
Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition - hownottowrite
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-sweden-prosecutor/sweden-reopens-assange-rape-investigation-to-seek-extradition-idUSKCN1SJ0UZ
======
tarcyanm
Assange himself and the rape charges have been politicized to such an extent
that I find it essentially meaningless to pontificate about what may or may
not have happened in Sweden. His character has been debated endlessly, but
when one thinks of what WikiLeaks has actually revealed, I find it totally
likely that a systematic effort was made to curtail him:
[https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1116916146458877952/...](https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1116916146458877952/photo/1)

~~~
tdcbfdct3
Who's politicized the rape charges other than Assange himself continuously
calling them a government conspiracy against him?

The Swedish government doesn't discuss them (which is what's allowed Assange's
version of events to get so popular). The US hasn't mentioned it. The UK gave
him a fair trial based on them.

~~~
viraptor
> Who's politicized the rape charges other than Assange

Swedish LE when they refused to hear the case with Assange in the embassy.
Whether he's guilty or innocent, I can't take it as anything other than "we
don't care about the case or the victims, we just wanted the extradition".

~~~
dogma1138
Or they don’t want to set a precedent that you can hide out of reach of
justice just because you are famous?

What’s next should you be able get trial over FaceTime while evading the
police without any consequences?

~~~
viraptor
I'm not sure what the issue is. If you are already hiding in a place
unreachable by the Swedish LE, you don't have to take part in anything. If you
agree to take part in the investigation over internet anyway, that's still
better for the victims. (verdict, potential damages from any sources the LE
can take over, public acknowledgement of guilt, etc.)

~~~
dogma1138
For the same reason you don't usually negotiate with terrorists? Or any other
behaviour you don't condone, right or wrong the guy made a mockery of Swedish
LE if nothing else he should be charged with obstruction for going AWOL after
agreeing to come for an interview and then skipped the country a day before.

~~~
viraptor
I don't see how this is similar to negotiating with terrorists. He holds no
power in this case while physically unreachable by Sweden. If found guilty, he
gets more problems. If found innocent, he's stuck with all the original
problems.

Charging him for running away also seems irrelevant to the original question -
was this case more than a political play.

~~~
dogma1138
So in your opinion it's ok for someone who committed a crime to run away and
hide and then have the DA go and question to them knowing regardless of the
outcome they can't touch them and even compelling them to answer questions
would be impossible unlike in court?

Ofc not, they should be marked as fugitives and held in contempt until they
can brought in.

This wasn't a political case this was an asshole trying to escape justice, he
knew he wouldn't be extradited to the US from Sweden he just hoped to play
that while he plays the UK authorities while he spins this as political
prosecution to his fans and the media to gather public support.

~~~
viraptor
You're bringing up the actual act of running away. I'm saying once someone
already ran away and you know you can't touch them, it's more beneficial to
everyone to allow them to testify remotely than delay/close the case,
potentially forever.

------
seanalltogether
> “His attitude is that he is happy to cooperate with Sweden and that he wants
> to be interviewed and that he wants to clear his name,” Samuelson told
> Reuters.

He spent how many years on both UK soil and then the Ecuadorean embassy to
fight these Swedish allegations and now he's "happy to cooperate". He's
imprisoned himself all these years for nothing.

~~~
Vinnl
As I understood it, he fled to the embassy because he was afraid the Swedish
allegations would be used as an excuse to extradite him to the US. Now that
his UK charges can be used for that, that's no longer an objection.

~~~
gsnedders
What relationship does his English conviction have to any US extradition
request? (Be it the one that's been sent, or any hypothetical one to Sweden.)

~~~
Vinnl
Ehm, good question; it's been a while since I read about this. I think, but
don't pin me down on this, that his being kept in a single country would give
the US enough time to draw up a formal extradition request for that specific
country, whereas if a country isn't able to hold him, the request might not
come in time.

Hopefully somebody else can chime in with a more reliable explanation.

~~~
gsnedders
If he were extradited to Sweden from the UK, under an EAW, to then be further
extradited from Sweden to the US, the extradition would need to fulfil the
requirements to be extradited from both the UK and Sweden.

Being extradited to Sweden would merely make extradition to the US more
complex, not less. He would still be able to challenge the extradition in the
(presumably) English courts, but he would further be able to challenge it in
the Swedish courts.

------
Tycho
This is just to save face and make it look like the whole thing wasn't driven
by US pressure from the outset. There's no chance he will end up standing
trial in Sweden, unlikely they could even bring such a flimsy case to court,
and unlikely that the UK would prioritize Sweden's request over the US. I
doubt they'll even get round to making a formal extradition request. This is
an empty gesture.

~~~
DanBC
You call it a flmisy case but Assange has tried to resist extradition from the
UK to Sweden and he failed in court.

It's useful to read this court document which sets out some of his claims, and
why they fail:
[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html)

~~~
Tycho
Are you being deliberately obtuse? This document evaluates whether the
extradition request is legitimate: do the allegations amount to crimes, are
they faithful characterisations of the accusations, does the request come from
the proper authority, was the correct procedure followed, etc. It does _not_
evaluate the strength of the case or any of the supporting evidence. Eg.:

 _Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by
Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as "half asleep"
and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These
are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not
for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail._

So, after all this, the case could still fall apart under the slightest
scrutiny and be abandoned by the prosecution or dismissed by the judge.

------
_Microft
Would the people who argue that the described situation was not rape please
remember that it _actually is_ under swedish law and the _situation in your
own jurisdiction is irrelevant_ here?

~~~
sjwright
If Swedish law used the word arson to describe the situation, would you accept
that term and call Assange an arsonist?

As a commentator, I am not beholden to novel terminology used elsewhere, let
alone in a country that doesn’t even use English as their primary national
language.

~~~
ascorbic
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the accusations would be classified as rape
under English law too. That was ones of the ground that he used to challenge
the original warrant.

~~~
sjwright
I don’t care what the UK says any more than I do Sweden. I don’t live in
either country. I will use terms that I consider more descriptive than rape.

What’s wrong with sexual misconduct, for example? I realise it doesn’t have
the emotional charge of “rape”, but isn’t that a good thing? We shouldn’t
choose words based on our opinions.

------
idlewords
Flagging this because I can't handle the HN discussion on the nature of rape
from first principles.

~~~
tptacek
Same. What a disaster of a thread.

~~~
cpach
I think it would be great if we could avoid Assange threads here on HN.
Nothing good will come out of it.

~~~
cwyers
It would be better if we had a community here that could handle discussing
topics like this in a sensitive and respectful way.

~~~
cpach
Maybe, but I’m afraid I can’t see that happening. Too many people lose their
marbles when the topic of Assange comes up.

------
daemin
One thing I'm wondering, before he fled to the Embassy, he was out on bail,
for which supporters of his put up their property for. Given that he skipped
bail they would have forfeited that property, now that he's arrested again do
they get it back?

~~~
ChrisSD
In a word, no. He broke his bail agreement and was a fugitive for years.

The supporters who put money and assets forward where doing it to show their
faith that Assange was not a flight risk. This has been proven to be false.

~~~
dullgiulio
Also (correct me if I am wrong), there is no legal trace that the bail money
was not from Assange own funds.

In other words, if he did surrender according to terms, the money would have
gone back to Assange who would have returned it to the donors himself.

I am not sure the donors have any legal way to get the money back now. Unless
there were agreements Assange signed, all that money was basically gifts.

~~~
tommorris
It is a criminal offence under s9 of the Bail Act 1976 to agree to indemnify a
bail surety. If Assange's guarantors had entered into an agreement with
Assange, that agreement would have been illegal under English criminal law,
and thus an unenforceable contract.

[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/9](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/9)

------
alkonaut
I think the case is too exposed to just shrug and say “well we _could_ reopen
it now, but nah we’re not going to bother”. After 9 of 10 years during some of
which the defendant has already been de-facto under house arrest, it doesn’t
seem likely that prosecutors would have reopened a case that wasn’t as visible
as this one.

I don’t believe for a second that this is related to US pressure in any way, I
believe the prosecutors simply want to show that they do things by the book
and want to show that they are capable of prosecuting “international” cases
like this one. Assange isn’t going to be in any deep legal trouble over this.
It’s a formality I’d say. That doesn’t make it pointless though. Formality is
important.

------
IfOnlyYouKnew
Because there are already various conspiracies being discussed in this thread,
I'd like to invite you to entertain, just momentarily, the possibility that
this is simply a functioning system of justice seeking to prosecute what they
consider credible evidence of a crime.

I know the tech community likes Assange, or at least liked Wikileaks as it was
originally conceived. But here are some thoughts that you could maybe run
through a bayesian analysis to consider if there is enough of a probability
that his accuser is telling the truth and this case should be adjudicated in a
court of law.

\- Even people one sympathises with are capable of making mistakes.

\- Why would the Obama administration go through the risk and difficulty of
organising a breathtaking conspiracy to get at him, yet commute Chelsea
Manning's sentence?

\- Why would the Trump "I love Wikileaks" administration continue that
adventure, instead of exposing it, damaging Obama's reputation, and helping
their friend?

\- There were enough portraits of Assange, by former colleagues and reputable
journalists, that he has some tendencies somewhere between "overstaying his
welcome" and "complete egomaniac".

\- Sweden is generally considered one of the least corrupt countries in the
world. To get from whatever high-ranking politician who would have to sign off
on a conspiracy with the US all the way down to some local prosecutors would
require an unbroken chain of many people suddenly throwing their principles
overboard.

\- At the time of the supposed rape incident, the most prominent leak was the
"Collateral Murder" video. The war cables and Snowden leaks came later. That
video was somewhat embarrassing, but in no way important enough to warrant
such adventures in diplomatic subterfuge as alleged.

\- All subsequent leaks, i. e. Snowden, Diplomatic Cables, were published in
partnership with media organisations such as the New York Times, Guardian, or
Spiegel. Why invest so much ressources and potential risk into going after
Assange, and not those organisations that were arguably more important going
forward? The Times may be immune because they are domestic. But the Spiegel or
Guardian could certainly suffer an embarrassing loss of, say, all their
subscriber data?

\- Assange's credibility isn't actually that important. There is nothing
Wikileaks published that I consider fake. The Clinton leak was just...
underwhelming? There was nothing even remotely illegal in there, and not even
much that made her look bad. The Snowden leaks were important. The earlier,
lesser-known stuff from Africa etc. was fantastic. The diplomatic cables were
already borderline.

\- The accuser was some lefty student of Spanish literature at a minor Swedish
university. Assange's event there was publicised a few weeks prior. Does
anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish
feminist literature departments for eight years, just in case some target
comes along that needs her couch to crush on?

\- Assange was travelling all over Europe and other parts of the world in
those times. Why not just wait until he is in a country with the perfect
extradition treaty and have him arrested at the airport?

\- Indeed, why the rape allegation? If Sweden would be willing to extradite
him, they could just arrest him at the airport and send him to the US. What is
gained by an extra round through the Swedish criminal justice system?

\- If you're intent to discredit Assange among his fanbase, which is largely
young, male, and online: isn't rape actually the worst possible crime to smear
him? Just look at the prevalence of "obviously fake"/"not rape" and various
other character assassination in any thread on this subject.

\- The specifics, i. e. secretly removing the condom, seem to invite all sorts
of "that's not rape" opinions, making them a rather bad choice compared to
stereotypical violent rape.

~~~
turk73
"Does anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish
feminist literature departments"

Sure, why not? It would be an excellent cover persona for that type of spy.
From what little I know about how intelligence agencies operate, it always
amazes me who their assets are. Look at who the OSS used as spies in WWII.
Find out who her parents are before passing judgement. They don't recruit the
obvious James Bond types. Find the family connection.

~~~
notahacker
I can believe the CIA has all sorts of assets in obscure places. Believing the
CIA is directing its assets to have sex with a target then wait several days
until a chance conversation with somebody else about his alleged sexual
indiscretions before making a crime report so tentative the case was only
reopened on appeal is a step much further. If the CIA wanted to honeytrap
someone, which certainly wasn't the most obvious route to going after Assange,
they'd have made the case stick.

Similarly, believing that everybody who has ever interacted with an anti-
Castro organization (the only "evidence" presented of CIA involvement) is a
CIA asset is a step beyond which I'm willing to go.

------
qazpot
I knew it. It knew it was going to happen, the moment I heard he has been
arrested.

------
gubbrora
Maybe he did it maybe he didn't. I'm leaning towards he did it. But it's worth
keeping in mind that his punishment would have been less severe than the time
he has spent in that embassy.

I think that proves that he was scared shitless.

------
m00dy
This looks like a strategic move to prevent him extradited to US soils. I
believe there are strong negotiations going on in the background.

~~~
singularity2001
That was my positive optimistic reading: "You (Brits) can't extradite him to
the US, he has to go to a Swedish prison under EU law [0] (for a month or so)"

Even lifetime in a Swedish prison would be preferable to solitary confinement
torture.

[0] ... Which makes the Brexit soap opera a bit more interesting.

------
finnjohnsen2
Maybe he just raped a girl. Case closed. No huge conspiracies.

Question is, if he gets freed, what will happen then?

~~~
akerro
I read she never opened a case against him. It was just police officer who did
it in her name? I think it's too much misinformation and lies to tell what
really happened.

~~~
ChrisSD
The facts are she went to the police station to report it. Why would she do
that if she didn't want the police to do anything?

When the first prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case, her lawyer
asked for this decision to be reviewed. Why would her lawyer do this if she
didn't want the case resumed?

~~~
cotelletta
Because her and another woman wanted to compel him to take an STD test.

This is not a big secret, the facts of the case are there for everyone to
find.

------
aliswe
Perhaps they are prosecuting him with the intention of granting asylym
afterwards. Somehow it feels like a grab.

~~~
acallaghan
No it's because he's a rape suspect in Sweden - it's not a giant conspiracy or
'a grab', he's just a suspect that ran away from the law.

The USA have already requested his extradition in the UK - to say that "Sweden
only sought rape charges because then the USA can extradite him from Sweden"
is clearly bogus.

If he actually confronted these charges in Sweden, and found guilty, he may
actually be out of prison by now.

And at the centre of all of this, that everyone seems to have forgotten, are
these two women that have accused him of rape. It seems really inhumane and
unjust to simply shrug these accusations off as political, and not that they
might be telling the truth, and he's a criminal in Swedish law

~~~
sedeki
”And at the centre of all of this, that everyone seems to have forgotten, are
these two women that have accused him of rape.”

As far as I know, and at least Assange has claimed this publicly in a video at
least once, these two women themselves did not make rape charges against
Assange.

The case was picked up by some prosecutor who initiated the charges.

~~~
DanBC
"Pressing charges" may be a thing in US law, but it isn't elsewhere.

In many jurisdictions prosecutors don't need the permission, nor cooperation,
of the victims to bring a case to court. This is especially important in
crimes of sexual violence because the fear of retribution causes many victims
not to report; and because some victims will be being coercively controlled by
their partners.

~~~
learc83
It's not a thing in US law either (at least in the states I'm aware of). "Do
you want to press charges" is just a colloquialism that means "do you want the
prosecutor to press charges, and will you cooperate as a witness."

In less serious cases the victim's wishes are taken into account. However, the
prosecutor is the one who charges the accused, and consent or cooperation from
the victim isn't needed. It is hard to convict in cases where an uncooperative
victim is the only witness, but it happens in domestic abuse cases all the
time.

------
sedeki
Can someone explain to me why the general public has ”turned” on Assange in
the last few years? Is it because Wikileaks revealed those Hillary Clinton
emails? And that’s the ”protagonist” party?

Or is it the rape accusations initiated in Sweden?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Can someone explain to me why the general public has ”turned” on Assange in
> the last few years?_

I don't think the public has "turned" on him. (That is, I don't think he's
more unpopular now than he was a year ago.) It's more like we forgot about
him. That took away the teflon coating that let him escape international
arrest warrants in a South American embassy, a privilege most of us wouldn't
get.

This story is best explained by reversion to the mean moreso than
extraordinary current events.

~~~
mc32
I’m pretty sure just about everyone would interpret that as pre 2016 and post
2016 attitudes and not an arbitrary last year and this year.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _just about everyone would interpret that as pre 2016 and post 2016
> attitudes and not an arbitrary last year and this year_

A poll last month [1] found 73% of Americans have opinions on Wikileaks. The
most common response for Julian Assange, on the other hand, was "don't know"
(42%, versus 27% responding similarly for Wikileaks).

I'd guess the 38% who find Assange unfavorable is largely unchanged from, say,
2015. I'd also guess his favorability was higher in 2012. (That's what made
Correa's political arithmetic around granting Assange asylum stick.)

Under this hypothesis, people didn't start hating Assange more in 2016. His
base of supporters simply eroded until most didn't care about him either way.
That turned him into a normal person. Normal people don't get to hang out in
embassies all day.

[1] [https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-
reports/20...](https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-
reports/2019/04/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrested-poll-survey)

------
ralfn
Come on people. We don't have a lot of information to judge on. But if we are
having a debate about the meaning of rape, then we are all side stepping the
incredible high chance this is politically motivated nonsense.

Nobody had ever been extradited for this sort of thing. Sweden is special in
that it enabled it based on a testimony, even after the testimony has been
revoked and without the victims pressing charges or even agreeing with the
interpretation of the police.

This is not an example of the legal system taking too much liberty of the
notion of rape. This is much more likely an example of state level conspiracy.

Men are not under threat, sharing potentially incriminating information about
the USA just means that nobody is playing by any rules.

Don't embarrass yourself or others to have this debate about rape. As an
academic exercise, sure go ahead, but this case does not prove that rape laws
in Sweden are used unfairly. It just proves Sweden, like most smaller Western
nation's have little choice but do what the big man in Washington whispers in
their ears.

This also does not prove Assange is guilt free. But at least if we want to
maintain any illusion that we live in a free world: he is a deserved a court
case about the actual actions that are fuelling this hunt.

So please just don't use the word rape and Assange in the same sentence. It's
a disservice to actual victims, whistle blowers and our cultural identity as
such.

~~~
PJDK
What makes you think no one has been extradited for this sort of thing?

According to the EU there were over 16000 warrants issued in 2015 (the latest
number I could find)[0].

And way back in 2009 we were worrying about how easy arrest warrants could be
attained and that Poland might be getting extradition happy - going after
chicken thieves.[1]

Assange is certainly deserving of his day in court - he's the one who did
everything in his power to avoid it!

[0]
[https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_arrest_warrant-...](https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_arrest_warrant-90-en.do)

[1] [https://www.economist.com/britain/2009/12/30/wanted-for-
chic...](https://www.economist.com/britain/2009/12/30/wanted-for-chicken-
rustling)

~~~
blub
16000 warrants for people having sex with their sleeping sex partner without a
condom?

Did those 16000 also enjoy 16 million pounds of police surveillance and an
international man hunt?

This is great news. If we continue to invest so much effort in solving the
slightest hint of sexual inappropriateness we'll completely eliminate sexual
crimes. Perhaps even sex itself.

~~~
PJDK
16000 people going through these fairly mundane bit of EU legal procedures.
Some of them will have done worse things, but many of them will have done much
less worse things (like the aforementioned chicken theft.

What international manhunt? Man runs into embassy escaping bail - police wait
outside. What other outcome could there have been?

~~~
blub
So the actual number of extradition requests for alleged sleep-sex-offenders
could actually be 0, you didn't even check in detail? This is quite anti-
climatic.

Alternative outcome: the brits spare 16m £, which they can then invest in
fighting real crime.

They arrest the alleged offender when flying or at any routine control, since
he's not a danger to anyone. Anyone except those unmasked by the leaks.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I'm not sure why you're trying to hand-wave this away by using language like
"alleged sleep-sex-offenders" and "having sex with their sleeping sex partner
without a condom". If this falls under the definition of rape in Sweden then
the extradition request is for just that - a charge of rape. This is a very
serious crime. Whether you agree with their definition or not doesn't really
affect the legality or validity of the request.

If you think these charges are bogus because of some grander conspiracy
against a personal hero of yours just say, there are plenty of others in this
thread who'll gladly back you up.

~~~
JamesBarney
Here's the longest most explicit story on the incident I could find.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-
sweden)

It definitely paints a picture of him being a dirtbag but I don't know if this
would even be illegal in the U.S. or what people would conventionally describe
as rape.

~~~
saalweachter
If only there were some system of international law by which a country could
decide if they found the other country's laws to be compatible with their own,
both in the definition of crimes and their punishments, and could then decide
whether they wanted to comply with an individual extradition request on a case
by case basis.

It's such a shame that any country in the world can issue an extradition
request to any other country in the world for any reason, and that other
country has no choice but to immediately comply with it.

~~~
JamesBarney
He should definitely be extradited, but they described it as sex with a
sleeping person not non-consensual condom removal. Both are awful and he
should face penalties for his actions but the victims claimed he committed one
form of sexual assault and not the other.

Also I don't think non-consensual condom removal is illegal in the U.S. though
it definitely should be.

------
duchenne
Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov
våldtäkt).

In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But
after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made
it.

In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with
Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated
her without a condom while she was sleeping. (The main problem seems to be the
"without a condom" part)

This is obviously serious. He could have transmitted STDs to the complainants.
Unprotected sex should be agreed by both.

But, when someone reads "rape" out of context, he could imagine that Assange
used a knife or something to force a woman to have sex.

Source: [https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-
ass...](https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-
arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy)

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
If someone consents to have sex only on the condition of protection from
disease and pregnancy, and you trick them into sex without a condom that is
rape.

There may be differences of degrees to the stereotypical violent behind-the-
bushes rape. Those should and would be considered for purposes of sentencing.
But it's still rape.

~~~
olalonde
> If someone consents to have sex only on the condition of protection from
> disease and pregnancy

I had sex with a girl who lied about being on birth control. Was I raped?

~~~
saagarjha
I would say so: you only provided consent under certain conditions, but these
ended up being violated.

------
basicplus2
Seams odd they closed the case in the first place.

~~~
alkonaut
No that was entirely by the book. The case could not be investigated without
access to assange so it was closed. And with access to Assange it could be
reopened. And (somewhat surprising perhaps) it was.

------
josteink
Let’s see how long it takes before he is extradited to the US and suddenly
disappeared.

A year or two?

~~~
gnode
> suddenly disappeared.

Why not publicly made an example of?

------
NoblePublius
Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of your actions.

~~~
pitay
That statement just excuses any authority to do what they want. A despotic
dictatorship would be absolutely fine for people to repeat 'accepting the
consequences of your actions' so that if anything horrible happens to someone
it is not okay to criticise the authority on what they did because they are
not 'accepting the consequences of their actions'. This simply excuses anyone
in power doing anything to any dissenter.

~~~
NoblePublius
If you commit crimes like Assange, claim you did so in the public interest,
and then hide from the consequences, you are merely a criminal. If you commit
crimes like Martin Luther King Jr, claim you did so in the public interest,
and then sit in jail and let the public see your suffering in the face of
injustice, you are a civili dissident. Assange is a whiny criminal, not a
hero.

