. What I'm saying is, it's a bad law, will you help me escape the consequences?".
"No, no I wont", you reply, "I want to live in a society with a rule of law. This is the law and you should be tried by it. It's the correct thing to do according to this system".
He pauses a moment, then "Think of the public humiliation, the jeering and mocking. They'll chemically castrate me, they'll make my life not worth living, the resulting depression leads to my /suicide/. They'll as good as kill me themselves!"
"Ha ha ha. Alan, m'boy, nevermind the jeering, and your resulting /death/. Think of the alternative! Your suffering is surely better than /anarchy/".
"I'm a real human, it's real personal suffering here, and on the other hand, your ideology!"
You reach for your cellphone to call the police. "If it's any consolation, Alan", you say, giving him a hearty slap on the back, "I think it's despicable too". Your cellphone has no signal - the past, again. You look around for a phonebox.
"'s easy for you to say, you're not the one being involuntarily sacrificed to someone elses political ideology under rules they don't even agree with themselves". He jogs across the road. "Why do you think it's useful to call it despicable if you go along with it regardless?"
"I don't know", you answer, "maybe I'll reply to this comment and explain it".
I think John's point is that people are dismissing the actual allegations outright and assuming the conspiracy is true without any evidence at all.
There's no evidence I'm aware of to back up the conspiracy. On the other hand the Swedes obviously believe there is enough evidence for a prosecution given the extradition request.
Why shouldn't the normal legal process occur? If he's got a good defence case then he should present it to the Swedish court. If he doesn't then he deserves the punishment for any crime he's found guilty of.
Edit: I see John has responded himself. See his response :)
I can tell you with absolute conviction that the vast majority of the 'swedes' (being as I'm one of them) do not believe there is enough evidence for a prosecution. This is unprecedented, the original dismissal of these allegations by the chief prosecutor would have been the end of it had there not been political pressure (gee, I wonder from where?) to bring this to trial.
It's quite possible that he did, but that's not proven yet. In the meantime, why should I not see it as politically motivated as well? It doesn't seem at all unbelievable to me that governments might stoop to some pretty dodgy behaviour to try to silence him.
I agree with that, but setting him up on some sexual assault charge that itself seems a bit flimsy doesn't seem like much of a government operation. Surely, if they wanted to frame him they could do better than that.
How hard could it be to set him up on phony charges of being involved with child pornography? If you want to take the guy down then do that, or something that'll stick.
It doesn't sound like he's been very careful. Between sleeping with random women who his supporters claim are CIA agents of some sort, and using the same password for different secret files...
But truthfully how hard would it be to honeytrap this guy? Suppose you go with my child pornography scenario, your sexy blonde Swedish secret agent only has to get close enough to slip a USB key into Assange's luggage so that when he flies through LHR customs can stop him and discover it. And if he checked any luggage it would be even easier.
Conspiracies are pretty rare, but opportunistic behaviour by governments is not hard to believe. Pissing off governments is like running for president; your transgressions will be dug up and used against you.
Are you finding it hard to believe that the US government is trying to disrupt Wikileaks by unusual means, outside of any potential legal proceedings? But this is not theory, it's known fact - both Visa and Amazon dropped Wikileaks after pressure. It's been successful too.
> In my personal experience, international government conspiracies are pretty rare and so a more mundane explanation is more likely to be correct.
That's a really funny quote. I'm tempted to downvote you for being so ridiculous (but I've upvoted instead, so others have a better chance to see it).
I'll apologize, if you elaborate on how your personal experience might be relevant (though, the only good explanation I can think of is that you are some omniscient being who has good knowledge of conspiracy theories and whether or not they are based on fact; good enough knowledge to derive statistics, at least).
I suggest you should read up on the case. There is a certain level of ridiculousness beyond which any thinking person can realize the charges are nonsensical.
Sending him to Sweden only makes sense if he will get a fair trial there. Based on the fact that this case hasn't been dropped, and the trial will be held in secret, there is a good chance that he may not.
I was thinking about this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3186430 I don't think the Swedish legal system routinely revisit cases like this in this manner. Whatever the reason (pressure from above, desire to prosecute a high-profile case…), this sounds unusual, (meaning, not representative of the way things are usually done).
Basically, the case looks ridiculous, and the Swedish legal system as a whole probably isn't.
By your logic, if the Iranian government accuses someone of sluttiness, spying or apostacy, we should extradite the accused to Iran.
(For the sake of argument, please ignore the possibility of inhumane punishment, and just assume that the alleged criminal will be sent to a euro-style prison.)
> By your logic, if the Iranian government accuses someone of sluttiness, spying or apostacy, we should extradite the accused to Iran.
If they were accused of sluttiness while they were in Iran, by an Iranian citizen or two, then there might just be a case to answer. Like what happened to these two unfortunates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7673046.stm
I agree, yet this case is unproportional. It is not normal in sweden that crime victims are given this huge service when suspects escape abroad. There are long lists of worse cases that have simply been dropped because the suspect escaped sweden.
In any case, Assange's done time at this point is more than he can expect to be sentenced to if that happens, and so if convicted he should be promptly released anyway.
There are a lot of things wrong with this case, but this is not one of those things.
First, normal suspects are harder to find. Assange is a semi-official person, not a lot of work went into tracking him down.
Second, the case was already opened. Assange's location in the world did not affect it.
It'd be different if Assange's identity was not known, and if, at the time of making the decision to investigate the case further, his whereabouts were unknown and him likely in another country.
This case looks politically motivated even if we assume he's 100% guilty of everything he's accused of. Sweden basically never spend this amount of efforts and resources to get 'normal' people extradited, even when they're accused of far worse things that Assange is accused of. Had he been just some tourist there is no way in hell they'd bother with any of this.
That being said I don't think there is some big dark conspiracy with the CIA pulling the strings, but more a case of local prosecutors and politicians who saw a chance to make a name for themselves, and a tiny country with self-esteem issues desperately wanting to swing their dick with the big boys (and I say that last bit as a Swede).
Yes this is obviously politically motivated. Not only are the allegations insanely hard to believe, night after the 'alledged rape' the 'victim' went to a party with Assange and was seen enjoying herself in his company. Then later she and her best friend (who also had sex with Julian Assange during his visit in Sweden, go figure!) decided to go to the police and press charges. Then the case was dismissed by a chief prosecutor, brought up again by another prosecutor, dismissed and then brought up again, just as if there was some 'pressure' from somewhere to take this to court. After that, swedish high-profile lawyer Claes Borgström suddenly takes the case on behalf of the women. Non-political my ass.
What Assange claims to fear, and with our spineless government here in Sweden I can't blame him, is that he will be extradited from Sweden to the US.
Sweden basically never spend this amount of efforts and resources to get 'normal' people extradited
I've heard this claim before, but is there any data to back it up. If Sweden believes a sex crime has been committed on its soil it has the right and the duty to seek to prosecute the perpetrator.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article12621641.ab is the first example I can find (it's in Swedish). The crime in this case is violent assault. Basically the police caught the guys, who then confessed, but fled the country (back to Ireland) while out on bail. So they have the name and address of the people involved, but can't be bothered to try to get them extradited.
The money quotes from the prosecutor is: "If we where to try to bring home everybody who commits a crime that isn't serious enough we'd never get anything done...It doesn't work like that, we only do that (attempt to extradite) for serious crimes, like murder".
The treatment have most likely not been politically motivated, as Sweden's justice system doesn't work that way. Politicians can't really sway prosecutions.
It's also likely that Assange is not guilty of rape (the allegations have a lot of holes and inconsistencies in them), though probably guilty of being an asshole. Alas, that's not a crime. Nevertheless, this is not a reason to drop the case without investigating it properly.
I always wondered why if the extradition is just to question him, it would be cheaper to just fly out a Swedish prosecutor/team and conduct the interview in the UK. Then they could determine if it should file charges and from what I understand the extradition for a trial is clearer and simpler to obtain.
Swedish prosecutors might be immune from official or open political pressure, but I'm sure back channels exist. That said I don't think any are being used in this case.
One thing I've seen a handful of times in Sweden, is a problem the US has too, prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. I'd say that is what is overcoming the shaky facts of the case, a prosecutor who thinks it could pay off career wise.
If you believe that there's such a thing as an independent, only-cares-about-the-law-and-not-about-any-ties-and-pressure justice system out there, there's a bridge near my house that I can offer to sell you.
Things aren't (much) different now than they have always been - there's law for the common people; there's law for the influential people; and when you upset the _really_ influential people, the law will be rewritten against you, retroactively.
> I have no specific knowledge of the Swedish justice system. But...
Thanks for your input!
> If you believe that there's...
I don't.
What I know is that sweden prides itself on having the strongest freedom of speech laws in the world (which is why Assange wanted to bring Wikileaks there in the first place), and that other disruptive forces like piratebay haven't felt any governmental pressure in the past.
I've seen nothing that suggests that any government official have commited the serious crime of involving themselves in a particular prosecution case. It's extremely unusual for a politician to even offer their opinion about a particular case, as that is borderline illegal for them to do.
Most likely, government officials weren't involved in this case. Most likely, it's just another overblown rape charge. Sweden has lots of those, as they're constantly redefining what constitutes rape. Slippery slope.
But whatever you and I think, we'll find out for sure if/when Assange faces trial in Sweden. If he is found not guilty, clearly the government couldn't or didn't sway the prosecution. If he is convicted, then at least the possibility that some government official did intervene exists.
Well, it's not that simple. It may be true that he assaulted two woman - and that deserves attention and proper justice. The question is really - why does the media pay more attention to this than the landslide of evidence against our elected leaders?
I try to keep a pretty sane, "normal", law-abiding lifestyle, but it would take a motivated official about 10 minutes to find dirt on me. And I'd imagine a lot of it isn't necessarily surprising nor as bad as it might sound.
Not saying Assange doesn't deserve to be punished for his wrongdoing, just don't think it should be held as being more important than if someone like myself committed those offences. If I helped uncover several cables illustrating corruption among elected officials everywhere, I shouldn't be surprised to be on the news often for uncovering incredibly important, politically sensored information.
Contrariwise, I am struck by the number of people who do not believe this to be politically motivated. Assange greatly upset a number of powerful entities, from financial powerhouses to the US State Department. They each have the motivation and the ability to railroad those whom cause them problems.
WikiLeaks became Enemy Number One after the State Department cables. I'm sorry, but if you think this is anything other than politically motivated persecution you are simply mistaken.
To be honest, when even Naomi Wolf says something's not right about the prosecution of an alleged rape, it's probably worth stepping back and considering that there could be another dimension to it:
In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.
The political implications of Assange's extradition and exposure to prosecution are the big story regardless of his innocence or guilt.
In addition, the degree to which spycraft entails placing people in compromising sexual situations, as well as, the explicit actions taken by the US and other wealthy governments in the interest of neutralizing and containing Wikileaks (e.g. trying to cut off funding), when combined with the vast resources available for a counter-espionage operation, certainly make a setup plausible even to people without tinfoil beanies.
Heck, the honeypot meme was even proposed here on HN.
That's not to say Assange didn't violate Swedish law. But as Stallman's rider might be said to illustrate, it can would pretty damn easy to place a couch sleeping nomad in a compromising position.
And although I in no way condone or approve of sexual assault, from a utilitarian standpoint, the ability of Wikileaks to continue its mission is highly likely to curb much worse behavior on a much larger scale. In my opinion, the argument that it is more important to hold governments and corporations accountable for their actions than it is to hold Assange accountable for his deserves the same consideration as arguments regarding the justifications for the wartime actions Assange helped expose.
81 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadI'm a Brit, and I was under the impression that our government bends over and gives the US anyone they want, whereas the Swedes give a shit about peoples rights...
I'd have thought Assange is safer from the US in Sweden than he was in the UK. Plus he'll find it a lot easier to travel to different countries if he's on mainland Europe (assuming he's not imprisoned for this rape stuff)
There was a bit of an outcry last year when it turned out that the U.S. had been performing surveillance around their embassies in Norway, and I remember reading some suggestions at the time that there was actually Norwegian co-operation to some extent - but I'd have to dig back in detail to find the reports.
There was also an admission around the same time that similar monitoring had been taking place in Sweden.
And finally, one of the Swedish prosecutors raised very early on the possibility of extraditing Assange to the U.S. following prosecution.
Here are a few reading references to back these up - as mentioned in this thread, it's far from clear without knowing the full details, but here are some pieces to fill out the context:
* Swedish charges leaked
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/wikileaks-sweden/
* U.S. Surveillance in Norway
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/11/04/officials-howling-ove...
* Similar surveillance admission in Sweden
http://www.thelocal.se/30062/20101106/#
* Prosecutor's suggestions regarding extradition from Sweden to U.S.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/swedish-prosecut...
I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't hand over people who may face the death penalty - although it wouldn't surprise me if there was an exclusion to this sensible rule for the US.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/extradition/
http://www.swedenversusassange.com/US-Extradition.html
You must be thinking about the days when we had guys like Olof Palme (who incidentally got shot).
Nowadays we are being run by a right-wing coalition dominated by 'Moderaterna', which is the only political party in Sweden refusing to declare from where they get their campaign money. Just recently they also tried to take credit for being part of the movement for equal vote and against apartheid, when in reality they were against womens right to vote and also was the only party who did not want sanctions against apartheid, hilarious.
Not that our government being right-wing has anything to do with Assange, no matter what government we'd have sitting today (left,right) they would bend to US pressure just as quickly.
When you have multiple world leaders going after you, there's not much you can do. Basically Julian is fucked.
Can you give an example of any previous cases that has gone to a "secret trial" here in Sweden?
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?
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) 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.
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.
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-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.
If the the evidence is not made public in the Swedish trial, then it is a mockery of justice. How can anyone take the word of the court that it was a fair trial? It is not transparent.
Saying "Asange is an enemy of the people" is not just defending the Swedish legal system.
International law covering human rights applies in Sweden, and those rights will be violated by a secret trial. A country either respects international law and human rights, or it does not. Sweden does not respect this facet of the law, or this human right.
In some countries media can be taken to task for declaring someone a rapist without proof. How many of the media has been taken to task in Sweden for doing so? It is strange how the Swedish legal system has been suspiciously quiet in this regard.
Count the number of Swedish people sticking up for this Human in this thread. I guess flag sales are up in Sweden, because there does not seem to be many Swedish people arguing that the Swedish state could possibly be wrong here.
(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.)
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.
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.
Also "Julian Assange är en våldtäktsman" returns 360 hits, not 1.5 mil, where most of them are the suffix of the meaning "If Julian Assange is a rapist...", so your interpretation is a bit off. As others have stated, the verdict is still out. Swedes are not smelling blood, and I resent that interpretation of Swedes as a collective and the accusation that he would not get a fair trial in Sweden.
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.
I suspect a lot of people here will rush to call some kind of politically motivated conspiracy. I suspect they don't really understand how the UK legal system works.
If you actually read the judgment [0], you'll see it's pretty iron-clad. Very few people in the field thought this appeal was going to succeed. The simple fact is that the UK has obligations to Europe, including turning over those accused of committing crimes in other member states. It is extremely hard to get out of those obligations.
I cannot overstate just how detailed the judgement is. There is very little room for maneuverer by Assange, and his legal defence during the appeal was pretty poor. His entire defence is ripped apart.
People seem to be under the mistaken impression it is somehow up to the English courts to determine whether Assange is guilty or not. It isn't. It's up to the English courts to determine whether the warrant for his arrest was issued properly, and whether it meets the relevant dual-criminality standards. Which it was, and does, on every level.
The issue of whether Assange is at risk of extradition to the US from Sweden is not relevant to this case, in any way, shape, or form.
[0] http://images.newstatesman.com/RC.pdf
He's saying that it is necessary to face a trial to determine it, and he isn't going to just brush the charges away and say they were definitely nothing. He's saying there's enough uncertainty that there should be a trial to answer it.
I would just say, "I'm not going to answer your questions, so save yourself the cost of the flight and arrest me when you get some evidence."
First the prosecutor at call (Marianne Ny) decided to arrest Julian Assange on the accusations from the two women. Meanwhile the news of his arrest has somehow been leaked to Expressen (a daily newspaper) the same evening.
Next day the chief prosecutor dismisses the case, this should have been the end of it.
However once Assange leaves the country, Marianne Ny (prosecutor on call) brings up the case again, and somehow manages to have Assange arrested on suspicion of rape, sexual assault, and has issued a european arrest order in order to question him.
This makes no sense, Marianne Ny says that the purpose of the international arrest is to 'question him', why couldn't she do that while he was still in Sweden? Why turn down the offers to question him on video conference or at an embassy in England BEFORE extraditing him given that Marianne Ny herself says that she doesn't have enough evidence to prosecute Assange and only wants to hear him at this time? Also given the huge costs that an 'international arrest order' brings along, to do so for questioning a suspect in such a weak case as this is unprecedented.
Yes, this is political.
My point was that I am surprised by the people who do take sides. Surely, the right thing is for him to be tried in Sweden as that's what the rule of law would require and to see what the outcome is.
wince
For example, was it right that Turing was tried for his homosexuality? Yes, it was right. I believe that the law itself was despicable but it was right that he was tried as that was the law at the time of his 'offences'.
I believe that same standard applies to Assange. He is alleged to have broken Swedish law, the British courts believe that under European law the right procedure has been undertaken for the extradition and so we see the process of law operating.
The voice comes from behind a nearby Rhododendron, as you are unlocking your front door. The stage whisper belongs to Alan Turing, the scene is: the past.
"The police are after me", he says, "and I think you know why. Please let me hide in your house".
You haven't adjusted to the spontaneous time travel or meeting the living dead very well, and you're staring without answering for too long; he continues: "It's only for a couple of days until I can make a run for the continent. I guarantee you with the power of suspended disbelief that none of your neighbours or the police will ever know".
"But it's just an enquiry", you say, "that's what the police do all the time, at this stage there's nothing to fear. Hire a lawyer and go with it".
"We both know that in this case (unlike your future Julian Assange, whoever he is) I'm certainly guilty under the law, and they have strong evidence to show it. What I'm saying is, it's a bad law, will you help me escape the consequences?".
"No, no I wont", you reply, "I want to live in a society with a rule of law. This is the law and you should be tried by it. It's the correct thing to do according to this system".
He pauses a moment, then "Think of the public humiliation, the jeering and mocking. They'll chemically castrate me, they'll make my life not worth living, the resulting depression leads to my /suicide/. They'll as good as kill me themselves!"
"Ha ha ha. Alan, m'boy, nevermind the jeering, and your resulting /death/. Think of the alternative! Your suffering is surely better than /anarchy/".
"I'm a real human, it's real personal suffering here, and on the other hand, your ideology!"
You reach for your cellphone to call the police. "If it's any consolation, Alan", you say, giving him a hearty slap on the back, "I think it's despicable too". Your cellphone has no signal - the past, again. You look around for a phonebox.
"'s easy for you to say, you're not the one being involuntarily sacrificed to someone elses political ideology under rules they don't even agree with themselves". He jogs across the road. "Why do you think it's useful to call it despicable if you go along with it regardless?"
"I don't know", you answer, "maybe I'll reply to this comment and explain it".
There's no evidence I'm aware of to back up the conspiracy. On the other hand the Swedes obviously believe there is enough evidence for a prosecution given the extradition request.
Why shouldn't the normal legal process occur? If he's got a good defence case then he should present it to the Swedish court. If he doesn't then he deserves the punishment for any crime he's found guilty of.
Edit: I see John has responded himself. See his response :)
How hard could it be to set him up on phony charges of being involved with child pornography? If you want to take the guy down then do that, or something that'll stick.
But truthfully how hard would it be to honeytrap this guy? Suppose you go with my child pornography scenario, your sexy blonde Swedish secret agent only has to get close enough to slip a USB key into Assange's luggage so that when he flies through LHR customs can stop him and discover it. And if he checked any luggage it would be even easier.
One also assumes that he might be a little paranoid about sexy blonde Swedish secret agents hanging around his suitcase...
You'd expect that, wouldn't you. But then his whole career show less risk-aversion than most people. To put it mildly.
Are you finding it hard to believe that the US government is trying to disrupt Wikileaks by unusual means, outside of any potential legal proceedings? But this is not theory, it's known fact - both Visa and Amazon dropped Wikileaks after pressure. It's been successful too.
That's a really funny quote. I'm tempted to downvote you for being so ridiculous (but I've upvoted instead, so others have a better chance to see it).
I'll apologize, if you elaborate on how your personal experience might be relevant (though, the only good explanation I can think of is that you are some omniscient being who has good knowledge of conspiracy theories and whether or not they are based on fact; good enough knowledge to derive statistics, at least).
Here is Glenn Beck explaining the charges (cause he's funnier than a translation of swedish court documents): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVt-WD-p950
Sending him to Sweden only makes sense if he will get a fair trial there. Based on the fact that this case hasn't been dropped, and the trial will be held in secret, there is a good chance that he may not.
That's a fine opinion, but when you visit another country you have to obey by its laws regardless of your opinion on them.
Basically, the case looks ridiculous, and the Swedish legal system as a whole probably isn't.
A UK court shouldn't be deciding the merits of a case based solely on press reports about the prosecution.
(For the sake of argument, please ignore the possibility of inhumane punishment, and just assume that the alleged criminal will be sent to a euro-style prison.)
Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
If they were accused of sluttiness while they were in Iran, by an Iranian citizen or two, then there might just be a case to answer. Like what happened to these two unfortunates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7673046.stm
In any case, Assange's done time at this point is more than he can expect to be sentenced to if that happens, and so if convicted he should be promptly released anyway.
First, normal suspects are harder to find. Assange is a semi-official person, not a lot of work went into tracking him down.
Second, the case was already opened. Assange's location in the world did not affect it.
It'd be different if Assange's identity was not known, and if, at the time of making the decision to investigate the case further, his whereabouts were unknown and him likely in another country.
That being said I don't think there is some big dark conspiracy with the CIA pulling the strings, but more a case of local prosecutors and politicians who saw a chance to make a name for themselves, and a tiny country with self-esteem issues desperately wanting to swing their dick with the big boys (and I say that last bit as a Swede).
What Assange claims to fear, and with our spineless government here in Sweden I can't blame him, is that he will be extradited from Sweden to the US.
I've heard this claim before, but is there any data to back it up. If Sweden believes a sex crime has been committed on its soil it has the right and the duty to seek to prosecute the perpetrator.
The money quotes from the prosecutor is: "If we where to try to bring home everybody who commits a crime that isn't serious enough we'd never get anything done...It doesn't work like that, we only do that (attempt to extradite) for serious crimes, like murder".
The treatment have most likely not been politically motivated, as Sweden's justice system doesn't work that way. Politicians can't really sway prosecutions.
It's also likely that Assange is not guilty of rape (the allegations have a lot of holes and inconsistencies in them), though probably guilty of being an asshole. Alas, that's not a crime. Nevertheless, this is not a reason to drop the case without investigating it properly.
Swedish prosecutors might be immune from official or open political pressure, but I'm sure back channels exist. That said I don't think any are being used in this case.
One thing I've seen a handful of times in Sweden, is a problem the US has too, prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. I'd say that is what is overcoming the shaky facts of the case, a prosecutor who thinks it could pay off career wise.
But any system can be swayed, and from 3000 miles away, the Swedish system doesn't look really resilient: e.g. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9622/swedish_prosecutor_wont_in... , and both the Pirate Bay trial and the Assange case look like a charade.
If you believe that there's such a thing as an independent, only-cares-about-the-law-and-not-about-any-ties-and-pressure justice system out there, there's a bridge near my house that I can offer to sell you.
Things aren't (much) different now than they have always been - there's law for the common people; there's law for the influential people; and when you upset the _really_ influential people, the law will be rewritten against you, retroactively.
Thanks for your input!
> If you believe that there's...
I don't.
What I know is that sweden prides itself on having the strongest freedom of speech laws in the world (which is why Assange wanted to bring Wikileaks there in the first place), and that other disruptive forces like piratebay haven't felt any governmental pressure in the past.
I've seen nothing that suggests that any government official have commited the serious crime of involving themselves in a particular prosecution case. It's extremely unusual for a politician to even offer their opinion about a particular case, as that is borderline illegal for them to do.
Most likely, government officials weren't involved in this case. Most likely, it's just another overblown rape charge. Sweden has lots of those, as they're constantly redefining what constitutes rape. Slippery slope.
But whatever you and I think, we'll find out for sure if/when Assange faces trial in Sweden. If he is found not guilty, clearly the government couldn't or didn't sway the prosecution. If he is convicted, then at least the possibility that some government official did intervene exists.
I try to keep a pretty sane, "normal", law-abiding lifestyle, but it would take a motivated official about 10 minutes to find dirt on me. And I'd imagine a lot of it isn't necessarily surprising nor as bad as it might sound.
Not saying Assange doesn't deserve to be punished for his wrongdoing, just don't think it should be held as being more important than if someone like myself committed those offences. If I helped uncover several cables illustrating corruption among elected officials everywhere, I shouldn't be surprised to be on the news often for uncovering incredibly important, politically sensored information.
WikiLeaks became Enemy Number One after the State Department cables. I'm sorry, but if you think this is anything other than politically motivated persecution you are simply mistaken.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-brit...
Choice quote:
In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.
In addition, the degree to which spycraft entails placing people in compromising sexual situations, as well as, the explicit actions taken by the US and other wealthy governments in the interest of neutralizing and containing Wikileaks (e.g. trying to cut off funding), when combined with the vast resources available for a counter-espionage operation, certainly make a setup plausible even to people without tinfoil beanies.
Heck, the honeypot meme was even proposed here on HN.
That's not to say Assange didn't violate Swedish law. But as Stallman's rider might be said to illustrate, it can would pretty damn easy to place a couch sleeping nomad in a compromising position.
And although I in no way condone or approve of sexual assault, from a utilitarian standpoint, the ability of Wikileaks to continue its mission is highly likely to curb much worse behavior on a much larger scale. In my opinion, the argument that it is more important to hold governments and corporations accountable for their actions than it is to hold Assange accountable for his deserves the same consideration as arguments regarding the justifications for the wartime actions Assange helped expose.
Aren't the two charges. He didn't use a condom and he coerced a girl to sleep with him?
That said I now have little sympathy for him. If he is innocent I am sure he will be found so in Sweden.
He was originally a beacon for free speech. Then he oversaw the release of un-redacted cables and he turned into a pillock. He deserves what he gets.