
Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation - schappim
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792
======
k1m
Worth mentioning that Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture,
visited Assange and described his treatment as psychological torture:

> “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the
> extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many
> years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical
> ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to
> psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense
> psychological trauma.

> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has
> been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively
> severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the
> cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.

[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665)

This article by the UN expert is also well worth reading:

Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange -
[https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-
julian...](https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-
assange-b252ffdcb768)

~~~
duxup
I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of
"torture" a bit questionable.

It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.

~~~
jancsika
> I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of
> "torture" a bit questionable.

Yeah, it's funny how HN typically goes evidence-free where pet politics is
concerned.

I'll eat my hat if someone on here can name a _single_ precedent of someone
being tortured in the U.S. before being tried for a crime similar to what
Assange would be accused of.

Edit: and citations, please!

~~~
mcv
Examples of people being tortured in the US are plenty. It all depends on what
you mean by "similar to what Assange would be accused of". He was accused of
rape, which is one of the few crimes that the US takes much more lightly than
Sweden does.

~~~
tripzilch
Especially prison rape! The US takes it so lightly they even have a cute
euphemism for it, "to pick up the soap", which allows you to lightly joke
about sexual abuse punishment fantasies in polite company!

~~~
mcv
I've even seen joking references to prison rape in children's shows, which
really makes me wonder what's wrong with people.

------
jaimex2
Title should really be 'US takes hand out of Swedish puppet now that its free
to extradite Assange'

The take away here is stay anonymous when whistle blowing or handling leaks.
Don't talk to anyone, don't say anything just take a USB stick to an Internet
cafe while disguised and host a torrent.

Then email the press the magnet link using a throw away email service.

~~~
geofft
Er, Assange himself was the press, here. Chelsea Manning was the anonymous
whistleblower who tried to keep her identity safe until Adrian Lamo (may God
have mercy on his soul, because I sure won't) reported her to US authorities.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
>Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower

Manning was a spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.

~~~
paulddraper
What is the difference between those two? Whistleblowers are happy?

~~~
BookmarkSaver
Whistleblowers are intentionally exposing a wrong.

Manning was copying any and all classified content and exposing it
indiscriminately.

Like, maybe it was important that certain things were exposed, but it wasn't a
whistleblower act, it was a spiteful soldier acting out.

------
ivl
> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably
> due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in
> question."

I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony
change? How does evidence weaken over time?

~~~
lettergram
If I recall the evidence was always pretty weak. I don’t have time to find the
news article from back then, but it was “sexual assault” because he didn’t
wear a condom and at the time the woman (perhaps plural) didn’t want to really
participate.

Could be wrong though...

Does anyone have some news from back then?

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-
ass...](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-assange-
explainer-819208/)

> Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party
> and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated
> unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

> Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly
> exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an
> aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the
> expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse
> that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with
> her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual
> integrity.

~~~
deiznof
These are just the original accusations, this is not a summary of established
facts.

~~~
ceejayoz
The parent comment gave a somewhat inaccurate picture of the allegations,
hence my linking them.

------
geofft
By the way, Chelsea Manning (the actual leaker) has been in jail for just over
6 months - again - for refusing to testify in the Assange extradition case.

If you're so inclined, send something to her legal defense fund:
[https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-
needs-...](https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-legal-
funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpoena)

------
djsumdog
So he still gets almost another full year in a UK jail. After that, where can
he go?

Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely),
he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or
can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request
asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying.

Australia did little to help him in his situation, and it would be likely
America could extradite him from there. There's a good chance it may never be
safe for him to return home.

~~~
Roark66
If he is released from UK jail he can hop onto a ferry and go to mainland EU.
There he could travel to anywhere within the Shengen zone. I'm not sure about
western countries, but Poland(as well as other eastern countries I believe)
will not extradite anyone anywhere unless the crime is also considered a crime
here, there is no possibility of death penalty, and there is strong evidence
submitted that makes a conviction likely. By its definition treason against a
country can be committed, by a citizen of that country. Assange is not a US
citizen so he can't commit a crime of treason against US - end of story. US
could try to get him on some other charges - espionage perhaps, but there
would have to be strong evidence which allegedly is severely lacking. This is
why it is very important for US to have Assange extradited from UK. UK has a
"special" extradition deal with US that simplifies the procedure.

~~~
toyg
Poland, like all Eastern states, is desperate for US military assistance to
stay around to deal with Russia, so they will just reply "how high?" when
asked to jump by any American administration. This is particularly true now
that their executive carries a certain disdain for the legislative branch and
the rule of law.

The hard truth is that Assange won't be free nor safe anywhere in Europe. The
tactical and propagandistic value of detaining and punishing him is so high,
the US won't have any qualms black-opping him out of any EU country like they
did with Abu Omar in Italy; and his freedom is not valued highly enough by any
EU country to stop this from happening.

The only places where he could safely stay in the long term, at the moment,
are Russia and Venezuela. Even Cuba has enough problems that they won't dare
adding another one to the pile just out of spite; and that goes for most
South-American states in general. China stands for everything he despises, so
that's another hard no. Places like Japan or South Korea, so deeply embedded
in the US military stance, are extremely unlikely too.

Assange must hope the current administration is replaced by someone so
firebrand-y, s/he'd be willing to make a grand gesture of reconciliation.
Snowden comes before him in the list though, and doesn't carry the baggage
that Julian does, so chances of that are very low too.

Sadly, this is a round that the Galactic Empire has won. The only satisfaction
Julian might get, will come from history books.

~~~
Roark66
>Poland, like all Eastern states, is desperate for US military assistance to
stay around to deal with Russia, so they will just reply "how high?" when
asked to jump by any American administration. This is particularly true now
that their executive carries a certain disdain for the legislative branch and
the rule of law.

You are wrong on both points. Poland cooperated fully with EU's investigation
of so called black sites (CIA "facilities") and the only thing that saved the
people that used to rule Poland when those black sites were operational was
lack of evidence of torture. How's that unconditional love for the American
administration look in light of that? It is true that Poles want to have US
troops on its territory(regardless of who currently rules the country), but
let's not kid ourselves that US would "deal with Russia". All Us troops that
ever were permanently stationed in Poland were always in the Western part. If
Russia wanted to fuck with Poland they would sent their little green men into
the North-East. Also it is common knowledge other NATO countries (perhaps
including US) wouldn't respond to a Russian attack sooner than in 2 weeks so
if Russia attacked Baltic countries Poland would have to respond on its own
for first 2 weeks.

>This is particularly true now that their executive carries a certain disdain
for the legislative branch and the rule of law.

The executive doesn't carry any disdain for the legislative branch. The main
political party has absolute majority in the legislature, they have a
president from same party and the government. Why would a government have any
disdain for the legislative branch that is from the same party? You must be
thinking about UK not Poland.

There is however pretty sizable disdain for the judiciary.This is not only on
part of the ruling party, but also a huge majority of people. The rule of law
in Poland is seen as being for everyone, but corrupt judges. There many
examples of judges of all levels including high court judges committing crimes
(from petty theft caught on CCTV, killing a pedestrian while drunk driving,
being recorded on the phone while openly discussing bribes) and nothing
happens to them. Their colleagues always rule in their favor.

At the same time there are situations like this where there was a huge
property extortion scandal in Warsaw that had some of the city's government
involved, politicians and corrupt judges which accepted faked power of
attorney documents etc. In process of this thousands of people were evicted
illegally. There was a parliament special commission established with members
of all political parties that over years found evidence of those crimes. All
members of that commission agreed regarding its findings of crimes despite
their political differences. As part of their proceedings they ruled certain
properties should be returned. One of the people affected was a daughter of a
woman who was killed(burned alive) by members of the criminal organisation
because she started to make information about their crimes public. The
property she was living in was supposed to be returned to the city's
ownership, but the city still governed by the same party that participated in
the original criminality appealed. Then the case got to a judge whose dad was
a known communist secret police member. The judge found some technicality
based on which he could deny the property retrieval and when asked why he is
committing such injustice he actually laughed in the face of the woman that is
the daughter of the victim I mentioned before.

The biggest problem with judiciary in Poland is that, after communism ended no
one kicked out judges that were corrupt. Germany had its Nuremburg after
Hitler lost - this cleansed it somewhat. Polish judiciary is a direct
descendant of communist apparatchiks. Even though many people involved are
younger and perhaps their intentions weer good when they were joining, they
developed in the organisation that didn't change one bit since communist
times.

Until this is resolved there will be no true rule of law in Poland.

------
mikl
Yeah, now Assange’s extradition to the U.S. is ensured, there’s no reason to
keep the sham investigation going any longer.

Sweden’s involvement in the extrajudicial persecution of Assange is downright
shameful.

------
praptak
Worth reminding: "Sweden’s Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further
Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange’s Arrest"

[https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/797188](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/797188)

~~~
monocasa
Lolz

> 404 Not Found

------
wolco
That's nice of them to drop the trumped up charges 10 years later.

~~~
whamlastxmas
There were never any charges. He was only wanted for questioning.

------
forgetfulusr
Thank you Julian for confirming my long held beliefs of the atrocities the US
government continues to do on our world. I'm sorry that we are not as strong
as you but your actions have breathed hope. Hope that there still are
breathing humans with their heads together,fighting for a better world. You
have convinced at least this soul to be a shittier brick. I apologize for my
comfy cowardness. You deserve better citizens alongside you. By the looks of
things, they are likely to be behind bars as well. Good luck sir.

------
jasonzemos
> Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my
> overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to
> such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the
> investigation.

I used to think Sweden was "woke" and progressive but I was mistaken. A
statement like this by law enforcement in California would be unacceptable.

------
spodek
> Ms Persson said: "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has
> submitted a credible and reliable version of events.

> "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my
> overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to
> such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the
> investigation."

Did Ms Persson also clarify that a lack of evidence suggests that the state
consider that Assange may be the injured party. Presuming the accuser injured
seems to deprive Assange of an assumption of innocence (not sure if applicable
there).

Were Assange's statements not coherent, extensive, and detailed? If so, why
favor the accuser? Why deprive Assange of fair treatment?

~~~
erikpukinskis
No, lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of crime.

Evidence is material. A lack of evidence by definition is not material.

------
cookie_monsta
The guy conspired to hack govt computers with the intent of publishing
classified information. This much we know from the Manning chat transcript.

What those secrets were and if Assange is a journalist or publisher or rapist
or saint or martyr or useful idiot is all moot.

The guy is going to spend time in a US prison at some point unless he dies or
flees. If he doesn't go via Sweden is almost immaterial (unless you're a rape
victim wanting their day in court).

What exactly is it about Assange that says he should be immune from
prosecution and what other loopholes exist to the rule of law?

------
nkurz
I'm surprised that I haven't seen this more widely reported, but over the
weekend it was announced that the Judge who has been presiding over Assange's
detention hearings appears to have been removed from the case due to her
conflicts of interests: [https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/16/arbuthnot-out-
as-assan...](https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/16/arbuthnot-out-as-assanges-
judge-says-wikileaks-lawyer-jen-robinson/)

------
liquidify
>the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there
is no longer any reason to continue the investigation.

This is bullshit. Either they had real evidence or not. Evidence does not
"weaken" with time. The truth is they never had evidence because the charges
were BS in the first place. The only thing that has weakened is the fact that
that the U.S. and other powers that want him dead already have him... so they
no longer need trumped up charges to snare him.

He should be freed immediately and damages should be paid to him by all those
involved in his illegal detention.

------
dominotw
What a weird statment. How can a country decide to drop a crime against its
citizen. Shouldn't the person who got raped be deciding that.

~~~
mikl
In most European countries, the state prosecutor decides who to charge with a
crime, regardless what purported victims think.

It might be a bit foreign, but it does help with some cases, like partner
violence, where the victim might not want to press charges against a violent
partner. Under this model, if the police learns of the crime, they are obliged
to prosecute it if possible.

~~~
dominotw
> the state prosecutor decides who to charge with a crime, regardless what
> purported victims think.

So state prosecutor can simply drop the charges if she feels like it?

in usa people have the right to jury trial. Seems really unfair that
prosecutor can unilaterally simply drop your case, wonder why its that way.

~~~
erikpukinskis
That’s not true, in the U.S., the DA has complete authority to decide whether
to file charges. You have no right to a trial until after you are charged.

You can file a civil suit to get a judge to make declarations of fact in some
cases, but I don’t believe there is any criminal equivalent of that.

~~~
dominotw
yea. I was mistaken. thanks.

------
sunstone
So now that Assange is in custody in the UK Sweden drops the transparently
bogus charges. Not Sweden's finest hour.

------
m00dy
well, hmmm, looks like you can't dodge US

------
DiogenesKynikos
Assange is being prosecuted for his journalistic activities, while the news
media that happily profited by republishing WikiLeaks material sits by, hardly
raising any objection. That's the really shameful aspect of this entire drama.
You'd think they'd be raising all hell right now in order to protect the
freedom of the press.

------
dwoozle
You mean it was just a pretext to exfiltrate him to the US, and that Sweden
does not in fact have a long national track record of pursuing rapists across
international boundaries without prejudice, using the full arsenal of state
power?

~~~
lostmyoldone
I don't know if it was only a pretext, probably not only, but Sweden certainly
doesn't have a track record of either pursuing rape suspects using the full
arsenal of state powers, or of publicly announcing rape allegations as was
done in this case.

The accusations might very well be true, but the Swedish prosecutions actions
and statements has baffled me from day one.

His legal representation acted quite strange too. I read some court
proceedings from some of the UK hearings, among other things the lawyer had
called witnesses that had no business being there, it was rather embarrassing
to read.

~~~
dwoozle
It’s obvious that the rape charges were a highly selective enforcement action.
It would be great if Sweden pursued every rapist as though they were Osama Bin
Laden but the fact is they only pursued one.

~~~
erikpukinskis
What makes it obvious?

------
kuu
Does it mean he is free again?

~~~
djsumdog
No, he still has to serve 50 weeks for jumping bail in the UK.

~~~
Aser
He's served that time already. He's now being held awaiting extradition to the
US.

~~~
olalonde
> The 48-year-old Australian was evicted in April and sentenced to 50 weeks in
> jail for breaching his bail conditions.

Still a couple of months to go (April + 50 weeks = ~March).

~~~
pmyteh
In England, you get (essentially automatic) early release at the half way
point. He's now held on remand for the extradition proceedings: didn't ask for
bail, and essentially no chance of him being granted it given what happened
last time he was bailed...

------
thecleaner
This is a win for democracy.

------
RickJWagner
Given that Assange greatly benefited Donald Trump's campaign (by publishing
damaging but authentic emails from Clinton's campaign), I won't be one bit
surprised if the US charges somehow disappear as well.

------
trpc
There were, not long ago, times when Assange was considered a saint of freedom
after he exposed the corrupt Bush administration, the liberals everywhere were
defending him and his case everywhere, they even made a Hollywood film about
him. But he then made the mistake of his life, he exposed the corruption of
the Clintons and got implicated in the Russia gate meme because Trump somehow
won. Now he is totally on his own. Nobody will defend him even if these
corrupt governments burnt him alive and broadcasted it live. Makes you think
if these liberals actually give a single shit about freedom anyway.

I know that this is an ultra liberal community and I will get downvoted and
flagged within a few minutes. But if someone is too scared to even lose a
worthless website account to say what he sees as the right opinion, he should
not live anyway.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I agree he’s a saint of freedom.

I also have no trouble believing the testimony that he sexually assaulted
someone.

I’m not sure how those things are at odds.

~~~
trpc
They are not, but isn't it a weird coincidence that his alleged victims stayed
silent with a fucking RAPE case until he decided to expose the most powerful
people and governments in the world?

------
auslander
So sick seeing how UK judges listen to US.

~~~
u10
?

They were responding to a valid extradition request by Sweden. How does the US
factor in here?

~~~
auslander
In 2013, Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition but the English Crown
Prosecution Service dissuaded them from doing so.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority)

~~~
u10
Ok, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the United States

~~~
Iv
Sure.

~~~
u10
astute observation, how on earth did I miss that?

------
pjc50
It's not torture if you can leave at any time. He wasn't being held in the
embassy, he was hiding there.

~~~
colejohnson66
Ah, the old “he was free to leave anytime” argument. _No. He wasn’t._ Yes,
technically, he was free to leave, but arguing that is ignoring the fact that
leaving would mean jail.

It’s victim blaming. Would you say a victim of Stockholm Syndrome is “free to
leave at any time”? No, because that’s a ridiculous argument. Would you say
Snowden is “free to leave [Russia] at any time”? No!

So why is it an acceptable argument when it’s Assange? Because he _possibly_
committed a crime in Sweden? Because he indiscriminately blew the whistle on
the US government’s crimes?

Sure, he’s a puppet of Russia, but to say he doesn’t deserve the same
protections as the rest of us is to argue for tyranny.

~~~
solipsism
Either there's a rule of law or there's not. You can't hide from the police
and then claim that the very act of hiding is an act of torture enacted on you
by the police.

~~~
klagermkii
The "rule of law" isn't about individual citizens submitting to the system.

It's about the people in power following a standardised process based on the
crime that was supposedly committed, and being applied uniformly, vs the "rule
of man" where things are handled on an adhoc manner based on who's in power
and who's being charged.

The system can be breaching the "rule of law", not the individuals targeted by
that system.

~~~
solipsism
I didn't claim Assange was breaching the rule of law. Part of the rule of law
is that individuals are accountable for their actions. A court of law is
usually the correct way to determine accountability. The state is obligated to
protect individuals (in this case the women who were allegedly raped) via the
justice system.

The idea that having to flee charges is tantamount to being tortured implies
the state does not have that right. If there is to be the rule of law, the
state has not only the right but the obligation.

------
wnevets
He fled and ran the clock out. He's a coward and should stay in prison

------
acollins1331
How does that prosecutor sleep at night knowing they lie for a foreign
government? I also thought Sweden was supposed to be one of the countries that
actually cared about human rights, too.

