It doesn't say where he is going to go. It seems to be a plea for support rather than a bone fide plan. Can't imagine being constrained to the same place for 2 years, horrible stuff.
In the two years Assange was imprisoned in a Embassy, he lifted 5 times a week. He also changed his wardrobe to black suits and black shades. His hair also changed: It was now completely missing, Julian now wore a bald head.
Today was the day. He had to leave the Embassy and step out to Great Britain's soil. These Brits where always waiting for him outside, always eager to attain him.
But lucky for Assange, nobody expected him to be a personal body guard of a leaving diplomat. He just walked outside with the other guards and nobody checked his papers. No Officer recognized him or expected a nerd with muscles. After some meters, he split up from the group and vanished in the streets of London.
Rumors say, even today he is roaming the streets, assassinating US spies and lobbyists.
MI5 probably has access to the embassy's CCTV feed and has been monitoring him ;)
I prefer the version where Anonymous sends 1000 Julian Assange lookalikes to flood the embassy's entrance and that allows for Julian to escape through the sewer
The UK spends $12 million [0] of tax payer money just to monitor this 1 person. I do think that's stupid, but they are probably not stupid enough to let him slip through, after all this.
> Can't imagine being constrained to the same place for 2 years, horrible stuff.
Yep. A lot like prison, in fact. Which raises an interesting question: As this drags on, at some point wouldn't it have been easier for him to cooperate, go to Sweden, and take his lumps? He could just about be out on parole by now; instead he still has it hanging over his head.
The whole thing seems very short sighted; the UK and Sweden aren't going to just get bored. Is he hoping to drag things out until he dies, or what?
It wasn't going to Sweden and taking his 'lumps' that Assange was afraid of, it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after being moved to Sweden. Assange (rightly or wrongly) believed strongly that the chances of Sweden doing such an extradition were more likely than the UK doing something similar. There is a lot of stuff about the rape charges that is fairly suspicious, I'm not sure if the risk of extradition today is as large as it was back when this all went down and maybe that figures into Assange's decision to exit the embassy now.
If he goes to Sweden (which I would consider highly likely if he in fact does exit the embassy and gets apprehended by the UK authorities) I suspect the chances of him doing any significant jail time as a result of the case there are slim, so then the only thing that he should still be worried about is eventual extradition to the US on charges still to be brought, but the spotlight will be very much on Sweden pulling any fast ones in the extradition process there.
> it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after being moved to Sweden.
That's entirely impossible under EU law. If extradited to UK to Sweden, he can ONLY be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK.
Scenario A: The UK would agree (in which case, he didn't need to be extradited to Sweden, as he was already in UK custody).
Scenario B: The UK would not agree (in which case, he cannot be extradited from Sweden).
Nobody has ever been able to outline any way in which being extradited to Sweden could have increased his risk of being extradited to the US. If the US even wanted him; the UK is well known for rolling over to US extradition requests, and he was in UK custody for an extended period of time. The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try.
"Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. [...] there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States [...] the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom."
When has the law ever got in the way? Governments can no longer be trusted. Only within the last week it was revealed the the UK tried to have evidence that they allowed the US to torture people on a UK owned island redacted from reports.
I've always been for big government/welfare state etc. but recently I've been becoming more and more libertarian. Politicians are untrustworthy and arguably evil people. They don't give one shit about us unless they are running for election. In that case they will lie and promise and then break those promises when we elect them. I've come to the conclusion that although I want a government that helps it's citizens and I'm fine with paying high taxes for that it's no longer worth the risk to our freedom.
But then, why was he not extradited from the UK when they had him in custody? That totally makes no sense: Sweden would have no interest at all in such a scheme - they'd go against UK and the EU and their own population while the UK would loose the same in both scenarios. That leaves extrajudicial extradition, but if the US really wanted that, they'd just let Assange fly to Ecuador, nap him there and avoid illegal actions on EU soil.
No it isn't. You have admitted yourself that it would be possible if the UK gave consent (which they would).
> The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try.
This is by no means obvious. There is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks. These typically take a long time, and it was likely not complete when the Swedish extradition request was made. It seems plausible that the US will wait until after the Swedish investigation has played out before serving their own warrant.
The need for the UK's agreement to an extradition from Sweden to the USA only applies while the investigation in Sweden is active. After it is over, Assange can be extradited without the UK's approval. See [1].
I didn't say that it did. Simply pointing out that a scenario exists for his extradition from Sweden without the additional complication of UK government involvement.
Lots of things are impossible under EU law, yet Poland and other EU countries had CIA black sites on their territory, where kidnapped suspects were tortured.
Highly illegal, and had our foreign minister not been murdered, she would have been held accountable as there was a huge outrage over the whole debacle. To me this says two things: 1) "the law" didn't mean much last time, so Assange is right to be careful 2) his public profile together with the last incident in fresh memory means he is probably at very little risk to be treated illegally in Sweden, especially as elections are coming up in September.
My guess: he'll go to Sweden, he'll be questioned by police, then let go. Seeing as he spent a couple of years hiding to avoid this, he will probably find this surprising, and no one else will.
Off the top of my head, I would guess that out of UK, Sweden and Ecuador, the latter presents by far the most suitable venue for extraordinary rendition.
"...he can ONLY be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK"
Only during the investigation and any subsequent criminal proceeding in Sweden. After these are completed, or abandoned, he could be extradited from Sweden to the US. From the blog post linked in section two of the New Statesman article:
"After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government. But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’)." [1]
Maybe he hoped that he could reach an agreement with the UK.
Anyways, I'd rather sit in a room for the rest of my life than to face what could await him in the US:
Solitary confinement for the rest of his life (if not, maybe being raped), torture, forcing him to answer prison wards every 30 minutes - even during nights - to make sure he doesn't commit suicide (that's what they did to Manning)
I'd probably even prefer suicide to that treatment.
He's been able to work in Wikileaks these 2 years, but effectively he's been imprisoned for 2 years and it didn't even compute as serving a prison sentence.
I support Assange 100%. The harassment of him for his involvement in wikileaks was completely inappropriate, especially considering that the Guardian and New York Times worked with him on this and would be similarly culpable if there were any culpability; digging around in his sexual history was a pathetic thing to do -- if you try hard enough you would, for a substantial percentage of people (especially successful men), be able to find someone who will make a negative sexual accusation against them, especially if there are inducements to do so; and the general critiques of his character as "arrogant" etc are similarly irrelevant, and also superficial and childish.
Accompanied by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilén visits a Stockholm police station — by their own account, for the limited purpose of obtaining assistance in compelling Assange to take an HIV test. Anna Ardin is present during the interview with Ms. Wilén, which is conducted by a friend and political ally of Ms. Ardin.
Are you suggesting the interviews are fake? Here is the original scanned transcript. It has been translated by other sites if you want to fact check but you seem to have made up your mind. http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf
What I do know is that a person is wanted for questioning regarding acts of sexual violence, that person has fled to another country and has refused to return for said questioning, claiming some conspiracy to send him to the USA.
It was basically "suddenly, sexual assaults, out of fucking nowhere" case. Coincidence? Also, AFAIR one of those women retracted the accusation, though I might be misremembering something.
I think the 'retraction' isn't something that can be painted one way or another - there are so many valid reasons on both sides that a retraction could be read, from "didn't happen" to "reconsidered" to "didn't want to be part of international media circus".
Sure, but OTOH. doesn't it strike you weird that allegations of past sexual "crimes" pop up exactly at the moment he pissed of the US Government the most? Why not before?
Ah yes, and the timing and context was entirely coincidental. Neither of us know the truth but "digging around" by journalists, law enforcement or intelligence agencies is far more likely to be the reason that this surfaced than pure coincidence.
He's trying to avoid trial. That's the issue at stake. I think we're all indebted to Assange for what he did at wikileaks, but that doesn't make him a saint. I would think higher of him if he would have stood at the trial and been acquitted or even if he were found guilty and accepted the punishment.
Didn't he offer to have the trial held in another place? I haven't followed so closely. But the assumption that it might all be a farce to get him delivered to the US doesn't sound completely far-fetched.
Assuming he just avoids the trial because he is guilty is silly. If you don't trust the system, it's a good reason to try to avoid it.
Edit: since I have googled now, apparently he is not wanted in Sweden for a trial, just for a questioning.
I don't remember - how did Assange get out of Sweden? I assume he wasn't in Sweden anymore when the accusations were made?
So I am really not sure what you are saying? WOuld you have said Amanda Knox should have gone to Italy, had she already been in the US before the first trial?
It's not even a trial, merely a questioning. And while he has offered to have the questioning take place in London, Swedish law simply doesn't permit it. While that might be ridiculous, it won't just change for this particular case (and Swedish authorities don't make the laws, they enforce them).
Next he wanted guarantees from Swedish authorities that if he were to travel to Sweden, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Swedes tried to explain that no such guarantees can be made: authorities can only process requests for extradition once made. Giving a guarantee up front would be illegal as it completely circumvents the laws regarding extraditions.
These two things combined meant Assange complained "I can't be questioned here nor be guaranteed I won't be extradited to the US!", both of which are ridiculous complaints when you read the laws involved.
They don't want him for "merely a questioning", they want to file charges against him so that the trail can commence. In Sweden you cannot formally file charges against someone who isn't in custody, and Swedish police obviously can't take someone into custody in a country where they don't have jurisdiction.
It's just an accident of terminology that the relevant Swedish legal phrase translates to "questioning" in English.
Government should not give preemptive assurances and forego the courts, regardless of whether it has happened in the past.
The main question is: what is there to gain for Sweden by offering any guarantees to Assange (other than having him show up sooner)? It's a matter of relations with the US (which are closer than they should be as Snowden revealed) versus the matter of human rights. A delicate decision without a given answer.
In Sweden one probably wants to keep the possibilities open and delay all investigations regarding refugee status, extradition requests etc to when they actually have Assange. If he wants to wait several years until he needs to visit a hospital, neither the US nor the Swedes really care: his whereabouts are known.
I note that when faced with the fact that they can interview him remotely (and this is entirely normal and occurs frequently in the EU) you've changed the scope of discussion and avoided conceding the point.
Your newly suggested scope is to whether Sweden should give guarantees and accept Assange's generous offer to return to Sweden physically with a guarantee he will not be handed to the US.
The fact is that Assange has not been charged with any crime, left Sweden with its blessing after responding to queries on the case (which was already thrown out of court), and as an innocent member of the global public is certainly not obliged to make such generous offers.
The Swedish prosecutor Marriane Ny's continued lack of movement on the case and media-directed table-thumping, even ignoring her own bar association, prominent international lawyers, and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, has been extremely telling.
But it's as black and white as you appear to make it. Just a different kind of black, eh? Why don't we let the court figure that out? Under public scrutiny?
What would the public do, how would they help (in stopping his extraction to the US)? How much "truth" do you think you receive everyday about the state of the world, through our "public" channels?
Apparently you trust the system, so maybe you can not understand how it feels if you don't trust the system. I hope you'll never have issue to worry about it.
Edit: answering here because HN won't let me reply - The issue is not that you trust the system and want him on trial, that's a fair attitude. The issue is that you assume he is guilty because he avoids the trial (or rather, questioning).
Perhaps it makes logical sense if you assume everybody would trust the system. But perhaps you can accept that not everybody trusts the system, and that therefore their avoiding it doesn't prove guilt.
In fact I think your attitude demonstrates a typical failure of the system. Most people (who represent the system) are prone to jumping to conclusions and illogical assumptions (he runs so he must be guilty).
Yes, I do trust the system in general. There's a need for public scrutiny, but in general - while imperfect and certainly in need of some fixing - it's the best system we have had for the last couple of hundred years.
It's understandable that Assange might not trust the system, but that does not mean that I have to support that. It's obviously not a better system if everybody on his own gets to decide which parts of the legal system apply to him or not. It's not an opt-out system.
Given that, even if that were not the case: I trust the UK less than Sweden. The alleged scheme makes no sense: It would be the same for the UK and Sweden could only loose. Unless somebody gives me a credible reason what Sweden has to gain from allowing extralegal action of the US under its legal system, I'm sticking with my opinion.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would the US try to get him to Sweden first and not get him extradited directly from the UK? The UK is a way closer partner to the US than Sweden.
Not sure you understand that he might also be guilty of trahison against US. Should he be intercepted by US authorities, he would be given a hard time. That's what he's fleeing against. Had it been the two alleged assaults alone, I'm confident anyone would have faced the trial.
Well, as others have pointed out: Being in the UK actually makes is _more_ likely to be extradited to the US, since when he's in Sweden, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to an extradition request. The UK is also not particularly well known for fighting US extradition requests. That's certainly not accounting for extralegal extradition, but that's a different pair of shoes. I don't think that being in Ecuador helps against that any better than being in Sweden.
Given that, I have the feeling that he was actually trying to avoid the trial and using the fear of extradition to the US as a convenient excuse. I may quite well be wrong on that, but that's how I currently feel.
Read the New Statesman article linked somewhere in this thread. You'll find that most of what people on the Internet say about the legal issues is factually wrong.
The New Statesman article and its author David Allen Green have been extensively debunked. If you do choose to read it, read it in conjunction with http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html to get the full picture.
Why are we all indebted to Assange? Nobody has any idea whether what he did had a net positive or negative affect on ours or other people's lives. There's doesn't appear to be a reason behind a lot of the leaks, and worst of all there has been little effort made to ensure people don't get killed as a result of what is being leaked. Overall I don't feel indebted to him at all.
That "assault" was not using a condom for which both women didn't want to press charges. They did only so because the prosecutor pressured them into it. Pretty weak.
Point of clarification: What Assange's lawyer did was describe the alleged acts. He was trying to argue that, if the complaint was true, it wasn't technically rape under UK law. Unfortunately for Assange, it was very clearly rape under UK law, and the court so ruled.
"Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims [...] Emmerson is not vouching for the accuracy of these accounts but merely offering them as summaries of the charges against his client."
His lawyer was being quite careful not to say "yeah, my client had sex with a sleeping woman without her consent, but it's okay!", he was saying "if the complaint is true, and he did these things, it would still be okay". Which is lucky for Assange, because the court has ruled that it really would not be okay. :)
More informed parties with more understanding of the case, such as Eva Joly, one of the most famous lawyers in Europe, is on Assange's side, and described the Swedish 'minor rape' charges IIRC as being extremely particular to Sweden and nothing like rape as other countries see it, in fact they should not be called rape.
She felt so strongly about the improper handling of the case that she went to Sweden visit the prosecutor to point out the tools available for moving the case forward, but Marianne Ny refused to meet with her.
Similarly, "feminist icon Naomi Wolf" in a "debate with Jaclyn Friedman of Women, Action & the Media on Democracy Now!" Wolf defended Assange as a victim of political persecution:
“If you are going to take the issue of rape seriously,” Wolf said, “the person who is engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, ‘I don’t want this’ and again and again and again these women did not say, ‘this is not consensual.’ Assange was shocked when these were brought up as complaints because he had no idea that this was not a consensual situation.”
I trust these people, with respect and hard won reputations to uphold, far more than some student website.
England has a variety of sexual offences laws. Even what he is alledged to have done is not rape under English law it is a serious offence under similar laws.
Basically, rape is defined as penetration, without consent, and without a reasonable belief in consent. Someone who is sleeping cannot consent, and you cannot therefore have a reasonable belief in that person's consent (if you're aware they're asleep, at any rate). Thus under UK law, an allegation of penetration of a sleeping person is an allegation of rape.
(The law is the same in most US states, Canada, Australia, Scotland, NZ, and many, but not all, European countries. Even places where it doesn't count as rape, it's generally a serious crime. In Germany that would amount to an allegation of "abuse of persons unable to resist", which can carry a stiff penalty.)
Untrue. This assertion is based on conflating the European Arrest Warrant (issued post-haste with probable US involvement) with inflated accusations with no grounding in evidence with the actual reality of the case. See http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#ALLEGATI... for an explanation.
The court ruled that what Assange is alleged to have done is rape under UK law. I realise that you may have a lot of respect for "feminist icon Naomi Wolf"[1], but her opinions does not represent the law.
Allow me to quote from the actual legal opinion of an actual court (whose opinions, in fact, do represent the law):
'However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.'
And that's that. UK courts ruled—twice—that Assange is alleged to have committed acts that in the UK would be rape, full stop.
Unless he can be smuggled out or airlifted, I can't see how he's going to avoid being arrested by the cops waiting for him. If he's planning to hand himself in, why not do it straight away?
They're probably in talks with the relevant UK government institutions. They talk about a new climate, and that "the plan is for him to leave as soon as the UK government decides to honour its obligations in relation to international agreements and calls off the siege outside - it's as simple as that."
What's there to talk about? He's wanted for questioning over sexual assault allegations. He doesn't get to have "talks" about that. He's not the messiah.
The one thing spy agencies are still really good at is getting people into compromising situations. It's not hard to get someone drunk and find attractive people to hook them up with. If they're married that's all you have to do. That's how they've recruited, blackmailed, and discredited people for 60+ years.
The guy lived 40 years with no sex charges and then immediately after pissing off the most powerful agencies in the world he's got two strange ones. It's possible he made criminal mistakes but even if so it's likely he was being manipulated. He easily could have been drugged without his knowledge.
He could also just have used his fame to end up in bed with two women and maybe, Swedish women are not as easily intimidated by exterior circumstances (the public shame associated with a rape case etc.) as others. It has been reported before that Assange is not exactly an easy character. It's possible that it's a set up, it's also possible that he's at the same time a person that made an important move with wikileaks and an asshole that coerced two women to have sex with him. It's just something that the courts will have to clear up.
On a related note: It don't believe punishment for the charges brought against him is not severe enough to really warrant such a move from the side of the spy agencies. The damage had already been done, bringing the allegations against him in a public court in Sweden might retroactively damage Assanges credentials a little, but the documents stood quite well on their own and the expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low prison sentence in a Swedish prison. I just don't buy that. It's not worth the effort.
A lot of maybes and no proof. If the women had been sexually assaulted, and if these assumptions are to be taken seriously (e.g. that they are not easily intimidated by exterior circumstances) then much of what happened after the alleged rape would make no sense whatsoever (their friendly behaviour, their tweets, their comments with other friends/witnesses). In fact, there is so much that has been put into question that it's ridiculous how the swedish government even took the case seriously.
And let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape and he's only wanted for questioning. I believe that this is what they are saying because it's impossible to justify any other stance based on the lack of evidence...
Except the case went to the UK Supreme Court and the extradition was found to be justified. The English legal system has a very good track record of standing up to the government so unless you're suggesting that they too have somehow "been got at" as well...
Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets I do love the blind belief that Assange is the victim of a highly successful multi-government conspiracy over a number of years.
> Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets
How do you come to the conclusion that governments are poor at keeping secrets? There have been relatively few leaks of consequence, and governments have done a great job of making an example of the people doing the leaking. Manning is in prison, Snowden is in exile, Assange is locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Serious journalists like Greenwald have to base themselves in third-world countries.
So while governments are perhaps mediocre at protecting data, they can certainly go after anybody who places it in the public domain, and this fear effect is a much stronger deterrent than anything else they could do.
Greenwald seems to base himself there for publicity purposes. No-one else from the New York Times has moved, the Guardian is still firmly based in the UK.
let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape
This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to trial.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement for custody before questioning and Sweden along with other European nations have a frequent history of using remote questioning via video conference or telephone. The prosecutor in this case has just refused to do that, for no legally stated reason except further slurs such as she considers him a 'flight risk' (even though he received permission to leave Sweden, and the case has already been thrown out of court once, and at this point it's blatantly clear that it's a politically motivated case with no chance of a fair trial). The prosecutor is, in fact, in breach of Sweden's own rules which require a speedy and fair trial with the minimum assertion of guilt on the party being questioned.
I note that you have a personal interest in Sweden and are German. I am glad that you are able to tell me about what questioning means in English. Thanks for telling me I'm wrong, and to go and look up why. That was really useful and added a lot to the conversation.
Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): Even though Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some, including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a fugitive on the run.
In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge.
>but the documents stood quite well on their own and the expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low prison sentence in a Swedish prison.
The concern has not been the sexual assault changes. The concern been that once Assange is in Swedish hands, the U.S. will unveil a warrant for his arrest, and Sweden will happily extradite him. And then he's tortured and rots in a maximum security prison.
That's the concern.
Given the lengths the U.S. has gone to in order to obtain people associated with intelligence leaks, including forcing a presidential plane to the ground, I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.
As has been said many times, that is not a legitimate concern.
The rules are much harder to extradite from Sweden than from the UK. Why the elaborate set up to make things harder?
And the current situation makes it even more absurd. They would first need to extradite him back to the UK, and then to the US. No one has so far been able to show how it could be done in any other way.
Probably because there would be a big public outcry in the UK, in the event of a direct extradition to the US. Both because Wikileaks has a lot of support in the UK, and because the general public feels extradition laws are unfairly tilted to US advantage.
Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition.
You've presupposed that the various organizations that are quite literally the only "legitimate" authorities in their respective jurisdictions are above bending/changing the rules ever so slightly for this one case.
What prevents the UK from just storming the Ecuadorian embassy and arresting Assange? Hundreds or possibly thousands of years of foreign relations precedent and agreement. Is it worth breaking with that tradition to arrest Assange? Probably not.
But whatever treaty "prevents" Sweden from extraditing him to the US without first sending him back to the UK is probably a lot flimsier. And easier to say "look we only sent him to Sweden since we knew he had to come back through the UK in order to be extradited to the US" and the UK govt officials look good, the US is happy and Sweden doesn't have the US do whatever it is they'll be holding over their heads.
Before you say "but the law prevents this!" just look at the UN. Why is that body such a joke? Because none of the nations are really bound by whatever the UN rules because they're all sovereign governments. They are the ultimate authorities in the territories that they administer and as such are not accustomed to HAVING to play by any rules.
Any rules they do play by are part of a complicated calculus to get what they also want. Diplomatic immunity and embassies being "sovereign" territory aren't because anyone really believes in it for anyone else. They just want it for themselves so they go along with it for others such that it doesn't get taken away from them.
Torture is against international law but the US has been doing precisely that under two different administrations at gitmo. Given that this is a FACT please explain what MAKES Sweden not extradite Assange to the US after they get him from the UK.
He also lived 40 years without being a major international celebrity. He wouldn't exactly be the first person in history to be corrupted by fame and the (oftentimes imagined) power that comes with it.
I can't believe how much misinformation exists in this thread. The facts are available: (0) Everyone knows who he pissed off and how dirty they play (1) The police transcripts were leaked almost immediately, which you can read to get a strong sense of what is going on. (2) The extremely dodgy circumstances around how the women actually got to the police have been published (one of them, who previously worked for a CIA-linked company, took the other one) (3) The extremely dodgy circumstances around how the police interviews were conducted ("we'll write down what we think you're saying" instead of "we'll record what you're saying") (4) The express wishes of the woman in question (re: "I don't want any of this disclosed", "I don't want to press any charges") were ignored by the police (5) The woman who took the other woman to the police knew the police officer in question (6) The case was totally thrown out of court (7) The case was replaced in court partly due to the involvement of a lawyer who is also a politician (8) Leading human rights organizations, EU lawyers, Sweden's own bar association and similar elevated persons have united against the handling of the case. (9) Assange got explicit permission to leave Sweden before doing so (10) The prosecutor in the case has neither interviewed him remotely nor explained why she doesn't do so, except to suggest he's guilty until proven innocent - ie. should be in Sweden when questioned - so he can be locked up! (11) Politicians and the prosecution have commented extensively in the media - so far that the head of the Swedish bar association and numerous retired lawyers in Sweden called the case a "circus" - thus precluding a fair trial.
This is character assassination, pure and simple. Trial by media. There are of course still more points, these are just off the top of my head. I saw the sorry state of his Wikipedia article and took it upon myself to introduce some of the facts, so became familiar with some of them. If anyone still thinks it's a legitimate case at this point, I'm sorry, but they're just goddamn stupid.
Note that it is (naturally) in Swedish, however I will translate the actual allegation (under the title 'Övergreppet') here below, english is not my native tongue so if anyone else who knows swedish have any remarks on the translation, be kind to let me know:
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'.
119 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadiirc uk police were waiting outside for him to leave. he'll get detained once he sets foot outside of the embassy.
In the two years Assange was imprisoned in a Embassy, he lifted 5 times a week. He also changed his wardrobe to black suits and black shades. His hair also changed: It was now completely missing, Julian now wore a bald head.
Today was the day. He had to leave the Embassy and step out to Great Britain's soil. These Brits where always waiting for him outside, always eager to attain him.
But lucky for Assange, nobody expected him to be a personal body guard of a leaving diplomat. He just walked outside with the other guards and nobody checked his papers. No Officer recognized him or expected a nerd with muscles. After some meters, he split up from the group and vanished in the streets of London.
Rumors say, even today he is roaming the streets, assassinating US spies and lobbyists.
I prefer the version where Anonymous sends 1000 Julian Assange lookalikes to flood the embassy's entrance and that allows for Julian to escape through the sewer
[0] http://rt.com/news/178276-assange-police-cost-embassy/
Yep. A lot like prison, in fact. Which raises an interesting question: As this drags on, at some point wouldn't it have been easier for him to cooperate, go to Sweden, and take his lumps? He could just about be out on parole by now; instead he still has it hanging over his head.
The whole thing seems very short sighted; the UK and Sweden aren't going to just get bored. Is he hoping to drag things out until he dies, or what?
If he goes to Sweden (which I would consider highly likely if he in fact does exit the embassy and gets apprehended by the UK authorities) I suspect the chances of him doing any significant jail time as a result of the case there are slim, so then the only thing that he should still be worried about is eventual extradition to the US on charges still to be brought, but the spotlight will be very much on Sweden pulling any fast ones in the extradition process there.
Time will tell.
That's entirely impossible under EU law. If extradited to UK to Sweden, he can ONLY be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK.
Scenario A: The UK would agree (in which case, he didn't need to be extradited to Sweden, as he was already in UK custody).
Scenario B: The UK would not agree (in which case, he cannot be extradited from Sweden).
Nobody has ever been able to outline any way in which being extradited to Sweden could have increased his risk of being extradited to the US. If the US even wanted him; the UK is well known for rolling over to US extradition requests, and he was in UK custody for an extended period of time. The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try.
"Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. [...] there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States [...] the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom."
Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
When has the law ever got in the way? Governments can no longer be trusted. Only within the last week it was revealed the the UK tried to have evidence that they allowed the US to torture people on a UK owned island redacted from reports.
I've always been for big government/welfare state etc. but recently I've been becoming more and more libertarian. Politicians are untrustworthy and arguably evil people. They don't give one shit about us unless they are running for election. In that case they will lie and promise and then break those promises when we elect them. I've come to the conclusion that although I want a government that helps it's citizens and I'm fine with paying high taxes for that it's no longer worth the risk to our freedom.
No it isn't. You have admitted yourself that it would be possible if the UK gave consent (which they would).
> The obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands on him, since they didn't actually try.
This is by no means obvious. There is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks. These typically take a long time, and it was likely not complete when the Swedish extradition request was made. It seems plausible that the US will wait until after the Swedish investigation has played out before serving their own warrant.
edit: The New Statesman article you referenced has a large inaccuracy. Details: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-sta...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8192145
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05...
Highly illegal, and had our foreign minister not been murdered, she would have been held accountable as there was a huge outrage over the whole debacle. To me this says two things: 1) "the law" didn't mean much last time, so Assange is right to be careful 2) his public profile together with the last incident in fresh memory means he is probably at very little risk to be treated illegally in Sweden, especially as elections are coming up in September.
My guess: he'll go to Sweden, he'll be questioned by police, then let go. Seeing as he spent a couple of years hiding to avoid this, he will probably find this surprising, and no one else will.
Only during the investigation and any subsequent criminal proceeding in Sweden. After these are completed, or abandoned, he could be extradited from Sweden to the US. From the blog post linked in section two of the New Statesman article:
"After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government. But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’)." [1]
[1] http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seek...
Anyways, I'd rather sit in a room for the rest of my life than to face what could await him in the US:
Solitary confinement for the rest of his life (if not, maybe being raped), torture, forcing him to answer prison wards every 30 minutes - even during nights - to make sure he doesn't commit suicide (that's what they did to Manning)
I'd probably even prefer suicide to that treatment.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
Accompanied by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilén visits a Stockholm police station — by their own account, for the limited purpose of obtaining assistance in compelling Assange to take an HIV test. Anna Ardin is present during the interview with Ms. Wilén, which is conducted by a friend and political ally of Ms. Ardin.
What I do know is that a person is wanted for questioning regarding acts of sexual violence, that person has fled to another country and has refused to return for said questioning, claiming some conspiracy to send him to the USA.
I'm not surprised one of the women backed down, they were both being harassed by idiots online for months.
Anyway, he hasn't even been on trial. How can you be so sure he is guilty? I think that's an uncivilized attitude.
Edit: since I have googled now, apparently he is not wanted in Sweden for a trial, just for a questioning.
You might have missed that the venue of a trial is usually pre-determined, certainly not chosen at the whim of the defendant.
Do you think she should go to Italy? If she doesn't go, would that make you believe she is guilty?
But the difference is: no one in their right mind expected Italy to let Ms. Knox leave for the United States when she was in custody.
Only when she was acquitted, the arrest warrant was lifted, and according to Italian law she was free to go, was she able to leave.
So I am really not sure what you are saying? WOuld you have said Amanda Knox should have gone to Italy, had she already been in the US before the first trial?
I don't understand the distinction you make between the two cases. Both people are wanted for trial in another country.
The difference is that noone forces Ms. Knox to Italy, because the USA don't extraditre their citizens, I guess.
Assange isn't in Australia. He's in the UK, and the UK forces him to Sweden.
If you don't see the difference, then there's nothing more I can do or say.
Next he wanted guarantees from Swedish authorities that if he were to travel to Sweden, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Swedes tried to explain that no such guarantees can be made: authorities can only process requests for extradition once made. Giving a guarantee up front would be illegal as it completely circumvents the laws regarding extraditions.
These two things combined meant Assange complained "I can't be questioned here nor be guaranteed I won't be extradited to the US!", both of which are ridiculous complaints when you read the laws involved.
It's just an accident of terminology that the relevant Swedish legal phrase translates to "questioning" in English.
The main question is: what is there to gain for Sweden by offering any guarantees to Assange (other than having him show up sooner)? It's a matter of relations with the US (which are closer than they should be as Snowden revealed) versus the matter of human rights. A delicate decision without a given answer.
In Sweden one probably wants to keep the possibilities open and delay all investigations regarding refugee status, extradition requests etc to when they actually have Assange. If he wants to wait several years until he needs to visit a hospital, neither the US nor the Swedes really care: his whereabouts are known.
Your newly suggested scope is to whether Sweden should give guarantees and accept Assange's generous offer to return to Sweden physically with a guarantee he will not be handed to the US.
The fact is that Assange has not been charged with any crime, left Sweden with its blessing after responding to queries on the case (which was already thrown out of court), and as an innocent member of the global public is certainly not obliged to make such generous offers.
The Swedish prosecutor Marriane Ny's continued lack of movement on the case and media-directed table-thumping, even ignoring her own bar association, prominent international lawyers, and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, has been extremely telling.
Not everything is as black and white as you appear to make it.
Apparently you trust the system, so maybe you can not understand how it feels if you don't trust the system. I hope you'll never have issue to worry about it.
Edit: answering here because HN won't let me reply - The issue is not that you trust the system and want him on trial, that's a fair attitude. The issue is that you assume he is guilty because he avoids the trial (or rather, questioning).
Perhaps it makes logical sense if you assume everybody would trust the system. But perhaps you can accept that not everybody trusts the system, and that therefore their avoiding it doesn't prove guilt.
In fact I think your attitude demonstrates a typical failure of the system. Most people (who represent the system) are prone to jumping to conclusions and illogical assumptions (he runs so he must be guilty).
It's understandable that Assange might not trust the system, but that does not mean that I have to support that. It's obviously not a better system if everybody on his own gets to decide which parts of the legal system apply to him or not. It's not an opt-out system.
Given that, even if that were not the case: I trust the UK less than Sweden. The alleged scheme makes no sense: It would be the same for the UK and Sweden could only loose. Unless somebody gives me a credible reason what Sweden has to gain from allowing extralegal action of the US under its legal system, I'm sticking with my opinion.
Given that, I have the feeling that he was actually trying to avoid the trial and using the fear of extradition to the US as a convenient excuse. I may quite well be wrong on that, but that's how I currently feel.
Read the New Statesman article linked somewhere in this thread. You'll find that most of what people on the Internet say about the legal issues is factually wrong.
"Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims [...] Emmerson is not vouching for the accuracy of these accounts but merely offering them as summaries of the charges against his client."
His lawyer was being quite careful not to say "yeah, my client had sex with a sleeping woman without her consent, but it's okay!", he was saying "if the complaint is true, and he did these things, it would still be okay". Which is lucky for Assange, because the court has ruled that it really would not be okay. :)
Source: http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concede...
More informed parties with more understanding of the case, such as Eva Joly, one of the most famous lawyers in Europe, is on Assange's side, and described the Swedish 'minor rape' charges IIRC as being extremely particular to Sweden and nothing like rape as other countries see it, in fact they should not be called rape.
She felt so strongly about the improper handling of the case that she went to Sweden visit the prosecutor to point out the tools available for moving the case forward, but Marianne Ny refused to meet with her.
Similarly, "feminist icon Naomi Wolf" in a "debate with Jaclyn Friedman of Women, Action & the Media on Democracy Now!" Wolf defended Assange as a victim of political persecution:
“If you are going to take the issue of rape seriously,” Wolf said, “the person who is engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, ‘I don’t want this’ and again and again and again these women did not say, ‘this is not consensual.’ Assange was shocked when these were brought up as complaints because he had no idea that this was not a consensual situation.”
I trust these people, with respect and hard won reputations to uphold, far more than some student website.
Here's the definition of rape: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
Basically, rape is defined as penetration, without consent, and without a reasonable belief in consent. Someone who is sleeping cannot consent, and you cannot therefore have a reasonable belief in that person's consent (if you're aware they're asleep, at any rate). Thus under UK law, an allegation of penetration of a sleeping person is an allegation of rape.
(The law is the same in most US states, Canada, Australia, Scotland, NZ, and many, but not all, European countries. Even places where it doesn't count as rape, it's generally a serious crime. In Germany that would amount to an allegation of "abuse of persons unable to resist", which can carry a stiff penalty.)
Allow me to quote from the actual legal opinion of an actual court (whose opinions, in fact, do represent the law):
'However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.'
And that's that. UK courts ruled—twice—that Assange is alleged to have committed acts that in the UK would be rape, full stop.
(Source: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html)
The guy lived 40 years with no sex charges and then immediately after pissing off the most powerful agencies in the world he's got two strange ones. It's possible he made criminal mistakes but even if so it's likely he was being manipulated. He easily could have been drugged without his knowledge.
Well, until now.
On a related note: It don't believe punishment for the charges brought against him is not severe enough to really warrant such a move from the side of the spy agencies. The damage had already been done, bringing the allegations against him in a public court in Sweden might retroactively damage Assanges credentials a little, but the documents stood quite well on their own and the expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low prison sentence in a Swedish prison. I just don't buy that. It's not worth the effort.
And let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape and he's only wanted for questioning. I believe that this is what they are saying because it's impossible to justify any other stance based on the lack of evidence...
Given Wikileaks et al have recently shown quite how poor governments are at keeping secrets I do love the blind belief that Assange is the victim of a highly successful multi-government conspiracy over a number of years.
How do you come to the conclusion that governments are poor at keeping secrets? There have been relatively few leaks of consequence, and governments have done a great job of making an example of the people doing the leaking. Manning is in prison, Snowden is in exile, Assange is locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Serious journalists like Greenwald have to base themselves in third-world countries.
So while governments are perhaps mediocre at protecting data, they can certainly go after anybody who places it in the public domain, and this fear effect is a much stronger deterrent than anything else they could do.
This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to trial.
"Questioning" is an awkward translation and does not mean what you think it means.
It has been debated to death in all those Assange threads.
Please read the article in New Statesman that another poster helpfully linked to somewhere in this thread.
Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): Even though Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some, including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a fugitive on the run.
In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge.
I wonder if you will read it?
http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html
The concern has not been the sexual assault changes. The concern been that once Assange is in Swedish hands, the U.S. will unveil a warrant for his arrest, and Sweden will happily extradite him. And then he's tortured and rots in a maximum security prison.
That's the concern.
Given the lengths the U.S. has gone to in order to obtain people associated with intelligence leaks, including forcing a presidential plane to the ground, I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.
The rules are much harder to extradite from Sweden than from the UK. Why the elaborate set up to make things harder?
And the current situation makes it even more absurd. They would first need to extradite him back to the UK, and then to the US. No one has so far been able to show how it could be done in any other way.
Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition.
But they couldn't, that's the whole point.
You've presupposed that the various organizations that are quite literally the only "legitimate" authorities in their respective jurisdictions are above bending/changing the rules ever so slightly for this one case.
What prevents the UK from just storming the Ecuadorian embassy and arresting Assange? Hundreds or possibly thousands of years of foreign relations precedent and agreement. Is it worth breaking with that tradition to arrest Assange? Probably not.
But whatever treaty "prevents" Sweden from extraditing him to the US without first sending him back to the UK is probably a lot flimsier. And easier to say "look we only sent him to Sweden since we knew he had to come back through the UK in order to be extradited to the US" and the UK govt officials look good, the US is happy and Sweden doesn't have the US do whatever it is they'll be holding over their heads.
Before you say "but the law prevents this!" just look at the UN. Why is that body such a joke? Because none of the nations are really bound by whatever the UN rules because they're all sovereign governments. They are the ultimate authorities in the territories that they administer and as such are not accustomed to HAVING to play by any rules.
Any rules they do play by are part of a complicated calculus to get what they also want. Diplomatic immunity and embassies being "sovereign" territory aren't because anyone really believes in it for anyone else. They just want it for themselves so they go along with it for others such that it doesn't get taken away from them.
Torture is against international law but the US has been doing precisely that under two different administrations at gitmo. Given that this is a FACT please explain what MAKES Sweden not extradite Assange to the US after they get him from the UK.
He also lived 40 years without being a major international celebrity. He wouldn't exactly be the first person in history to be corrupted by fame and the (oftentimes imagined) power that comes with it.
Correlation != causation.
This is character assassination, pure and simple. Trial by media. There are of course still more points, these are just off the top of my head. I saw the sorry state of his Wikipedia article and took it upon myself to introduce some of the facts, so became familiar with some of them. If anyone still thinks it's a legitimate case at this point, I'm sorry, but they're just goddamn stupid.
More info @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
Note that it is (naturally) in Swedish, however I will translate the actual allegation (under the title 'Övergreppet') here below, english is not my native tongue so if anyone else who knows swedish have any remarks on the translation, be kind to let me know:
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'.
Distribute the insurance file passwords before you exit the embassy!