UKC

Julian Assange confinement is arbitrary detention, UN panel rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35490910

How the hell do they conclude this? The Swedish want to question him over rape charges and so ask the UK for him to be extradited. He runs away.
Who does the panel suppose is "arbitrarily detaining" him?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Himself presumably. Absolutely bonkers ruling.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I thought the same thing. It will be interesting to read the report. My only thoughts are that it will focus on the legality of the extradition ruling. As I recall, there was discussion about whether Swedish prosecutors constituted a 'judicial authority'.

I suspect it will make very little difference to how the UK handles the case.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I am guessing he got told a couple of days back then. Hence why he bravely said he would hand himself over if the decision went against him.
Be interesting to see the full decision and hopefully one of the good legal bloggers will interpret it into something closer to English.
Does seem a bit odd.

In reply to Postmanpat:


https://justice4assange.com/Assange-Case-Fact-Checker.html

Doesn't seem so strange a judgement by the UN team. Zero chance U.K. or Sweden will head it.

D

In reply to Postmanpat:

I have always advocated that we should have extradited Julian Assange whilst he was asleep. Then we would have found out if he really thinks sleeping people can give consent.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Took me a second that!

In reply to Postmanpat:

People here actually think the guy raped someone, lol. Even after the woman has /repeatedly/ said that she was never raped and never wanted him arrested, she just wanted the guy to be tested for stds or something.

The UKs participation in this sham has been a stupendous amount of money and resources. Sweden has done everything it could in the past few years to take the spotlight away from the fact that this all came about because Swedish politicians wanted to offer Assange for extradition to the US to win some brownie points. By the looks of the posts here they've succeeded quite well.

In reply to Dauphin:



None of this demonstrates that he has been "arbitrarily detained", only that the Swedish authorities have either no case or have not followed correct process. Is there a legal argument that says that if someone takes refuge against detention (that may be unwarranted) they are in fact "detained"

In reply to Removed User:


Why on earth do you think anyone on here thinks he raped someone? What a strange inference.

In reply to MarkJH:

The Guardian article summarizes the argument as: "It rests on a challenge to the European extradition system, his inability to access the benefit of the grant of asylum by Ecuador, and what he argues is his long-term detention"

As I read it, that seems like a logical, if perhaps surprising, argument that he has been granted asylum but has been prevented from exercising that asylum due to being confined in the Ecuadorian embassy rather than (presumably?) being free to hang out in Ecuador.

If that is the argument, and it has been upheld, then I don't know how that might transfer to the offers of asylum that I think were made to Snowden...?

In reply to Dauphin:



I am not convinced that is the most neutral source and that everything they say can be taken as accurate.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh it's all a game isn't it, and I suspect that JA is, at least in part, enjoying the spotlight all over again as that seems to be at least one of his motives for his actions.

The focus this one person has had means that he won't be able to catch a light chill without someone accusing the US/UK or Sweden (or other) of poisoning him. JA simply needs to step out of the Embassy, whiz over to Sweden and laugh at the charges (if they are as trumped up as is made out) and Sweden in its embarrassment will release him without charge and he can go about his business. After all, the eyes of the world would be on the case.

But noooooo, that's not a thrilling enough story is it. We need a whole extra bit of conspiracy. JA will be rendered off via Haiti, Cuba, and the North Pole to wind up swinging from a tree in Alabama or something. It doesn't serve JA and his story or his followers that actually due process might just work every now and then.

His statute of limitations on the rape case runs out in 2020 anyway so he has only got to hang around until then.

If I was the US authorities I would be (under my breath) thanking the heavens for the existence of Wikileaks. Not because of what they have released or whether or not they should do it, but because it has given them sight of what they are up against and how to find ways to keep their sensitive information out of the public arena, how to prevent whistleblowing, how to stop or catch leaks and how to deal with members of their Armed Forces who go rogue. It's been a great and ongoing"exercise" for them and I'm sure they have learned massively from it.

P.S. I have no idea whether he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of.

In reply to Postmanpat:




Has the ruling been published yet?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Due to be published tomorrow morning.

In reply to Rampikino:


I think the issue here is that he's not accused of any crime

In reply to KevinD:


Ok thanks.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


He's still wanted for questioning in relation to an allegation of rape.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What a complete waste of money, time and space this issue has become.

youtube.com/watch?v=6E4z7WG2_6E&

Professional disinterested plummy accent notwithstanding. She'd be more appealing if she sounded Welsh.

D

In reply to Postmanpat:


As I understand it the allegation is that the woman consented to sex but not unprotected sex and he took the condom off/didn't put it on without her knowing because he didn't want to use one.

Maybe that is not rape under the UK definition and it is probably very hard to prove but it is pretty sneaky and downright unpleasant behaviour which endangers the woman and it isn't unreasonable for Sweden to treat it as sexual assault.

In reply to Removed User:



Wow. People on here actually believe the guff that Assange has been dribbling.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>
I don't disagree with that but it's not point.

Exo seems to think that in order to believe the UN panel ruling is weird one has to believe that Assange is guilty of rape.
That, of course, is rubbish.

In reply to Removed User:
I think if anyone has been conditioned it is you. Sweden is probably the last place in Europe anyone would be extradited to the us from.

In reply to off-duty:

Wow. People on here actually believe the guff that Assange has been dribbling.

If only had they taken a DNA sample of his guff dribble, then this would have been proven one way or the other years ago!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It was also suggested that he "changed lanes without indicating". If so a poor show.

In reply to Removed User:


Out of interest, which politicians and from which party? This is always one bit I've never understood: knowing something about Swedish politics - that anyone would think that you are safer from extradition to the US in the UK than in Sweden?!

In reply to Pedro50:


Sorry, but if someone says "Yes, but only with a condom" that is a completely well defined, easily understood and reasonable limit to consent. It deserves just as much respect as an outright "No" and if the Swedes want to treat it as criminal they have every right to do so.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Why are you saying "sorry" to me? I am in complete agreement with your point

In reply to TobyA:


The really odd bit is the UK would have to agree to the further extradition.
So its gone from having the UK agree to having the UK + Sweden agree. Which seems an odd strategy.

In reply to Pedro50:


I thought you were downplaying what he did with your lane changing comment. Misunderstanding.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

No offence

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Edit; I meant to reply to Toby.

As you know, it would have been Frederick as leader of the moderate alliance when assange jumped bail, not the current socialist welder. Either way, zero chance of any deal with the USA.

In reply to summo:

Yep, I suppose if Bildt had got to be PM again you could just about see the logic of the argument, but the UK has been shipping people off to the to the States for years on an extradition treaty which the US Senate kept failing to ratify at their end, due to senators with names like Kerry and Kennedy worrying about IRA suspects getting sent back here.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ah, Vivienne Westwood has popped up to voice her support for him. He really must be in the wrong.

In reply to Postmanpat:


There must be no anti capitalism rallies for the self made millionaire to attend this week.

In reply to summo:

And the UN has also suggested he might be entitled to compensation.

I would have thought the UN has more important things to sort out- Syria etc. It just illustrates how some of these big organisations lose the plot.

In reply to neilh:


Personally I think the fact the UN does have a small number of people looking at arbitary detention is a good thing. Its not like throwing all the UN resources at Syria would help whereas a handful of people questioning detention might.

Even if in this case the decision seems a tad strange.

In reply to KevinD:

I am sure both of us can think of more important countrys to be concerned about rife arbitary detention than the UK.

In reply to neilh:


A slippery slope.

In reply to neilh:



I'm guessing they take the view that any injustice matters?

In reply to Postmanpat:

there's no way Sweden would have tried to extradite Assange if he was a normal chap.

In reply to Donald82:



Between 2009 and 2012, the UK arrested 26 people under a EAW issued by Sweden. Of these 23 were extradited. Do you think all of these were "unusual" people.

In reply to Postmanpat:


that's where it falls over for me- you don't need extradition to question someone


think who controls the governments..

In reply to MarkJH:

no. why?

In reply to Timmd:

Have the allegations of rape been dropped then? If they have, presumably Assange is free to go.

Or does the potential injustice to the original victims not count?

In reply to Postmanpat:



May I point out that the Swedish have been free all this time to question him in the Ecuadorean embassy.
They have chosen not to do so.
Surely if their main concerns were the victims and the investigation, why not do it ?
Plus I'm quite convinced that if he was convicted following this questioning the Ecuadorean embassy would certainly kick him out.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

No idea.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Under the Swedish system, the stage that he is at is far more than people in this country would consider as 'questioning'. He is formally a suspect, and subject to legal protections as such. Indeed, the ruling of the high court (when considering his appeal) argued that it was fair to call him 'accused' for the purposes of the EAW.

As such it is entirely a matter for the Swedish prosecutors to determine where and how he is questioned. If he voluntarily chooses to obstruct the legal process, then he cannot claim that he is being detained arbitrarily.

In reply to Timmd:

As I said I can thing of a long list of other justice issues that the UN could be spending their time and resources on.

In reply to Postmanpat:

For someone so keen on the law, JA does appear to be ignorant of it when he claims that this finding is "Binding".

In reply to MarkJH:


I think that may be a large part of what the ruling has been based on. That after having been available for questioning in Sweden for a few days, at Wandsworth Prison, during house arrest, and then at the Embassy for a few years, the Swedish prosecutor did not make enough of an effort to proceed with the questioning as they apparently did with another 44 people.

“The working group considered that Mr Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison, which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian embassy.

“Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the working group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr Assange.”

In reply to MarkJH:



The UN panel seem to think otherwise. Regardless I am not debating whether the UN decision was right or not, I am not a lawyer and have no idea.

I am simply pointing out that the Swedish prosecution prioritised his extradition over advancing their case or the interest of the plaintiffs.

In reply to Mr Lopez:



How many of those 44 were subject to an arrest warrant in Sweden?

In reply to RomTheBear:


No. You are claiming that they did. Thats not quite the same thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Assange is such a Muppet , live on tv now, I think he should honour the UN agreement and head out the front door.

In reply to MarkJH:


No idea. Would be interesting to know.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

It would be. We do know that only 16 of them were suspects. We (I) also have no idea what the legal requirements are for interviews under this stage of the Swedish investigation, and whether those thresholds could be met outside of their jurisdiction. I do know that certain MLAs (those requiring evidence under oath) can only be conducted in a UK court. Obviously in that case, the comparison between the 44 and Assange is meaningless; how many of these 44 interviews took place in the embassy of a foreign nation?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Don't think he was in Sweden for a few days, he claimed he remained in Sweden 5 weeks to face questioning. Be easy to prove or disprove this.

D

In reply to Dauphin:


It would be easy to prove that he was in Sweden for 5 weeks; neither side deny it.

The rest would be harder. The prosecutors claim, that his lawyer reported not to be able to arrange an interview for Assange when one was requested. They also claim that he left Sweden on the day that his lawyer was informed of an imminent arrest warrant...

In reply to MarkJH:

I don't think it is under doubt, Sweden to UK isn't a Schengen move, so all passport details are logged by airlines. Why did he leave Sweden? Why did he then jump UK bail, no smoke without fire.

If he such a freedom fighter, he should follow the same laws 500 million other people in Europe do. If not, he can move to Ecuador.

In reply to KevinD:

It is a fact that they had the opportunity and legal possibility to question him where he is all this time, which would have allowed the prosecution to carry on with their case, and chose no to, I'm not making any extraordinary claim here.

In reply to RomTheBear:



I don't think average Joe would be allowed to be interviewed for alleged sexual offences in his own home, he might have to go to the cop shop? Is he special?

In reply to summo:

No but the average Joe doesn't usually have the possibilty to take refuge in a foreign embassy. His case like every other case is unique, and the fastest path to pursue it would have been to interview him where he his given that he refused to leave. Instead they chose to basically do nothing until now.

I'm not sure how that helped the plaintiffs, because of the statute of limitations he can already no longer be prosecuted for three of charges.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You are making an inaccurate one though.
They didnt want to just question him in the UK sense of the word but as part of the formal process to press charges.
Even if you had been right they couldnt simply question him as shown by them having to negotiate with Ecuador about how to interview him.

In reply to KevinD:


I knwo that's my point, why woulnd't they want to interview him where he is so that they can press charges ? They haven't and now already three of his charges can no long be prsosecuted, hwo does that help the plaintiffs and their case, I have no idea.


They did and following that they now have an agreement with Ecuador on how to interview him. Was it necessary to wait 2015 to finally make that request ? How did that help the case ? Three of the charges are dropped now.

In reply to KevinD:

I've seen nor heard anything in the UK or Sweden saying they wished to charge him. The process never got as far as a formal interview before he fled.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Assanges case was not or is not unique, he is just making it so.

He can leave and assist the swedes with their investigation, then he can be referred to the UK cps for jumping bail.

It is pretty simple really, only one person is making it complex.

In reply to summo:



He always said that the would go to Sweden if he was given the guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US. If their only interest was the plantiffs case they could have easily given this guarantee.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Everyone knows this is nonsense, before the sex allegations he applied for residency here. A fact he does not seem to mention much.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Under what authority? Are extradition requests not dealt with according to the law?

In reply to RomTheBear:


No they couldn't.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I know. For an "innocent" man Assange certainly has done his best to take advantage of the idiosyncrancies of Swedish law.



Why on earth should Sweden go to any extra lengths for Assange, who is nothing more than a bail jumper avoiding extradition?
Was it necessary for Assange to hole up in a.3rd countries embassy? How did that help his case? (Other than the obvious maxing out of time limits)

In reply to off-duty:


Exactly, why has Assange gone to such extreme lengths, when he claims to be innocent? Maybe he isn't. There is a way to find out.

In reply to off-duty:


It also allowed him to claim arbitrary imprisonment and go for the high ground as well. So two for the price of one.

In reply to KevinD:


Awe bless, perhaps he is one of lifes innocent little lambs and trouble just seems to follow him around!

In reply to summo:


Clearly a CIA plot. A fun comparison is putting wikileaks against cryptome.
Whilst it fell behind, not least since it hasnt had the press, cryptome has been publishing various things the US and other governments really would prefer they wouldnt since the early days of the public web.
The owners, a pair of architects of all things, happily live in the USA and havent been sent off in orange jumpsuits yet. Although I believe they have had a few interesting conversations with the authorities.

In reply to KevinD:

I think he is in some delusional conspiracy dream land. He might have a hint of an ism or some other condition... Either way a bit special.

In reply to summo:

Maybe, maybe not. I can think of another reason he might be hyping that side of things. Although by all accounts Swedish prisons are far from the worse place to face the consequences of your actions.
I guess it depends how cynical you are about his motives.

Personally he irritates me since being the lefty/computing professional type I do feel something along the lines of wikileaks holding a spotlight on dubious intelligence practices is needed. He has made it about himself and undermined the principle behind it (unless you buy into the conspiracy bollocks).
Oh and the way Chelsea Manning was left in the lurch deserves a smack in itself.

In reply to KevinD:

Swedish prisons are a holiday and that is if he is even charged and then sentenced. Swedish sentences are shorter than the UK like for like, its all about rehabilitation etc.. rather than punishment.

Even if he was guilty he would have spent less time in prison than he has in the embassy, only with better facilities.

In reply to summo:


Remember though he would have gone to sleep in a Swedish prison and woken up in some USA black ops prison.
Its true cos he said so. If you disagree you are a CIA lackey paid to lie on the internet in the same way big pharma pays its operators who slander homepathy(if neither cough up the cash soon I will start telling the truth)

In reply to KevinD:

He just needs to believe that it could be true. I think most people in his position would be paranoid.

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic-struggle...

worth a read.

In reply to Donald82:



The melodrama in the first paragraph set it up really - didn't get any better from there. A beautifully balanced piece this is not.

In reply to Donald82:



Presumably "worth" it in order to play the game of "how many inaccuracies and misrepresentations can I spot per paragraph".

In reply to Rampikino:

Well, if the following bits are true, then I'd say the opening para and general tone is pretty balanced. I don't know if they are.

"Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England," wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers facing Assange, "clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights."

Why hasn't the Swedish prosecutor resolved the Assange case? Many in the legal community in Sweden believe her behaviour inexplicable. Once implacably hostile to Assange, the Swedish press has published headlines such as: "Go to London, for God's sake."

Why hasn't she? More to the point, why won't she allow the Swedish court access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the misconduct allegations? Why won't she hand them over to Assange's Swedish lawyers? She says she is not legally required to do so until a formal charge is laid and she has questioned him. Then, why doesn't she question him? And if she did question him, the conditions she would demand of him and his lawyers - that they could not challenge her - would make injustice a near certainty.

On a point of law, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided Ny can continue to obstruct on the vital issue of the SMS messages. This will now go to the European Court of Human Rights. What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". (In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her".)"

In reply to Donald82:

Is it normal for a prosecutor to release the full extent of their case to the defence prior to the defendant even being interviewed, let alone charged ?

(Clue - as per the article, of course it isn't and it is daft, bordering on insane, to suggest otherwise)

In reply to Donald82: but if the whole nordic news network turns out to be biased hogwash what are you left with then?

I am curious if Its normal ithe uk for alleged rapists to be interviewed in their own home, down the boozer, etc .?

In reply to off-duty:
No it's not normal, but that's not a response to the argument being made:

"She says she is not legally required to do so until a formal charge is laid and she has questioned him. Then, why doesn't she question him? And if she did question him, the conditions she would demand of him and his lawyers - that they could not challenge her - would make injustice a near certainty."

It seems on the face of it that 1. the case against Assange is very week 2. the aim of the prosecutor is to have him extradited, (as opposed to having him questioned)

In reply to wbo:
I don't think this would be alleged rape in the UK (?), but obviously no, it's not normal.

In the circumstances, though, I think it would be reasonable for the prosecutor to interview him here. I understand she offered to under certain conditions which Assange/his lawyers did't agree to. I don't know the rights and wrongs of that and I suspect it's where the 'crux' of the matter lies. Are the conditions demanded reasonable or designed to make him refuse?

To note: I expect Assange did what he's accused of or similar and think that behaviour's disgusting. I don't think they have a case against him that would stand up in court though (one lady has said she "thought" he deliberately tore a condom, the other says she didn't want charges brought and felt rail-roaded by police). I also suspect that the Swedish prosecutor is trying to have him extradited because of wikileaks. Of course I'm not very sure about either point.

In reply to Donald82:


Gosh I remember that website from years ago - run by an American who "dodged the draft" in Vietnam by moving to Sweden and has been railing against the "American empire" ever since. It's bascially a blog by one man who hates the US and doesn't seem to like his adopted country much anymore either. Very Pilger.

In reply to TobyA:

Fair enough. A bit ad hominem though. Do you find it hard to believe what he's quoted as saying here?

In reply to Donald82:

More just sourcing - Pilger is also citing the pro-Assange website as evidence of the points he is making. He use the NNN guy as 'evidence' that Sweden wants to turn JA over to US government, he refers to some documents on Wikileaks but doesn't say which ones or source that claim.

So yeah, like I said earlier, knowing a bit about Swedish politics and particularly its security politics, I find it very hard to believe what the chap is saying, but because I have read that website once in while for many years, I'm not surprised at all that he is saying it.

In reply TobyA:

Here's the thing, biased people use everything they can to support their position. If it's actually true all the better for them.

So, sure, don't believe it because he's said it. That's checking your sources. But also don't not believe it because he's said it. That is ad hominem... (unless he's actually a compulsive liar who lies for it's own sake, I don't think you're saying that though)

As I've said above, I think this comes down to whether the prosecutors conditions for interviewing him here are reasonable or designed to make him refuse... If the latter then he obviously does have reason to fear being extradited to the US.

In reply to wbo:


No it's not normal, but given that he's holed up in the embassy they don't have any other option. I don't really see why they would wait so long to interview him and let the charges expire, unless their agenda is other than the interest of the plaintiffs, or maybe it's just procrastination.

In reply to Donald82:



Hang on - huh? What/how/why do we go from 1 to 2? If one 1 then JA has reasons to be annoyed with the Swedish justice system, but why on earth does that mean they are going to render him to Guantanamo Bay on touchdown at Arlanda!?

Why do you think Sweden (a neutral, non-Nato member with a long leftist tradition of criticising US foreign policy) is more likely to extradite JA than the UK (the US's closest ally in NATO, and often called the US's "poodle" by exactly the same type of people who now think Sweden is the 51st state?

In reply to Donald82:


The bit your Nordic news friend seems to ignore is prior to alleged assault, assange was happy in Sweden and was applying for residency.

That was under the more right moderate government, since then its moved left, so if the odds of usa extradition were millions to one before, they are billions or trillions.

The guy just thinks he is special, get others to do your dirty work like steal the data etc... Then act all innocent.

In reply to Postmanpat:

v good piece on this on the FT today.

He hasn't been detained in any way, It is as simple as that.
One of the more eminent members of the UN panel wrote to this effect, and was very scathing of the 'majority decision'.

In reply to TobyA:

I think 'our' imagined view of Swedish political outlook as a left wing naked sauna paradise and grey state politics means S.F.A.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/sweden-arms-dictators-as-defence-exports-so...

https://apelblat.blogactiv.eu/2015/03/31/swedens-humanitarian-arms-sales/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/cyber/2015/11/01/swe...

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/11/12/n...

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/447

D

In reply to Dauphin:

I don't know what your imagined view of Swedish politics is, but I can assure you I'm aware of the issues those articles bring up. My PhD thesis was on Finnish post cold war security politics and you can't get far looking at that without trying to get your head around Swedish security policy. It is full of contradictions between idealism and realism, geopolitical and economic, just like most countries but that still does not give an answer to my basic question.

What do you think Dauphin? Why is Sweden going to extradite him, when the UK wouldn't/didn't?

In reply to Dauphin:

Saunas are Finnish by the way, they'll get really sad or even angry if you try to associate them with the former imperial overlords (and long term ice hockey tormentors) too much!

In reply to Dauphin:


You are correct, that is why you should base things on fact. I form my view of Sweden's politics by living here.

Ps. Quoting thelocal. Is a bit like quoting the DM. Their news is dire, it is poorly translated click bait, where they often only publish one angle of an original much broader piece in the Swedish press. Their site runs on add revenue.

In reply to Donald82:


Let me help you stay out of jail, it would be.

In reply to off-duty:

Yes they can, the Swedish government can decide not to not extradite someone outside of the eu, even against the ruling of their Supreme Court.
It would have political consequences between them and the US, of course, but they could.

http://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/internati...

In reply to RomTheBear:

You have still failed to explain why he came to Sweden and applied for residency, if it is so 'high' risk?

In reply to RomTheBear:

As far as I can see, that refers to extradition to countries that are not subject to treaties. Sweden has an extradition treaty with the us that has been ratified. It could not, therefore, be subject to political whim unless that was allowed for in the treaty, which it is not.

In reply to TobyA:

My point is that the soft view of Swedish politics being consistently promulgated on this thread is entirely wrong. Sure it has a comparatively left wing (to the U.K) social policy and gives lots of aid to the developing world. Its also sandwiched in between two major world protagonist powers, I'm assuming has a considerable internal security and foreign security apparatus developed during the cold war, was involved in illegal CIA renditions, sells arms to whoever and managed to stay neutral in the second world war by keeping the Nazis happy. Its not a hippy dippy sauna state utopia.

6700 reported rapes in 2014, 190 convictions, if you were a rapist you'd probably gamble with those odds.

Maybe Assange is just paranoid, which in the context of what he has been doing with Wikileaks, constantly poking a bear is likely to lead to decapitation at some point, at the very least loosing a limb, not wholly unjustified.

When he was bailed in London in 2010 I thought the story about him being extradited from Sweden was unlikely, far more likely to be picked up in U.K.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

No where is utopia.

Internal security, very very little is overseas sourced. The arms sales have been changed by the new much further left government. Although they were never selling arms to whoever, weapons did get sold on, which they should have seen coming.

So, it is safer here now for assange, than it was when he ran away.

In reply to summo:


?? You must be confusing me with someone else because I have no idea what you are referring to.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Ok, why would they, what's the odds. Assange has been in Swedish and UK police stations in the past 5years, he has travelled through secure passport controlled areas in airports...

If the usa wanted him, there have been ample chances. Assange isn't as important as he thinks he is.

The current Swedish pm would never agree to extradite him.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Aah. So now it's not 'just' a matter for due legal process in Sweden. Assange should be exempt from extradition by the Swedish government.
For unspecified 'potential' offences, regardless of what evidence might or might not exist to support them.
Just because.

Yep. Seems an entirely reasonable condition to me.

Not.


(Edit to add - your link in fact reinforces the safeguards and processes required should anyone want to extradite Assange from Sweden, rather than provide any detail of any pre-emptive powers available to Sweden to exempt Assange (or anyone else) from extradition. Unless, it appears, he was a Swedish citizen..... )

In reply to Donald82:




Huh?
The conditions "demanded" of him are just the same as the conditions "demanded" of suspects in many jurisdictions.
If you are a suspect you don't have some magic right to see all of the evidence against you until you are charged.
If that makes "injustice a near certainty" then I guess we'll all have to leave the UK for the model of equitable legal process that presumably exists in Ecuador...

In reply to Postmanpat:
I had not read much of this case, and have no strong feelings either way, if he is guilty of anything or not, as long as he has a fair trial, I would accept the result.

I heard a radio programme, by someone from the legal profession speaking against the UN panels findings, and speaking to discredit the panels legal expertise , I listened intrigued when he said that the UN panel were not lawyers, just laymen!
I must admit that caused me to wonder what kind of half baked decision that was, and by unqualified people, how could that be?

So it was much to my surprise to be informed a few days later that at least one of the UN panel was a law professor.
(It may be that he/ she was not a practising lawyer, who knows, but this was then clearly not a panel made up entirely of 'laymen ' .)

IF that is true, I now cannot trust the prosecution to give me unbiased information, they are caught trying to manipulate people , holding back details. What else has been manipulated by those against him

In reply to Jim C:

That is it though, they don't want to charge or prosecute, the investigation isn't that far. Assange won't attend to even be interviewed etc..

In reply to Jim C:

As ever you can ask whether academics specialising studying a field have more or less relevant opinions than practitioners in that field, but the UN panel is interesting and it wasn't widely reported. It is made up of 5 academics - with what looks like very relevant backgrounds - but one wouldn't even take part in this case because she is the same nationality as Assange, and another - who is the longest serving on the panel - dissented rather strongly, saying Assange simply had no case as he isn't being detained. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/05/three-members-...

In reply to Jim C:

Incidentally, was the person you heard using the term laymen, part of the "prosecution", i.e. the Swedish prosecutor? Or just some commentator in the media?

In reply to Jim C:

Easy enough to find out who they are, oddly enough they are all legal types.

Sètondji Adjovi (Benin, Second Vice-Chair) Adjovi, an academic and practitioner specialising in international criminal procedure and judicial reform, worked at the International Criminal Court and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda before his appointment to the UN WGAD.

Mads Andenas (Norway, Chair and member until mid-2015) Chair of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention until mid-2015. Has previously held positions as Director of the Centre of European Law at King’s College, University of London and Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London. Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo.

Mr. José Guevara (Mexico, First Vice-Chair) Guevara is a legal academic and practitioner who focuses on Human Rights Protection and International Criminal Law. Prior to joining the WGAD, worked in the NGO sector, Mexico City’s Ombudsman’s office and in government in the area of human rights. Guevara is the recipient of the Open Society Foundation’s New Executives Fund leading the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights.

Seong-Phil Hong (Chair-Rapporteur, Republic of Korea) An expert member of the Asian Council of Jurists of the Asia Pacific Forum and legal academic, Seong-Phil Hong has specialised in the case for reparations regarding Japan’s Enforced Sex Slavery during the Second World War and accountability for human rights violations by the North Korean regime.

Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine) A legal academic and practitioner whose expertise lies in international criminal justice and procedure. Tochilovsky was part of the Preparatory Committee and Commission that drafted the guidelines on criminal procedure for the International Criminal Court.


Someone's telling porkies.


D

In reply to TobyA:


He seemed to be an English lawyer of some kind.

In reply to Dauphin:



That's what I suspected, a misinformation exercise that is counterproductive , with me at least, I tend to then err on side with the 'victim' and mistrust everything that I hear against them, initially at least.

In reply to Jim C:

Hardly a "misinformation" exercise when the panel's details are all over the internet! How credible they are at judging the intricacies of UK/Swedish extradition arrangements is surely a reasonable point to consider?

In reply to Jim C:

I'm glad you put 'victim' in inverted commas, because obviously on this case Assange is in fact the suspect. (No quotation marks needed)

I'm not sure your basis for this being a "misinformation exercise" - you heard ONE person on the radio who is almost certainly NOT associated with the prosecution providing an opinion where, unnecessarily, he has included an ad hom attack on the panel which was wrong.
So on that basis the many and varied legal arguments against Assange can all be dismissed?

(As an interesting contrast, nearly everything said by Assange, his team and his supporters is misrepresenting the case, factually wrong or a misleading interpretation of law - yet you don't feel any desire to mistrust him, or err on the side of caution with respect to his alleged victim )

In reply to MG:

Yes, and interesting that Mr Tochilovsky sees it in such totally different terms! But then academic lawyers do seem to like a good debate!

In reply to off-duty:

Its been the position of U.K. GOV that they were a panel of lay persons since the decision and consequently the position of most of the u.k media regurgitating their masters thoughts. U.K. GOV quite happy when the panel on arbitrary detention is making pronouncements on dissident in regimes we dont like very much, no so happy when it's at home.

D

In reply to Dauphin:


That may well be the UK government position, though I haven't seen comments from Government departments or spokespeople accusing them of being lay people, maybe you have some links.

To suggest that the only people who are criticising the decision are some form of UK government lap dogs is quite frankly laughable.
I don't think the Guardian, the New Statesman, Joshua Rosenberg and David Allen Green could ever be described as anti-wikileaks pro government lackeys.


(Edit - and does your misrepresentation of those criticising the panel mean we should mistrust your entire position, a la the misrepresention of the panel heard on the radio? Or maybe we should steer away from the ad hom....)

In reply to summo:


Then why not why give him his guarantee and get him to Sweden ? What's the point to wait until the charges expire ? How does that help the plaintiffs ?

In reply to off-duty:
I'd steer well away from the ad homs bro, you've been making them all the way through this thread. You seem extraordinarily well briefed against Assange but have failed to state any specifics on the case thus far.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/feb/05/philip-hammond-reject...

Rusbridger had a spat with Assange a couple of years ago, oddly I've not read anything in there since that has been balanced as far as reporting on himself or his case from the idle rich personality human interest type journalists (all women!) to the more serious stuff they put out.

D

In reply to Dauphin:


Have I been making as homs "all the way through this thread"?
As for "well briefed" if by that you mean - I am interested in the bizarre case of a suspect in a rape case, who appears to be a common or garden bail evader, yet a small subset of people seem to believe is victim of some sort of international conspiracy to extraordinarily rendering him from Sweden, or something; then yes, I find attempts to avoid rape investigations interesting.

www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/feb/05/philip-hammond-rejects-ridiculous-un-decision-...

Good link - clearly Hammond is wrong to say lay-people. Perhaps academics rather than lawyers, but definitely not "lay people".



So the Guardian is summarily dismissed. The other commentators likewise I imagine ?

As for specifics of the case, I'm not sure what you want. I find the UN decision odd, verging on inexplicable. But the UN are known for, amongst a reasonable amount of good work, occasionally turning round and making odd pronouncements about pretty liberal democracies.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Because a "get out of jail free card" doesn't exist.
If he were to go to Sweden and the US were to try an extradite him there is a robust and fair process of extradition that enables him to challenge it all the way - with provisos for protecting against politically motivated extradition as you yourself linked to.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Because they cant. The government cannot bind future governments or the courts.


So he can avoid facing justice? Oh sorry I missed that you were trying to blame the Swedish government as opposed to the person responsible for making it drag on.

In reply to off-duty:

Rosenberg, well he's married to Philips, never takes a controversial line on any subject. Imagine what dissent looks like in that house? D.A. Green writing is good balanced stuff. Never read the NS, occasionally pick it up on a train journey, its a bit more right of centre than it used to be of late. I'm fairly ambivalent about Assange and about this case. I think he'll get whacked, or imprisoned indefinitely at some point in the not too distant future. Its hardly worth pointing out the multiple instances of extra judicial assassinations and renderings the U.K. and U.S. government has been involved in prosecuting the GWOT or whatever we call it this week over the last 15 years or so. Just a bit more law to ignore, or have it interpreted secretly; for someone like Assange its got to affect your eschatological sense of self in the universe

D

In reply to Dauphin:



I would not be hugely surprised if the US did put some sort of case together against Assange, but given the lack of any similar proceedings against Greenwald, cryptome etc, I can't see much happening.
I think Assange has been superceded by Snowden and is a bit "yesterday's man".
For someone with an ego as big as his appears to be that has to hit hard.
The only thing sustaining his apparent sense of self-important paranoia seems to be the twisting of this case into a conspiracy against him. Far better to be a victim of "them" with the world's media focussed on him than just some bloke who appears to be embroiled in some sort of sordid sex scandal - innocent or guilty.

As for his fear of extraordinary rendition, surely his approx 2 years free on bail in the UK would have been when he was an easier target.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Why should any person who is suspect one offence, be promised they might not be investigated for another.

Given that the usa has never applied, this is just assanges smoke screen.

In reply to KevinD:

Why not give him this guarantee then, if it's worthless there isn't any reason to not give it to him.


Well sorry but they are. They could have interviewed him a long time ago and the charges wouldn't have been dropped.

In reply to summo:

Why would they care about any other hypothetical offence committed outside of Sweden if their only agenda is the plaintiffs case ? I don't see why they would give a damn, unless they indeed have another agenda than purely the plaintiffs case.


If it doesn't matter, or doesn't make any difference, why not call his bluff and give it to him then ?

In reply to off-duty:


Well actually it does, the Swedish government could make declaration that they won't extradite him.
It would be kind of worthless because they could reverse it or change their mind.

But then if it's worthless I am not sure what would be the harm in such a declaration if it gets him to Sweden.

Maybe because it's all about politics and not really about the interest of the plaintiffs ?

Personally I think Assange is massive a***hole but it's pretty clear that the Swedish prosecution is pursuing an agenda other than the plaintiffs case.

In reply to RomTheBear:



This is exactly the crux. Assange wants a get out of jail free card to cover some - which actually means any - hypothetical offence in the US.
Regardless of evidence.
Regardless of treaty obligations.
Regardless of inbuilt protections against malicious extradition within the Swedish legal system.

All to pander to a fugitive who is refusing to comply with an on going investigation for what appears to be pretty spurious reasons.

As it is, following Swedish cases in Sweden, the Swedish prosecutor agreed last year to attempt some form of questioning of Assange within the Ecuadorian embassy.
This is currently being delayed, argued about and generally resisted by the Ecuadorians. Possibly for fear of the consequences that might have for their extradition treaties.

And, regardless, doesn't solve the problem of him being outside Swedish jurisdiction should the case continue

In reply to RomTheBear:

The obvious harm would be the Swedish government publically lying, and pandering to the demands of those accused of crime. Hardly healthy precedents.

In reply to MG:


That's what I am saying, it's about politics, not the case.

In reply to RomTheBear:





I'm not clear why you think a legal declaration by a Government could suddenly be ripped up and ignored just to "trick" someone back to their country.
Despite what Assange seems to think we are dealing with liberal democracies with a rule of law and some concept of human rights.

In reply to RomTheBear:
The opposite. By not getting involved and letting the legal system handle it, the Swedish government are wisely not politicising it. Similarly by not making exceptions the legal system is not being political.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yet again - why didn't the US ask the UK to extradite him when he was imprisoned here then? This is getting into real conspiracy theory stuff if no one can explain that.

In reply to TobyA:


I'm not saying there is a conspiracy. If there is no intention or pressure from the US to extradite him, where is the harm is promising he won't be extradited ?

In reply to RomTheBear:



Maybe they think that the application of their laws should not be arbitrary.

In reply to MG:

Refuse to do anything that would take the case forward or get him out of the embassy, and let the charges expire. Great strategy, why would they do this unless they had political reasons not to.

In reply to MarkJH:

How would that break any law to declare publicly that he won't be extradited ?

The only reason they won't do it is because they don't want to appear as idiots if he is indeed extradited. Again it's really a matter of politics, but it doesn't help the case.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Because apart from anything else a promise that Assange won't be extradited effectively rips up any Swedish/US treaty and makes Assange unique as being the only person in Sweden exempt from extradition.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes indeed, a good strategy long term, otherwise every other suspect and accused can start laying down conditions about how and when they will be questioned and arrested.

In reply to off-duty:


No it wouldn't, the only thing the US/Swedish extradition treaty establishes is a process. The Swedish government is free to not extradite someone.


Why would they care, isn't the priority the plaintiffs case or the rape accusations ? Or is the priority really about the Swedish authority saving face ?

In reply to MG:

Not really, not many suspects have the opportunity to hide in a foreign embassy.
Plus the are already precedents of Swedish prosecutors questioning people abroad, so I don't think not establishing a precedent really is the concern.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Who is going to say this? Extradition is a legal process - there is no power to exempt individuals. Anyway , why should Sweden unilaterally exempt one person from it in advance of a request that might or might not be made, and which may or may not be sound if it is made.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Huh?
The Swedish government should start re-writing international treaties to cater for the spurious claims of a fugitive who is exploiting the time limits of the Swedish legal system.
Maybe a better solution would be to alter their system - it is clearly manifestly unfair that a person, fully aware of a live investigation can deliberately thwart that investigation, by breaking the law, and can allow the time to run out.

In reply to RomTheBear:

There have a number over the years. Anyway, the point stands, the legal system can't make exceptions to those who are awkward.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, it has been ratified; it is the law of the land in Sweden.

As others have said, it is very unlikely that he would be extradited under the treaty (given the probable US charges), but until they have received a request, and dealt with it according to the law, then they cannot give that guarantee.

In reply to RomTheBear:


What kind of world is this. You have promise that another country won't investigate offence X, just so you can speak to a suspect about offence Y. Is this some new global legal precendent where only your most recent crime is open to investigation?

In reply to MarkJH:

Yes, but that's the thing, the extradition treaty they have with the US does not compel them to extradite anyone, it just establishes the process by which someone can be extradited to the US.


Actually legally they can, but it could be reversed. In which case I don't see the harm in making it.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Assange through entirely his own actions has made himself the exception. Eventually he is going to have to man up, grow up and accept that any persons actions have consequences, welcome to the grown up world.

In reply to summo:


Why would they care if their only concern is offence Y ? My point if that it is obviously not their only concern. Possibly their would prefer not have him in Sweden, and have to deal with an extradition request from the US that would put them in a difficult political position.

In reply to summo:


Or he can stay in the embassy until 2020 at which point all charges will expire. Not sure how that will achieve anything for the plaintiffs.

In reply to RomTheBear:




Would any other citizen who has committed alleged offences in multiple countries get a similr promise, no. Assange will have exactly the same rights as 9million other people here. Seems fair, that is justice in a democracy. It might be different Ecuador though.

In reply to RomTheBear:


He could, but he won't be welcome in quite a few countries and would be escorted to the airport. All of his own making.

In reply to MG:


Well in fact there is, at least in Sweden it's the government which ultimately make the decisions. The only
Power the court has is to oppose someone extradition, they can't force it through the government.


Why wouln't they ? Unless they just wanted to cover their arse in case an extradition request is indeed made.

In reply to RomTheBear:


If they had another agenda, he would have been arrested in Sweden and his passport with held in the first place.

I don't think our ex union super left shop steward for a PM will lose any sleep in refusing the usa extradition.

So much of assange argument in imaginary made up situations, extreme paranoia.

In reply to summo:

But as far as we know he hasn't committed any offence anywhere else.


How is that justice for the plaintiffs to make sure he stays in that embassy until the charges run out ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


As mentioned it is a legal process. Ultimately at the end the Government does have an element of flexibility - "may" extradite rather than "shall" extradite.
What Assange wants is a similar certainty - "will not" extradite.
Regardless of what the case might be.
Regardless of what the evidence might be.
I can't imagine that decision not to extradite being taken lightly - so hardly "free".

For some inexplicable reason he seems to believe that the various Swedish provisions/protections around political extraditions can't possibly afford him the protection he wants. Highly ironic, given that this was his stance as he was fighting extradition all the way through the UK system.



The Swedish authority are going through their judicial process. That's what liberal democracies with due process do. Assange wants to subvert that process on an individual level for his own, and no-one else's benefit.
A similar subversion might be to exclude Assange specifically from any time-limitations due to his behaviour.
I don't think many people would be clamouring for that, regardless of how that might better serve the plaintiffs in this case.

In reply to off-duty:



Why would they care about giving him what he asks for ? There is nothing legally preventing the Swedish governement to declare they won't extradite him. It could always be reversed later on if necessary. Seems to me they would prefer to let the charges expire rather than making a declaration they might regret later. As I said, it's purely political.

In reply to RomTheBear:
The justice is by following the legal process that applies to all citizens and not making a special case for some spoilt brat.

If Sweden is so evil, why did assange apply for residency? A proven fact that destroys his whole argument.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I'm not sure where you get that from. The extradition treaty (and corresponding law) sets out a series of conditions which must be tested according to Swedish law, and which (if met) require them to grant the extradition.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Were the Swedish government to give Assange what he wants, it would be entirely unprecedented.
Prior to any case of any sort with any weight of evidence being raised by the US, Assange would be granted immunity.
In effect he would be granted something similar to, but even more protective than, asylum in Sweden.
I'm still not clear why you think a) that is somehow a facile decision or b) it could be reversed on some kind of whim.

I think it's appalling that he appears to be able to evade due process by waiting out time limits, but granting him "super-hero" status, creating precedent, destroying international treaties, and riding rough-shod over the Swedish legal system unfortunately isn't the way democracies should go about criminal investigations.

In reply to off-duty:

A small point I suppose is that being confined to the Ecuadorian embassy isn't so very different to being in a Swedish prison.

In reply to MG:

I think where he is now is probably smaller and with less facilities.

In reply to off-duty:






That's what I am saying, it's a political decision not to do this. It has nothing to do with the interest of the plaintiffs or the case.

In reply to MarkJH:


Nope as far as I know it doesn't. It establishes a process by which the US can request extradition, at the end of which the Swedish government may (but not shall) extradite.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Perhaps they are not lying arseholes and would find it dishonest? The sort of action that would discredit them.


Evidence for this claim. As far as I am aware they can only charge him under specific conditions. Those dont include interviewing via a third party like the Ecuadorian government. All that is being offered there is the ability to ask him some more questions not actually charge him.
So it suits Assange but does absolutely nothing for justice.
Its like the trick he pulled this week when he said, two days before the judgement was due, that if it went against him he would hand himself over.
Strange he didnt he say that when he kicked off the appeal isnt it?Its almost like he knew the result and so spewed some bollocks in the hope some people would believe his bollocks.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Assange wants a political solution to a criminal/legal problem.
A problem that appears to be entirely of his own making and a solution that involves perverting the legal process to accommodate him, in such a manner that he would be the first to complain were it to be carried out for someone else.

In reply to summo:



Who says Sweden is evil ? i simply observe that the prosecution chose to not interview him up until now, for whatever reason. Clearly not the best strategy for the prosecution to just let the charges expire.
I am not sure what the reasons are, maybe political pressure, or their case is too weak, but I really don't see how that serves the case.

In reply to RomTheBear:


OK, can you quote the relevant bit of the treaty?

In reply to off-duty:


Can you explain how would the prosecutors interviewing him in London pervert the legal process ?
What perverts the legal process is to just not do anything when he has been accessible for questionning all this time, and let the charges run out.

In reply to MG:


Thinking on it. The fact he has been in that embassy for the last few years might have made him a tad more paranoid. Its not like Ecudador has a good reputation for freedom of the press or any form of dissent.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I would have said that this is relevent.

From the amended text:
"Each Contracting State undertakes to surrender to the other, subject to the provisions and
conditions laid down in this Convention, those persons found in its territory who are sought for
the purpose of prosecution, who have been found guilty of committing an offense, or who are
wanted for the enforcement of a sentence, in respect of any offense made extraditable under
Article II of this Convention."

There is nothing in the rest of the text to say that it is at the discretion of the government except for:


" There is no obligation upon the requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a
national of the requested State...."

exceptio probat regulam etc

In reply to RomTheBear:

It's not as simple as just asking a couple of questions. In the embassy he exists under the Ecuadorian legal system with the rights and entitlements (don't laugh) that exist there. For any questions and answers to be admissable some form of treaty or agreement will be required whether for general purposes or specifically for Assange. Then there may be complications in relation to who might ask the questions - eg in the UK certain inferences might be drawn if the interviewer is a police officer (ie UK police) and the interviewee is under arrest (ie UK arrest with all the rights and entitlements involved in UK law).
Melding two legal systems isn't straightforward, and still leaves Assange sitting out of Swedish jurisdiction should any further proceedings be required.
But my point about perversion was more applicable to the demands for a unique immunity agreement.


I know. For an innocent man he certainly isn't doing himself any favours.

Edit to add - as previous the Swedish legal system decided that the prosecutors needed to make more efforts to question in order to sustain the prosecution. Hence the current requests which are being delayed and stalled by the Ecuadorians. As I said earlier.

In reply to off-duty:






Well as far as I know a request was made in June and a deal approved in December. What I fail to understand is why they refused to do so earlier and let the charges run out.

In reply to RomTheBear:

probably because for any evidence obtained in a Police interview to hold up in court, it needs to be obtained in very specific conditions, the regulations on what constitutes an interview room and a suspect's rights are pretty tight. Sitting him in the cleaners cupboard of the embassy with a tape recorder would probably just give Assange a whole pile of legal loop holes, to then claim he was under duress in the interview, he felt under pressure because he was too hot, too cold, intimidate by the location, sound proof room etc.... it's pretty obvious he seems to think the world owes him something.

Perhaps that was why there was a falling out over the specific conditions for a UK interview, for it to hold up in court, he would really need to go to the nearest police station.

In reply to summo:


Well it took them 6 months to agree on the conditions and legality of the interview with Ecuador. That could have been done three years ago instead of just last year.

In reply to RomTheBear:

you clearly hold him on some pedestal, perhaps he could just come out and not claim asylum, why should he be a special case in any respect.

For me, I think they should just look the other way for 48hrs and park a plane pointing towards Ecuador for him. Europe will be better off without him. We can see how much he enjoys free speech and human rights there.

In reply to RomTheBear:


A request was made in March. It was rejected, delayed and otherwise stonewalled by the Ecuadorians until the time limits expired.

As the Swedish prosecutor said - interview in the embassy would be a lower quality (and judging by the latest pre-conditions demanded by the Ecuadorians - MUCH poorer quality) and in addition would not result in Assange being in Sweden for any prosecution. So, to all intents and purposes, no further forward.
Other than setting some handy precedents for anyone else that wants to avoid a rape investigation.

Oddly I haven't heard him proclaim that if they interview him in the Embassy and decide to proceed, he would be on the first plane over to clear his name.

In reply to summo:



What about the plaintiffs ? Don't they have a right to see their case through ?

In reply to off-duty:


As far as j know it's been agreed in December. Regardless, why wait three years to just even make the request ?

In reply to off-duty:


So cynical. Just look at what kicked off this current thread. Didnt he say that if the judgement went against him he would hand himself over?
I have complete faith that if he knows the results in advance and they are in his favour he will proclaim away.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes of course, not that assange or his supporters care about them. So I think he will just sit there for a few more years. Better to get shot of the waster now instead.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Seems to have been delayed, again.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/ecuador-says-assange-to...

Why wait ? Because the knee-jerk reaction to a fugitive shouldn't be to cater to his whim regardless, particularly when that lowers the standard of investigation, doesn't "stop the clock" and leaves Assange still sat outside Swedish jurisdiction.
And when he is professing his desire to be interviewed, who would have thought Ecuador would be so obstructive.

The problem here isn't the lack of action by Sweden, it is the refusal to comply by Assange, coupled with the time limits on Swedish prosecution.
If they have to bend Swedish law to progress this, why should it be bent in his favour? Better to set up an "exclusive" deal whereby Assange can't be exempt due to time.....

In reply to off-duty:



Not sure I understand your argument, if it's a knee jerk reaction why end up doing it three years after ?

In reply to TobyA:


Here's the thing, it's not whether they would actually extradite him it's about whether he's worried they might. So, imagine for a minute that you're just like Assange (but not a dick) and you've just done wiki leaks and then imagine a country starts pushing for extradition for its on sake.... You might be wrong to worry that they're going to send you to the U.S., but most people would, I think, worry.

In reply to Donald82:


So, frightened that you might be extradited/extraordinarily rendered from Sweden, you flee to the UK?
Where you remain at a specific, known location (as a result of your bail conditions ) for a couple of years, until your appeal fails.

Whereupon, for fear of being transferred from the UK to Sweden you hole up in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Is the UK really so much safer from extradition to the US than Sweden?

In reply to off-duty:

If I had done wiki leaks I'd be a paranoid reck.

No idea on the relative extradition likelihood. I expect Assange will have looked into it....

For a copper you seem to have a very high opinion of state justice.

In reply to Donald82:




I agree that he may have a right to be paranoid, however, practically, nothing about wikileaks or US extradition has changed in any radical way, in the period from when the incidents happened in Sweden until when he sought refuge in the embassy.

Assanges' position appears to be that his paranoia somehow exempts him from any investigation about anything anywhere.

It's not really anything to do with my opinion of state justice. Even if there was a live extradition request in place for him from the US I would still be arguing for him to return to Sweden.

Given the rabidity of his defence against extradition to Sweden on the basis of a non-existent US interest, I have no doubt that there would be an equally spirited defence should the US actually want him, only at that point he might actually have some grounds to fight it.

In reply to off-duty:

1. Even if he just thinks he's being fitted up for the charges, that would be enough to run away from Sweden.

2. The US don't need to make a formal request for Assange to be worried that they're going to try and extradite him.

"It's not really anything to do with my opinion of state justice. Even if there was a live extradition request in place for him from the US I would still be arguing for him to return to Sweden."

Says everything about your opinion of state justice.... you don't seem to entertain the possibility that the swedish state, or the us state would play dirty to get Assange.

In reply to Donald82:


Is Swedish justice that corrupt that they would "fit-up " Assange for some obscure reason? To imprison him in Sweden following a "show- trial"?


Absolutely. But if the US want him they could extradite him from the UK (where he was on bail for 2 years) . They could have extradited him from Sweden when he was floating about there.
They could extradite him from Australia.

Obviously they couldn't extradite him particularly easily from Ecuador. They could at least circulate him as wanted. Which they haven't done.



Anything is " possible ".
A corrupt prosecution from Sweden to serve the purposes of the US ? Highly unlikely. Particularly when his first action was to flee to the UK, a country known as having an extremely good relationship with the US.
Extraordinary rendition from the UK or Sweden? Again - highly unlikely, both countries would be extremely pissed off if the US were to attempt it, and why would they? There are extremely well worn extradition processes in place that the US go through even when the suspect really is a dangerous individual.
And if the US were going to go behind the backs of the UK and Sweden, that rather negates a conspiracy theory.

Or the alternative.
Assange has been involved in some sort of seedy/sordid incident in Sweden,that for some reason he doesn't wish to face investigation for, to establish his guilt or innocence.
I can think of the most common reason why people skip bail and it's not high-minded or principled.

In reply to off-duty:

One of the complainants has, apparently, sent text messages saying that the police made up the charges and saying she was half asleep, which is very different from asleep, which is what he's been accused of. If true, this suggests that what he's being accussed of, at least, is not consistent with what actually happened.

So, imagine you're Assange, you've done wikileaks and you now find yourself facing accusations which you know to inconsistent with the truth. In those circumstances of would you worry that the Swedish state MIGHT be trying to fit you up?

In reply to Donald82:



I'd be running towards the Swedish court in my frantic haste to get this defendant on the stand so that her tale could be demolished and I could resume my normal life, exonerated.

In reply to Donald82:
"One of the complainants has, apparently, sent text messages saying that the police made up the charges and saying she was half asleep, which is very different from asleep, which is what he's been accused of."

Link to a reputable source please?

In reply to off-duty:


But you are very trusting of authority

In reply to off-duty:

"if you had done wikileaks"

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I say "Apparently" becuase I don't know if it's true but...

1. It's been widely reported that Assange's lawyer says he's seen these text messages, and that the Swedish prosecutor won't release them (which apparently is normal as he's not been charged or something...). As far as I know the prosecutor doesn't deny they exist and I've not seen any counter reports denying they exist

2. My point is not that it's definitely is true, it's that if it is true then it would seem, to me at least, perfectly reasonable for Assange to fear the worst.

Have a google

In reply to Jim C:


I'd go with - very cynical of unsupported allegations used to avoid a pretty open investigation in a fair and democratic country...

In reply to Donald82:

You're making the claim "apparently", you must know where you read it so you do the googling.

In reply to Donald82:


Yep - "if I had done wikikeaks" and the case against me was as thin as you suggest, then let's get it out in court (if it even gets that far - you claim one victim doesn't even want to go to proceed ).

It would all be over by now, possibly even if he had been found guilty.

In reply to off-duty:

E
>It would all be over by now, possibly even if he had been found guilty.

I thought that myself. Why is it dragging on like this?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I read it in a bunch of news papers...... it was widely reported. Take your pick from these..

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2...

In reply to Donald82:





So Assange thinks the case against him is weak.
So weak by those allegations it would probably not even get to court.
Sweden, having a pretty good and open legal system, will disclose all these text messages at trial - or weigh them up and decide not to prosecute.

Assange decides instead to frustrate and delay the process, avoid any trial where, as an innocent man with a very weak (if any) case against him he would almost certainly be found not guilty.
He decides it's some sort of plot by Sweden to pick on him for some reason. If it is to secretly extradite him to US - he then flees to the UK, where extradition would be a damn sight more straightforward - so it can't be that.

If the US really want him he could be circulated wanted and picked up on any international border. Whereupon he would be subject to a full extradition process, with right of appeal etc.

As for not releasing the texts prior to interview, that would be standard practice pretty much anywhere with a functioning legal system.

In reply to aln:




Presumably because if Assange stays there lo g enough, all the charges will time expire, and he can emerge as the conquering hero he believes he is.

I wonder if he'll pay back the bail money his friends lost when he breached.

In reply to Donald82:

Thank you, but this "One of the complainants has, apparently, sent text messages saying that the police made up the charges and saying she was half asleep," is your claim. So if you wouldn't mind sifting through the crap you just posted and pointing to a story reporting your claim that would be marvelous.

In reply to off-duty:

Shitty life too. Is the embassy some kinda paradise?

In reply to off-duty:

I wouldn't trust in the legal system in those circumstances. I doubt you would either but, for the sake of argument, I grant that you would. What seems totally bizarre to me is that you can't conceive that other people might not see it like that. Perhaps you've been in the job a bit too long?

It would all be over by now if he was treated as any other person..... and maybe he would be ... but again, the point is whether he might reasonably believe he may not be. Over zealous pursuit of a flimsy case would be all the more reason not to trust the Swedish state. I don't know if it is over zealous pursuit of a flimsy case, but if the claims about the text messages are true, then it would seem very likely that it is, and that Assange's flight was a reasonable course of action given the circumstances.

In reply to Donald82:


I'm still not clear what the "circumstances" that you are so worried about are?

The allegations are weak? Great - let me give my account and this nonsence can be thrown out of court.

Sweden is "setting me up"? Really? That's appalling. What's the motive? Maybe I could produce some evidence that they are setting me up? Perhaps I could challenge them when they try and extradite me from the UK.
If all else fails, maybe we could see what the strength of the case is when/if we actually get to court, then the world can see corrupt Sweden in all it's glory, the Australian embassy can fight my corner, and I can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.


Key points.
"It would be over if he was treated as any other person". Yes. And the only person preventing that treatment and prolonging this is Assange.

"He might reasonably believe he may not be". He might "reasonably believe" that. It would be quite nice to see some evidence that he wouldn't be. Or even a semi-coherent rationale for what this conspiracy hopes to achieve, that it couldn't have already achieved when he was in the UK. Or when he was in Sweden.
So far it appears to hinge on - him being charged with an offence, him being prosecuted and found guilty of an offence, him ebing sent to prison for an offence. And then this "secret" US extradition will take place.

"I don't know if it is over zealous pursuit of a flimsy case" - though you think it appears to be.
Shocking isn't it. Someone makes some allegations. The police have to investigate. Part of that investigation is to speak to the suspect. Then a decision can be made whether to go ahead or not. The suspect fails to assist. Do you think that makes a "flimsy case" look weaker or stronger? In any event - do you think that a suspect fleeing an investigation means the case should be dropped?

I'd like to think I've not been in the job "too long". Unless by "too long" you mean that I've actually dealt with people jumping in bail on regular occasions, and, shocking as it may seem, Occam's razor normally applies.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

There's no need to be rude.

I haven't read them unless I did at the time, but the top three articles in that google search all seem to be specifically about these text messages. May I suggest opening each of them and then using 'find on page' to search for "sleep" and "police". After that, if you still think that the papers are making up that Assange's lawyers have claimed to have seen these messages, I suspect they've actually published the claims themselves or filed them with a court or something.

This seems a truly odd thing to demand other people google for you, or to suspect someone of making up.

I'll treat your silence after curiosity inevitably tempts you to mean something along the lines of an apology.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm not sure what Occam's Razor is but I am sure that the vast, vast majority of bail skippers are guilty..... and I think that's clouding your judgement here.

I think that if the text messages are real then most people in Assange's position would have been worried about a lack of fair treatment and would have left the country if they could. I find it bizarre that anyone couldn't see that someone in those circumstances might reasonably feel like that.

Anyway, lets agree to disagree. Night.

In reply to Donald82:

You made the claim that apparently one of the complainants has said the police made up the charges, you now seem to think it unreasonable that I ask for a link to a report on that, strange.

Could you put this "I'll treat your silence after curiosity inevitably tempts you to mean something along the lines of an apology." coherently please?

In reply to Donald82:


My judgement is clouded in that I like to see evidence, or even a coherent motive, prior to believing drivel that comes out of someone's mouth to justify their flight. As I have previously said even if the US had a live extradition warrant out for Assange, I'd still want him to return to Sweden to complete the investigation.

Regardless, warrant or not, what does him sitting in the Ecuadorian embassy actually achieve?
Is he going to sit there until 2020 when the rape charge expires? That gives the US plenty more time to prepare their case if that is what he is so afraid of. And when that case is prepared he is slap bang in the middle of the country of the US' greatest ally.
The only advantage to Assange is that it avoids any possibility of him actually being investigated for the offence in Sweden.

Occam's razor in simple terms says that where there are a number of different theories, the simplest one is likely to be correct.


The problem with Assange's case (and your attempt to justify it) is that his allegations against his accusers, and his various conspiracy theories have been introduced after the various court cases, extradition attempts and legal challenges have been exhausted.

They hinge on things that are, basically, nonsense.
"The case is really weak - so it must be malicious - so rather than challenge it we'll run away".
"We should be able to see these text messages prior to any interview and contrary to pretty much every investigative process everywhere - and if we can't it's because it's a malicious prosecution".
"Sweden is a corrupt country that is trying to fit me up for a reason that I can't entirely explain."

And for added hilarity - "The nasty US are out to get me. So I fled from the UK to Sweden to avoid them. And then... err... fled back to the UK to avoid them some more..."



Looks like it. Night.

In reply to Donald82:


Google doesnt work that way. Its personalised based on the user and, amongst other things, takes your history into account.
So your top three websites may well differ.

Have you explained yet why Sweden and the UK let him roam free if they were part of this evil US plot?

In reply to Donald82:


strange that he applied for residency in Sweden then, if he was so worried about the Swedish authorities being corrupt and sending him off to the USA.

In reply to summo:

Did he apply for residency after the rape allegations?

In reply to KevinD:


No - plenty reasons they might - but regardless of whether the Swedish state is actually out to get Assange, I think it would be reasonable for Assange to worry that they were and to flee Sweden *IF*, as his lawyers have claimed one of the women wrote in a text message, the police have made up charges against him.

If I had done wikileaks and *IF* the police started making stuff up about me, I would leave that country rather than rely on getting a fair trial. I wouldn't think, "oh, the police are making stuff up about me but seeing as they have let me 'roam free' so far I'm sure I'm going to get a fair trial". And I think most people would do the same.

In reply to Donald82:


He left the UK on 11 August because he was worried the US would come for him there (that's his claim - in an affidavit he has written).

He went to Sweden where he stayed at "safe houses" (again his terms). Whilst he was being feted there he had two sexual encounters with two women on 14 and 17 August.
Obviously enjoying his time there he applied for residency in Sweden on 18th August.

On 20 August the rape investigation was launched.
In September he fled to the UK.
In October his application was turned down - note not WITHDRAWN by Assange.

So clearly in 2 months the UK suddenly wasn't in cahoots with the US.
Even though it is.
Or something.

In reply to Donald82:


I think you mean most paranoid, egomaniacs running away from what every dubious sexual behaviour they have indulged in, would do the same.

In reply to Donald82:
The only people that appear to make the leap from - "this case might be so weak it doesn't see the inside of a court room" to "the police have MADE UP a case" - are Assange, and seemingly you.

Occasionally you do have a case where there are weaknesses or inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
To assess them you often need to at least speak with the suspect.
That's generally called an investigation.

And as an aside the content of these texts may, or may not undermine this case. Some context would be good. Also worth noting that these are allegations made by the defence lawyer, so not exactly unbiased.


Here's an eg for some context - "I told the police he had sex with me when I told him I didn't want him to. They said it was rape, but it wasn't "
= defence claim that "victims says police have fitted him up."

In reply to off-duty:

So before the rape allegations then. And not withdrawing it really means nothing. *IF* the police have made stuff up, or if he's just running from the charges he might not take the time to withdraw his application.

You, and others, keep raising arguments about whether or not there is some kind of conspiracy between states. But I'm not arguing that the the Swedish, UK or US states are doing or not doing anything. I'm simply arguing that *IF* - as his lawyers claim the woman's text messages say - the police have made up charges then it would, I think, be reasonable for a man in Assange's position - ie having done wikileaks - to worry that he may not be treated fairly by the Swedish legal system and to flee the country.

In reply to MG:


Note the *IF*s.....

*IF* you had done wikileaks and *IF* the police then made up charges against you, would you worry about not getting fair treatment by the legal system?

In reply to Donald82:





Err. I'm not suggesting there is a conspiracy between states.
Assange is.
It's the entire crux of his defence.

The only other argument appears to be that he would be unfairly treated in Sweden. Since he appears singularly unable to explain why Sweden would be remotely interested in "fitting him up" for wikileaks or anything else, he appears to be falling back on "because the US told them to".

I love a good "fugitive from corrupt justice" story as much as the next man, but I like there to be something credible about that story.
Currently the only thing that Assange appears to be clinging to is some texts, without revealing their content or context, sent after the offence.
The leap he makes to say this proves it is a fit up strains belief.
And I still have no idea why on earth he thinks this - other than this US conspiracy claim that simply does not stack up on the basis of the chronology of events, his movements and his actions.

In reply to Donald82:



So, because he's done wikileaks every allegation against him is being made up?
Because the second "if" is the hugely problematic one. Most reasonable people when asked to speak to the police about a monstrous made up allegation would be keen to give their side of the story and get this whole mess behind them.
If wikileaks is the motivation for the fit-up - why do Sweden care about wikileaks?

In reply to off-duty:



Fair point, it may be that the police are simply investigating as they normally would. But again, it doesn't need to be that the police the state or whoever are actually doing anything, simply that it be reasonable for Assange to believe they might be.

In reply to off-duty:


No... because he's done wikileaks he will be more worried about fair treatment by the state


except IF they're worried about fair treatment by the police/state


don't know.... diplomatic pressure? maybe they think it's a bad thing? the indiscriminate publishing aspect of it seems grossly irresponsible to me.... but again, he just needs to worry that they do

In reply to Donald82:

I suppose it's feasible that Assange does genuinely believe that there is some massive frame up going on.

That doesn't make his belief reasonable.

And when you look at his actions, it doesn't even look as if he really believes this state conspiracy story either.

If you are suggesting that we should just pat him on the head and give him a get out of jail free card because he did wikileaks and he's frightened of going to Sweden, then I genuinely don't understand.

In reply to off-duty:

You really seem to struggle with the:

1. difference between having reason to worry about fair treatment, and proving that there is actually some kind of conspiracy

2. the idea that if you are worried about fair treatment that you may not want to speak to the police or trust the legal system generally

3. hypothetical arguments of the form IF x then y

In reply to off-duty:



IF the police have made stuff up, then it would seem reasonable to me.


I think they should interview him here. As I've said (much further up) if their offer to interview him in the embassy was reasonable and he's just refusing then that looks bad for him. If they've deliberately put conditions on the interview to make him refuse then it looks bad for the Swedish prosecutor...

In reply to Donald82:


Well he has been treated fairly by the state. He has had (and is still running ) various court cases in Sweden. Similarly in the UK.
In fact the only case that he doesn't seem to want to fight is the actual rape case itself.



So Sweden have a sufficiently big axe to grind about wikileaks, that unlike the UK or the US, they decide to fabricate a case against him.
Really ?

And I still don't understand what you mean by "he just needs to worry that they do".
He could genuinely be worried about being abducted by space aliens for experiments. It wouldn't make his belief any more reasonable, his excuses any more valid or his defence any more sound.

In reply to off-duty:


And that's the crux of it really. It seems an obvious point to me and I've been quite patient in trying to explain it.

In reply to Donald82:



I struggle with why he feels he won't receive fair treatment. It's a democratic country, a fair legal system and his rationale for not trusting it is totally incoherent.


Ah. So if I don't trust the legal system I have some sort of right to avoid it?


I can totally understand the crazy theory(s) that Assange has put forward. I think they are irrational and unreasoned.
What I don't understand is that you appear to think that IF he actually believes them, that somehow makes his behaviour alright.

In reply to Donald82:

First - I'm not convinced that he really does believe this. His actions transiting between Sweden and UK undermine this belief. His reasoning that Sweden would be more of an ally to the US than the UK is nonsense, and the suggestion that Sweden would fit him up is laughable.
Still - leaving that to one side - assuming that in his paranoia he genuinely does believe he is a "victim" then :

Second - regardless if someone genuinely believes they have some sort of excuse, that doesn't mean the rest of us should credulously gulp up that excuse and then pat him on his head when he uses it to jump bail and thwart the investigation into allegations of crime against him.
His behaviour post offence is reprehensible and indefensible.

In reply to off-duty:

Okay dokey

In reply to Donald82:


Don't get me wrong, should anyone actually produce anything credible that suggests he's "an innocent man framed for a crime he didn't commit..." then I'll be up there supporting.

So far all I've seen is a combination of "meh..." and actual laughing.

In reply to Donald82:


before / during, but if he was so fearful of being shifted by Sweden to the USA because of wikileaks, why would that matter?

In reply to summo:

It would matter because IF the police are making stuff up then that might change your view of whether Sweden's a safe place to stay......

In reply to Donald82:

but it's all in his head. He imagines this and that, there is no proof of anything he has come out with, he is the master of circulating online rumours and gullible folk pick them up, despite there being nothing to substantiate them.

Assange loves his voice and a bit of grandstanding, like his little balcony shows. If he was innocent and there was zero evidence against him, he would like nothing more than to stand in court and put on a little performance, but he doesn't seem drawn to that does he? Wonder why? Especially when you consider Sweden has one of the softest justice systems in Europe, it's all about rehab, not punishment etc.. he would probably do a few months in a comfy cell, then be moved to an open prison, out within two years.

In reply to Donald82:


If the police were making stuff up I wouldnt have hung around until they said they were ready to place charges. I certainly wouldnt have then sodded off to another country known for cooperating with the USA.

In reply to KevinD:

my understanding is that the police initially weren't going to do anything, then they changed their minds, then he left...

In reply to summo:


well if the texts don't exist you'd expect the police to have denied showing them to his lawyer, no?

and if just facing the charges would normally be much easier than spending years in stuck in an embassy then that presumably supports the idea that he is worried about fair treatment...

In reply to Donald82:


So he was happy with the investigation so long as it went his way but ran away when it didnt. Although oddly he ran away to the UK rather than somewhere which was less friendly to the USA and Sweden. He again happily waited around through the various appeals but ran away once they went against him.

In reply to KevinD:

which would be consistent with it occurring to him that he wasn't being treated fairly and running away or with him being guilty, originally thinking he'd get off with it and then realising he wouldn't and running. likewise as much as the uk doesn't seem the obvious place to flee extradition to the us, it isn't the obvious place to flee rape charges in Sweden either

so again it comes down to whether he might reasonably believe he wasn't being treated fairly. the texts IF real seem to suggest he might well have reason. the police haven't denied showing the texts to his lawyer so it would seem they are real

simples

In reply to Donald82:

Of course. Because the police always get involved in public debates about the evidence in criminal trials prior to interviewing suspects...

This thread is like one of john Simpsons. But at least it seemed he was having fun with his exotic views.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The lawyers have said the police showed them the text messages. If they hadn't shown them messages or the lawyer had blatantly misrepresented what the messages say then I'd expect the police to say so... wouldn't you?

In reply to Donald82:

no i absolutely would not.

i would not want the police giving a running commentary on what the evidence they may have in an active criminal investigation was.

once they do that even once, the whole thing would rapidly degenerate into farce. it wouldn't stop at this one issue; once its established that the police will engage in discussions about the basis of the case, the evidence will be rehearsed in the media and on forums like this and an endless stream of clarifications and corrections would be needed. it would divert police resource and attention and wipe out any chance of a fair trial.

the only possibly comment they can make is 'no comment'.

but i'm sure you won't accept this, and will think that accepted procedure should be discarded in this regard, as you seem think it should be in almost every other aspect of this case.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm not suggesting the a 'running commentary'.

Just checked and Assange's lawyer has been to court to have the the text messages released. The court ruled that allowing his lawyers to view them was sufficient because he hasn't been interviewed yet. Which seems fair enough as seeing them would let him get his story straight.

So his lawyers have seen messages. My guess is that they're not making up what they saw in them as Assange would be in a worse position if disproved and they can't rely on them not being published. Maybe they did make up the content though... I just think it unlikely.

No doubt time will tell

In reply to Donald82:

but who are you getting this information from, the Assange propaganda machine?

Also given that the evidence has been through every court in Europe and they still ruled against Assange, I would suggest that the evidence against him is sufficient to continue their investigation.

In reply to Donald82:





If you are arrested for an offence in any country with a half decent legal system you will be told the detail of the allegations against you.

Eg - on 17 August you are believed to have raped Miss A.

That might pretty much be it. Your lawyer might well ask the interviewing officer for more detail.
They might be provided with it, they might not.
That is NOT a matter for the court.

That is so that your lawyer can tell you what you are accused of and advise you of your rights and the possible consequences.

The purpose of the interview is to get YOUR version of what happened.
It IS NOT to give you the full prosecution case to enable you to fit your story around the evidence or as you put it "get your story straight".

Having given your account - you might get more disclosure. For example if you said we had entirely consensual sex and she was entirely sober, they might disclose "We have a statement from a taxi driver who says he helped you carry her into her apartment she was so drunk"

Similarly you might choose to go no comment. In the UK (and almost certainly in Sweden ) there might be implications if you go no comment.
These consequences will be argued at court, during trial, if it goes that far.
For example, in the UK, the defence could argue - the prosecution did not disclose sufficient information for me to properly advise my client, so I advised him to go no comment.
If the court accept that argument then there will be no problem at all with the defendant giving his only account of "what happened" when he is at court and when he has seen the full prosecution case against him.

The point being that the purpose of an investigation is to figure out what happened. That is totally undermined if you hand over the prosecution case for the defendant to pick over before he makes up his mind what story to tell. Lets be frank - he knows what he did, or didn't do on these occasions. That's what we are trying to investigate.

In this particular case - the defence HAVE been shown copies of these text messages, so they can advise their client on that basis.
They appear to want copies of them, presumably so they can look at times, dates and full details. In any normal legal system that would be provided as part of any trial - should this matter even get that far.

Interestingly regarding these text messages the defence suggestion that they claim "it didn't happen" relies on the defence saying that when on victim texted "I was half-asleep" it implies she was "half awake". I'm not entirely sure how that translates to "it didn't happen" but maybe there is some trick of Swedish I'm not getting.

I'm not entirely sure why Assange needs to know the details of post incident texts to give his account of what went on. Which presumably is "she was wide awake and participating, and this is what she said and did that meant I knew she was" and how that account is affected by a text sent days after the incident, I am not entirely sure.

In reply to off-duty:

I agree it would seem normal not to share before interview.

People have consensual sex while what most people would understand the term half asleep to mean all the time. The accusation is, I think, that she woke up to find him having sex with her... ie that she was asleep when he started. Most people wouldnt describe this as having sex while half asleep. So the text, if real, would appear to contradict that at least part of the accusation...

I expect the main reason they want the texts released is because publicity plays a big role in this. I expect that's also the main reason the prosecutor doesn't want them released (despite it being normal for them not to be at this stage)

In reply to Donald82:

Perhaps one solution to the conundrum raised by these texts would be for Julian Assange to go to Sweden to answer the investigator's questions. That would seem to be the obvious solution, rather than playing out lots of ifs, buts and maybes, and might allow all sides to have their points presented with equal and appropriate degrees of transparency.

In reply to Donald82:


Yes. Not just normal but accepted legal practice pretty much anywhere.
If it was my case I wouldn't even be disclosing the texts prior to interview and I would be more than happy to explain that decision in court (if it ever got that far) . But luckily for Assange the Swedish appear to be bending over backwards to be open.


I can't remember the detail of the allegation, but if it is as you say, then the post-incident texts may undermine the prosecution case when all the evidence is reviewed but they have absolutely no bearing on Assange's recollection of events on that night.
He knows what he (and she ) did.
His lawyers have had bonus access to the text info that may undermine the case - and that ALREADY would enable him to ...ahem... "get his story straight "



I would disagree with some of that - however your explanation is in fact agreeing that their request for release is, like most of Assange's demands and claims, entirely unreasonable.

In effect Assanges demands are to bend Swedish law just for him "because Wikileaks"

In reply to off-duty:

If it Assame is telling the truth then he'd try to get the text messages released due process or not. Of course he would, public opinion matters here.

So its your confirmation bias again, things consistent with guilt or innocence are seen as showing guilt...

To summarise. If Assange is innocent and the police have made up or exagerated the charges then he's behaved just fine. If he's not, he hasn't.

If text messages are as his lawyer says then it looks like Assange is right. If they're not it looks like he's not.

I expet they are as described. I don't know though. I hope time will tell.

In reply to summo:


It's widely reported in the mainstream press that his Lawers have claimed this. So I'm convinced they have vlaimed it. If anyone's denied it, I've not seen it and neither has anyone on here so I'm fairly convinced it hasn't been denied...

His lawyers may be his propoganda machine but they would be rubbish at it if they made this stuff up and it was then disproved.

Either way I expect to we'll find out one day


Text book question begging. Assange: the state is treating me unfairly. Summo: they can't be because.... the state is fair.

In reply to Donald82:


Do you believe anything you are told, just because it is in the press?


The lawyers goal is for Assange to never reach court, their bluff would never be called. Beside that is the game they play, unless they say it under oath in court, then stretching the truth a little in press sound bites is fair game.



Given the lenient penalties here, rehab not punishment etc, he couldn't pick a better country to have a trial. Especially now with a more socialist left government in, they would not even extradite Assange to right wing Denmark!

In reply to Donald82:

It's not confirmation bias, it's simply the way the process works.

The case against him might be weak. That isn't particularly unusual. Sex offence cases are often difficult because of the lack of corroboration and witnesses.

Assange wants the whole judicial system adapted to suit him. The reason HE gives is "because wikileaks".

Could the case against him be a total frame-up and thus his actions justified ?
I suppose it's possible. 2 accusers who are actually plants of Sweden or the US. It's an interesting twist on victim blaming. (Obviously I'm ignoring the fact Assange is the real victim here....) A police investigation that is a fit up - despite it being the police investigation ITSELF that as part of a formal process disclosed the texts to Assange that undermined their own case.
Struggling for any sort of motive though - Assanges "because wikileaks" doesn't make any sense. Undermining your own frame-up by disclosing evidence that undermines your own case doesn't make sense either.

As regards the content of the texts, Assanges lawyers don't want them released "to the public" though I'm sure they wouldn't mind that, they know the content already, they've been shown them by the police.
They want the texts formally disclosed to the defence. That is something that will happen as part of any trial (if one happens). They can hardly be hidden by the police - after all THEY are the ones that disclosed them.

Assanges position is that prior to him speaking to the investigation he'd like to know the whole case against him.
I'm sure he would. Kind of makes a mockery of the investigation though.

Your assertion that - if the texts say what the defence say - then it proves this is a frame-up is surprising. The contents of the texts as revealed by the defence suggests that the victim account MAY be inconsistent (asleep / half asleep ) and she MAY not consider what has happened to her as "rape".
Points to consider - this is the defence claim. They aren't likely to be arguing in favour of prosecution.
None of these texts (described by the defence so presumably the MOST negative ) indicate that this is being set up by the cops. Sure - her account MAY be undermined by ones interpretation of the comment about sleep, but the case does not hinge on that, and undoubtedly she will have been reinterviewed to establish exactly what she meant in the context.
Victims saying that they didn't realise what has happened was rape are not uncommon either.
In a good open legal system the defence get a view of that evidence at trial and can use it.
In a free society it is also permissible for victims not to realise that when they said no, but he still went ahead and had sex, it IS actually pretty serious.

Assange would (unsurprisingly ) rather have the case played out on the internets, where the only consequence will be victim smearing, than in a court. (Were Assange to answer questions it might not even get that far ) .Because obviously, on the internet Assange doesn't have to sit down and explain his actions to people who have actually heard the entire prosecution case.

In reply to summo:


No. I just find it really unlikely that all sides of the mainstream press from the telegraph to the guardian plus less mainstream Assange supporters would say Julian Assange's lawyers have claimed something then haven't claimed it.

I find it unlikely they would claim it if it wasn't true because, if it wasn't true, it could be denied to the satisfaction of most people. And I think the police/prosecution would deny it if they were just making stuff up. These are Judgment calls I guess, and you and Off duty think it's more likely that the texts don't exist or don't say what Assange's lawyer claims. Fair enough... I expect time will tell.

In reply to Donald82:


Actually that's a pretty reductionist argument.
Every single court case has been argued in open court in a democratic country. The arguments and judgements are available, and you're welcome to point out where the system is being manipulated by anyone (other than Assange, Obviously - he can do what he wants. ..)
Your suggestion that the state is a "thing" is, in effect similar to Assange.
The Swedish judiciary are working with the Swedish government, who are working with the UK government who are dictating the court results to the UK judiciary. All, presumably at the behest of the US government, who for mysterious reasons don't actually want Assange to know that they want him in the US. Except that he appears to have guessed their dastardly plot.

In reply to off-duty:


The system works how it works. Running away from it, generally not complying with it or questioning it is consistent with guilt or innocence. Always seeing this as consistent with guilt is confirmation bias... also as with Summo a bit of question begging.

Think we've been through the rest enough now

In reply to Donald82:



Whoah there.
I think the texts exist. They were disclosed by the police to the lawyers. I think they probably say exactly what the lawyer has quoted them as saying.

I think the interpretation of the texts is open to debate. That's what a trial is for. It's also what a good prosecution case should investigate.
Saying "it's a frame- up" on the basis of a selective quoting of texts and a defence lawyers interpretation of them is so far away from objective, that you could be sat in an embassy saying the US is out to get you....

I also think the lawyers demands for their disclosure is unreasonable. I've explained the process numerous times. Assange appears to want it bent for no particularly good reason.

As an aside quite how texts sent after the incident will help Assange remember what he did or didn't do during the incident, I have no idea.

In reply to Donald82:



I am not, and have not, said that Assange is guilty. Or innocent.

What I have said is that his actions and his defence are not logically consistent, they are unreasonable bordering on irrational and they are making claims about unfair legal processes, conspiracies etc that are wholly unsupported.

What beggars belief is that some people actually appear to give them some credence, despite every judgement being freely available to read.

What I've said is:

1. that if he's innocent or the charges have been exaggerated, or appear to be exaggerated then his actions are logically consistent and what many people would do the circumstances.

2. if some or all of the following are true then there's a good chance he is innocent or charges have been exaggerated. A. The text messages are as claimed B. the original decision not to persue the issue was the normal course of action for police/prosecutors C. the prosecutors actions are consistent with being more concerned with extradition than questioning him.

In my opinion either would make a reasonable person who had done wiki leaks concerned about fair treatment by the Swedish state.

I think one of our main points of difference is about how much it's reasonable to trust states (people working for) if you have done wiki leaks. I know I'd be super paranoid.... i guess you wouldn't

I also think the judgements could all be open and public and the prosecutor would still have the freedom to do B. or C. Plus as you say the police could be perusing normal investigation practice but if he's innocent or this has resulted in charges that are exaggerated relative to the truth, he may still worry about fair treatment.

Anyway I'll leave the last word for you - but i need to bow out. Too much arguing on the internet is never good!

In reply to Donald82:



What you actually said was that there were reports that the charges had been made up.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think I did say that, but people interpreted it that way and I was clear soon afterwards that the:

1. the reports were that his lawyers has claimed to have seen text messages saying the police had made up charges
2. why I believe they probably have seen these messages

I've also agreed with Offduty that it's possible these messages could exits and the police could still be investigating normally..

In reply to Donald82:
"One of the complainants has, apparently, sent text messages saying that the police made up the charges" Sunday 18:41.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Conversation below. I said "apparently" and "if true" in the first post indicating this wasn't proven. When asked for a source by you I was immediately clear that it was the lawyers claim and why I think it's probably true. I was also clear that (as Offduty had explained to me further up the thread) not releasing the messages is apparently consistent with normal practice pre interview.

Donald82 - on 18:41 Sun - One of the complainants has, apparently, sent text messages saying that the police made up the charges and saying she was half asleep, which is very different from asleep, which is what he's been accused of. If true, this suggests that what he's being accussed of, at least, is not consistent with what actually happened.

Sir Chasm - on 19:59 Sun In reply to Donald82: Link to a reputable source please?

Donald82 - on 21:10 Sun I say "Apparently" becuase I don't know if it's true but... 1. It's been widely reported that Assange's lawyer says he's seen these text messages, and that the Swedish prosecutor won't release them (which apparently is normal as he's not been charged or something...). As far as I know the prosecutor doesn't deny they exist and I've not seen any counter reports denying they exist

I also quoted from the Pilinger article further up. The quotes mentioned failure to release SMS messages, among other things. Above the quote I said "if this is true"....

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Feel free to apologise

In reply to Donald82:

I'm hardly going to apologise for your inability to distinguish between "exaggerated" and "made-up". Which do you mean?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

okay mate... cheerio

In reply to Donald82:

Bye bye, Donnie.