

Assange 'to leave' Ecuador embassy - yangyang
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28834849

======
gillianseed
There's been so much misinformation in this case that it's apalling. The
actual case file can be obtained here:
[http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-
avs...](http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-
assange?file=files/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-
assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf)

Note that it is (naturally) in Swedish, however I will translate the actual
allegation (under the title 'Övergreppet') here below, english is not my
native tongue so if anyone else who knows swedish have any remarks on the
translation, be kind to let me know:

Sexual Assault

They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex
again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his
penis, but she let it pass.

They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She
immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'.

She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She
felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was
too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom
all night.

She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he
did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards.

She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good
place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would
have to pay her student loans.

On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed
after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls,
that she was a lesbian.

Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how
many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that
he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman
after that and that she was tested and not positive.

She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was
trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care.
When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay
her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby.

They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he
ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills.

His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on
tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he
pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour.

After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station.
She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep
her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would.

She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it
in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up
and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was
disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller'
(abortion pills).

After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the
victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to
Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested
using a so called 'rape-kit'.

~~~
contingencies
Truth @ [http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-
assange.html](http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html)

------
staunch
The one thing spy agencies are still really good at is getting people into
compromising situations. It's not hard to get someone drunk and find
attractive people to hook them up with. If they're married that's all you have
to do. That's how they've recruited, blackmailed, and discredited people for
60+ years.

The guy lived 40 years with no sex charges and then immediately after pissing
off the most powerful agencies in the world he's got two strange ones. It's
possible he made criminal mistakes but even if so it's likely he was being
manipulated. He easily could have been drugged without his knowledge.

~~~
Xylakant
He could also just have used his fame to end up in bed with two women and
maybe, Swedish women are not as easily intimidated by exterior circumstances
(the public shame associated with a rape case etc.) as others. It has been
reported before that Assange is not exactly an easy character. It's possible
that it's a set up, it's also possible that he's at the same time a person
that made an important move with wikileaks and an asshole that coerced two
women to have sex with him. It's just something that the courts will have to
clear up.

On a related note: It don't believe punishment for the charges brought against
him is not severe enough to really warrant such a move from the side of the
spy agencies. The damage had already been done, bringing the allegations
against him in a public court in Sweden might retroactively damage Assanges
credentials a little, but the documents stood quite well on their own and the
expected punishment is somewhere between a couple of years on parol and a low
prison sentence in a Swedish prison. I just don't buy that. It's not worth the
effort.

~~~
eyko
A lot of maybes and no proof. If the women had been sexually assaulted, and if
these assumptions are to be taken seriously (e.g. that they are not easily
intimidated by exterior circumstances) then much of what happened after the
alleged rape would make no sense whatsoever (their friendly behaviour, their
tweets, their comments with other friends/witnesses). In fact, there is so
much that has been put into question that it's ridiculous how the swedish
government even took the case seriously.

And let's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape and he's only
wanted for questioning. I believe that this is what they are saying because
it's impossible to justify any other stance based on the lack of evidence...

~~~
dagw
_let 's all remember that he hasn't been charged with rape_

This has been discussed over and over again. Under the procedures and
terminology used in Swedish law a person cannot be charged until he's been
placed in custody and formally questioned. He his however "på sannolika skäl
misstänkt för brott" which is basically means that the court believes there is
enough evidence to make it worthwhile to charge the person and bring him to
trial.

~~~
contingencies
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement for custody before
questioning and Sweden along with other European nations have a frequent
history of using remote questioning via video conference or telephone. The
prosecutor in this case has just refused to do that, for no legally stated
reason except further slurs such as she considers him a 'flight risk' (even
though he _received permission_ to leave Sweden, and the case has _already_
been thrown out of court once, and at this point it's blatantly clear that
it's a politically motivated case with no chance of a fair trial). The
prosecutor is, in fact, in breach of Sweden's own rules which require a speedy
and fair trial with the minimum assertion of guilt on the party being
questioned.

~~~
Tomte
You're wrong.

"Questioning" is an awkward translation and does not mean what you think it
means.

It has been debated to death in all those Assange threads.

Please read the article in New Statesman that another poster helpfully linked
to somewhere in this thread.

~~~
contingencies
I note that you have a personal interest in Sweden and are German. I am glad
that you are able to tell me about what questioning means in English. Thanks
for telling me I'm wrong, and to go and look up why. That was really useful
and added a lot to the conversation.

Unfortunately, the New Statesman article you point at is an extremely well
refuted one. To summarize (someone else's words, not mine): _Even though
Assange has broken no international law in seeking asylum from Ecuador, some,
including New Statesman columnist David Allen Green, have portrayed him as a
fugitive on the run._

In fact, on Feb 13, 2013 Justice for Assange published an in-depth analysis
entitled “Extraditing Assange: Why The New Statesman is wrong about Julian
Assange”. It fully addresses many false claims surrounding Julian Assange’s
case, including those perpetuated by New Stateman’s David Allen Green. This
comes as Mr Assange had his 800th day detained without charge.

I wonder if you will read it?

[http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-
assange.html](http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html)

------
Myrmornis
I support Assange 100%. The harassment of him for his involvement in wikileaks
was completely inappropriate, especially considering that the Guardian and New
York Times worked with him on this and would be similarly culpable if there
were any culpability; digging around in his sexual history was a pathetic
thing to do -- if you try hard enough you would, for a substantial percentage
of people (especially successful men), be able to find someone who will make a
negative sexual accusation against them, especially if there are inducements
to do so; and the general critiques of his character as "arrogant" etc are
similarly irrelevant, and also superficial and childish.

~~~
octo_t
It wasn't his "sexual history", he sexually assaulted two women (and his
lawyer admitted it - what he did was a clear breach of consent).

I'm not surprised one of the women backed down, they were both being harassed
by idiots online for months.

~~~
Lazare
Point of clarification: What Assange's lawyer did was describe the alleged
acts. He was trying to argue that, _if the complaint was true_ , it wasn't
technically rape under UK law. Unfortunately for Assange, it was very clearly
rape under UK law, and the court so ruled.

"Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which
granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of
Assange’s accusers’ central claims [...] Emmerson is not vouching for the
accuracy of these accounts but merely offering them as summaries of the
charges against his client."

His lawyer was being quite careful not to say "yeah, my client had sex with a
sleeping woman without her consent, but it's okay!", he was saying "if the
complaint is true, and he did these things, it would still be okay". Which is
lucky for Assange, because the court has ruled that it really would not be
okay. :)

Source: [http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-
concede...](http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/)

~~~
contingencies
That's a pretty crappy source.

More informed parties with more understanding of the case, such as Eva Joly,
one of the most famous lawyers in Europe, is on Assange's side, and described
the Swedish 'minor rape' charges IIRC as being extremely particular to Sweden
and nothing like rape as other countries see it, in fact they should not be
called rape.

She felt so strongly about the improper handling of the case that she went to
Sweden visit the prosecutor to point out the tools available for moving the
case forward, but Marianne Ny refused to meet with her.

Similarly, "feminist icon Naomi Wolf" in a "debate with Jaclyn Friedman of
Women, Action & the Media on Democracy Now!" Wolf defended Assange as a victim
of political persecution:

 _“If you are going to take the issue of rape seriously,” Wolf said, “the
person who is engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, ‘I
don’t want this’ and again and again and again these women did not say, ‘this
is not consensual.’ Assange was shocked when these were brought up as
complaints because he had no idea that this was not a consensual situation.”_

I trust these people, with respect and hard won reputations to uphold, far
more than some student website.

~~~
DanBC
England has a variety of sexual offences laws. Even what he is alledged to
have done is not rape under English law it is a serious offence under similar
laws.

Here's the definition of rape:
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1)

~~~
Lazare
According to the UK courts, it actually precisely rape:
[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html)

Basically, rape is defined as penetration, without consent, and without a
reasonable belief in consent. Someone who is sleeping cannot consent, and you
cannot therefore have a reasonable belief in that person's consent (if you're
aware they're asleep, at any rate). Thus under UK law, an allegation of
penetration of a sleeping person is an allegation of rape.

(The law is the same in most US states, Canada, Australia, Scotland, NZ, and
many, but not all, European countries. Even places where it doesn't count as
rape, it's generally a serious crime. In Germany that would amount to an
allegation of "abuse of persons unable to resist", which can carry a stiff
penalty.)

~~~
contingencies
Untrue. This assertion is based on conflating the European Arrest Warrant
(issued post-haste with probable US involvement) with inflated accusations
with no grounding in evidence with the actual reality of the case. See
[http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-
assange.html#ALLEGATI...](http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-
assange.html#ALLEGATIONS) for an explanation.

------
dickbandit
Unless he can be smuggled out or airlifted, I can't see how he's going to
avoid being arrested by the cops waiting for him. If he's planning to hand
himself in, why not do it straight away?

~~~
eyko
They're probably in talks with the relevant UK government institutions. They
talk about a new climate, and that "the plan is for him to leave as soon as
the UK government decides to honour its obligations in relation to
international agreements and calls off the siege outside - it's as simple as
that."

~~~
Dolimiter
What's there to talk about? He's wanted for questioning over sexual assault
allegations. He doesn't get to have "talks" about that. He's not the messiah.

------
vjvj
It doesn't say where he is going to go. It seems to be a plea for support
rather than a bone fide plan. Can't imagine being constrained to the same
place for 2 years, horrible stuff.

~~~
Lazare
> Can't imagine being constrained to the same place for 2 years, horrible
> stuff.

Yep. A lot like prison, in fact. Which raises an interesting question: As this
drags on, at _some_ point wouldn't it have been easier for him to cooperate,
go to Sweden, and take his lumps? He could just about be out on parole by now;
instead he still has it hanging over his head.

The whole thing seems very short sighted; the UK and Sweden aren't going to
just get bored. Is he hoping to drag things out until he dies, or what?

~~~
jacquesm
It wasn't going to Sweden and taking his 'lumps' that Assange was afraid of,
it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after
being moved to Sweden. Assange (rightly or wrongly) believed strongly that the
chances of Sweden doing such an extradition were more likely than the UK doing
something similar. There is a lot of stuff about the rape charges that is
fairly suspicious, I'm not sure if the risk of extradition today is as large
as it was back when this all went down and maybe that figures into Assange's
decision to exit the embassy now.

If he goes to Sweden (which I would consider highly likely if he in fact does
exit the embassy and gets apprehended by the UK authorities) I suspect the
chances of him doing any significant jail time as a result of the case there
are slim, so then the only thing that he should still be worried about is
eventual extradition to the US on charges still to be brought, but the
spotlight will be very much on Sweden pulling any fast ones in the extradition
process there.

Time will tell.

~~~
Lazare
> it was being extradited to the US under a to-be-unveiled charge sprung after
> being moved to Sweden.

That's entirely impossible under EU law. If extradited to UK to Sweden, he can
_ONLY_ be extradited from Sweden with the consent of the UK.

Scenario A: The UK would agree (in which case, he didn't need to be extradited
to Sweden, as he was already in UK custody).

Scenario B: The UK would not agree (in which case, he cannot be extradited
from Sweden).

Nobody has ever been able to outline any way in which being extradited to
Sweden could have increased his risk of being extradited to the US. If the US
even wanted him; the UK is well known for rolling over to US extradition
requests, and _he was in UK custody for an extended period of time_. The
obvious conclusion is that the US is not especially eager to get their hands
on him, since they didn't _actually try_.

"Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more
difficult. [...] there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would
not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States [...]
the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is
whilst he is in the United Kingdom."

Source: [http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-...](http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition)

~~~
alkonaut
The last time the CIA picked up targets in Sweden it was a quick job with an
unmarked private jet headed for Egypt.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605.html)

Highly illegal, and had our foreign minister not been murdered, she would have
been held accountable as there was a huge outrage over the whole debacle. To
me this says two things: 1) "the law" didn't mean much last time, so Assange
is right to be careful 2) his public profile together with the last incident
in fresh memory means he is probably at very little risk to be treated
illegally in Sweden, especially as elections are coming up in September.

My guess: he'll go to Sweden, he'll be questioned by police, then let go.
Seeing as he spent a couple of years hiding to avoid this, he will probably
find this surprising, and no one else will.

~~~
mseebach
Off the top of my head, I would guess that out of UK, Sweden and Ecuador, the
latter presents by far the most suitable venue for extraordinary rendition.

------
hadoukenio
Julian: They have been trying to take you down at every step alone the way.
Now that they've broken you down, you should take them down with you.

Distribute the insurance file passwords before you exit the embassy!

------
contingencies
I can't believe how much misinformation exists in this thread. The facts are
available: (0) Everyone knows who he pissed off and how dirty they play (1)
The police transcripts were leaked almost immediately, which you can read to
get a strong sense of what is going on. (2) The extremely dodgy circumstances
around how the women actually got to the police have been published (one of
them, who previously worked for a CIA-linked company, took the other one) (3)
The extremely dodgy circumstances around how the police interviews were
conducted ("we'll write down what we think you're saying" instead of "we'll
record what you're saying") (4) The express wishes of the woman in question
(re: "I don't want any of this disclosed", "I don't want to press any
charges") were ignored by the police (5) The woman who took the other woman to
the police knew the police officer in question (6) The case was totally thrown
out of court (7) The case was replaced in court partly due to the involvement
of a lawyer who is also a politician (8) Leading human rights organizations,
EU lawyers, Sweden's own bar association and similar elevated persons have
united against the handling of the case. (9) Assange got explicit permission
to leave Sweden before doing so (10) The prosecutor in the case has neither
interviewed him remotely nor explained why she doesn't do so, except to
suggest he's guilty until proven innocent - ie. should be in Sweden when
questioned - so he can be locked up! (11) Politicians and the prosecution have
commented extensively in the media - so far that the head of the Swedish bar
association and numerous retired lawyers in Sweden called the case a "circus"
\- thus precluding a fair trial.

This is character assassination, pure and simple. Trial by media. There are of
course still more points, these are just off the top of my head. I saw the
sorry state of his Wikipedia article and took it upon myself to introduce some
of the facts, so became familiar with some of them. If anyone still thinks
it's a legitimate case at this point, I'm sorry, but they're just goddamn
stupid.

More info @
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange)

------
ps4fanboy
I still think being extradited for questioning is ridiculous

------
ps4fanboy
I really hope Sweden hands him over to the US, it will be a legacy they wont
ever escape.

~~~
exo762
For what? Treason? He is not a US citizen.

