
A Swedish judge has rejected a request to detain Julian Assange in absentia - Tomte
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48503730
======
IfOnlyYouKnew
English language opinion: [http://bit.ly/2HScFSY](http://bit.ly/2HScFSY)

This seems to be more of a minor procedural issue rather than anything
meaningful. The court agrees there is probable cause and a flight risk, but
denied “detention in absentia” because he’s already in custody.

Quote:

 _The Court has, at a hearing today, decided that there is probable cause for
the suspicion of rape, less serious incident, and that there is a risk that
Julian Assange will fail to appear or in some other way avoid participation in
the investigation and the following proceedings.

The Court has, however, found that a detention order would not be in
accordance with the principle of proportionality. Since Julian Assange is
serving a prison sentence the public prosecutor can proceed with the
preliminary investigation by issuing a European Investigation Order._

~~~
vidarh
It is quite interesting though, given how loudly the prosecutor originally
insisted he absolutely had to be brought to Sweden before they could proceed,
to now have a judge confirming that the investigation does not require him to
be present in Sweden (yes, I realize that it is in part because he is in
custody and so it can be ensured he remains available, so the situations are
not exactly the same, but the prosecutor did not argue that he needed to
remain in custody, but specifically that he needed to be brought to Sweden).

This to me suggest that irrespective of whether or not Assange is guilty, the
prosecutor mishandled the cases - parts of the charges had to be dropped
because of the statute of limitations because they failed to act while he was
in custody in the UK while arguing over something a Swedish judge has now said
is not a prerequisite to continuing investigation.

~~~
lostmyoldone
It was mishandled from day one when the prosecutors office acknowledged that
Assange was under investigation, this on it's own was - while not strictly
illegal - something essentially unheard of in Sweden, especially for a case
involving a possible rape charge.

It was highly irregular, and considering how much of police and prosecutor
actions in Sweden are based on professional ethics, rather then laws
themselves, the level of irregular behavior clearly stands out in this case,
as it also did in the pirate bay case, but that's a story for another time.
Yes, we really should put more of the rules for police and prosecution into
law, there's too much leeway as it is today.

Back to the topic at hand.

Rape cases are usually not public, they almost alwaya are played out without
anyone except legal teams, judge, prosecutor, lay judges present. Thus since
the trial is in private, and an exoneration in court is then less 'visible'
than the public "accusation" cause by naming the suspect, the view is
generally that the courts and prosecution should not explicitly name people in
the kind of cases you expect to be held in that setting, or in generall -
cases where publicly naming suspects can cause undue harm to the suspected
regardless of the veracity of the accusations.

It was as far as I can recall still unusual for _any_ accused to be publicly
named, much less so for cases expected to be tried behind locked doors.
Usually public naming of suspects only happened if the suspect was deemed to
be violent enough that the public needed to be warned.

------
imchillyb
No matter what people believe he is guilty of, this guy right here is being
railroaded by the US inJustice system.

~~~
colechristensen
Let's assume there is a person guilty of the sort of crimes Assage is accused.

How is he being treated differently than what you would expect this
hypothetical person should be treated?

~~~
lisper
That assumption is precisely the problem. We _know_ that Assange published
U.S. government secrets. We _know_ that the U.S. government doesn't like this
despite the fact that it's perfectly legal. We know that the current
administration is willing to bend the rules to get what it wants. All that
makes it plausible that Assange is being charged with crimes not because the
U.S. government has a good-faith belief that he actually committed them, but
to punish him for doing something that the U.S. government doesn't like,
notwithstanding that it's legal.

For the record, I am no fan of Assange. I think he's a dick. But even dicks
are entitled to equal protection under the law.

~~~
colechristensen
I chose my words carefully and said "guilty" not as in "guilty of doing the
things we all know he did" but "guilty of the crimes he has been/will be
indicted of".

Assuming he is guilty of various crimes, how should he have been and be
treated?

Or in other words what is wrong with the "due process" w.r.t. Assange?

Or is it simply that "he's not guilty" but will get convicted by an unfair
justice system therefore the only just action is to leave him be?

~~~
lisper
> I chose my words carefully

I understand. I chose my words very carefully too when I said, "That
assumption is precisely the problem."

The reason we have due process is not because society gets off on legal
rituals, it's because a person can in fact be innocent despite the existence
of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As soon as you say, "Let's assume
guilt," you've tossed due process out the window. "Innocent until proven
guilty" is not just a catchy slogan. It's the bedrock of due process of law.

The answer to your question, "How is he being treated differently than what
you would expect this hypothetical person should be treated?" is precisely
that: you are hypothesizing his guilt before it has been proven. _That_ is how
he is being treated differently than I would hope and expect.

~~~
colechristensen
>hypothesizing his guilt before it has been proven

>That is how he is being treated differently than I would hope and expect.

You have problems with the assumption of guilt? Ok (setting aside how you know
what people think), what actions are being taken as a result which are
inappropriate?

If you have problems with due process it can't just be with what people
assume, it has to be with their decisions and actions?

Put aside their assumptions and talk about actions. What is being done that
violates due process?

Assume everyone executing the process is an angel at heart, what actions are
wrong and why?

It has so far eluded me to get someone who thinks Assange is innocent to
explain how he is being mistreated.

~~~
effie
I don't claim he is innocent but the argument is well known: he is a
journalist who had no obligations to the U.S. government regarding what they
want to maintain a secret, so going after him for exposing some information is
mistreating him and by implication an attack on independent journalism. U.S.
government had a breach of security and ethics, but instead of quietly fixing
that they target journalists.

~~~
colechristensen
You think that he is innocent and/or was outside US jurisdiction to the extent
that indicting him and the following due process is immoral?

~~~
effie
I don't know that. If there is a reason to believe he commited a crime that
harmed the U.S.A., then the U.S. government going after him for that crime is
to be expected. But the widespread concern here is that the government is
going after him so devotedly not solely because of that harm, but because they
seek to gain back face and intimidate other journalists. There are other
possible ulterior motives. I don't have enough information to decide one way
or another, but given what we know, the concern is reasonable.

------
manjana
Bet ya all they are doing now is yelling "wolf" and postponing a true
extradition till when the storm has settled and he has been forgotten once
again.

