
Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation - choult
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864
======
baldajan
Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed
interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1]. And before that, for years,
Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they
reluctantly accepted) [2].

As @belorn noted [3], the prosecutors had 3 options, and given it seems like
they didn't have enough to make a case or a plan to continue the
investigation, it had to be dropped.

Also note, that the UN has sided with Assange. As the confinement in the
Embassy is confinement. And he's been unjustly confined for a longer period
than the maximum penalty for rape in Sweden [4].

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-
idU...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-
idUSKBN1320UV)

[2] "He has offered to be questioned inside the embassy but the Swedish
prosecutors only recently agreed."
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/ecuador-to-let-
sw...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/ecuador-to-let-sweden-
interview-julian-assange-at-london-embassy/)

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14374161](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14374161)

[4] [https://www.rt.com/news/368746-un-ruling-free-
assange/](https://www.rt.com/news/368746-un-ruling-free-assange/)

~~~
staffanj
>Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed
interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1].

This is simply not true. The questions was asked by Ecuadorians and had to be
approved beforehand. Swedish prosecutors where allowed in the room but could
not talk to Assange. IE no follow up questions etc

~~~
k1m
Do you have any sources for how the interview took place? And any indication
that it was unfair? (I'm pretty sure Sweden would have refused to do it if
they were unhappy with the process.)

I don't know who asked the questions, or what the procedure was, but I read
the Swedish prosecutor's statement issued today and they do not mention the
London interview being an issue.

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

>It was established that the interview would be conducted by an Ecuadorian
prosecutor, with Isgren and a police officer present.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/14/date-set-
quest...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/14/date-set-questioning-
julian-assange-rape-allegation)

>According to Assange's lawyer, the "shape" of the questions was still being
discussed a week before the scheduled interview.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/07/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/07/julian-assange-to-
be-questioned-by-ecuador-over-allegation)

~~~
k1m
Thanks. Your original comment took issue with the statement that Assange was
indeed interviewed in London by Swedish prosecutors. You said "This is simply
not true." The issue for you seems to be that that the questions being put to
Assange weren't actually put to him by Swedish prosecutors directly. Even
though they _were_ the Swedish prosecutors' questions being put to him. That
doesn't sound like a huge issue to me, and I don't see why it should discount
the interview. Especially as the Swedish prosecutors themselves have not taken
issue with this aspect of the interview. It seems this was procedure they
agreed to.

------
r721
David Allen Green‏, Law and policy commentator at @FT:

>It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever)
wanted it.

>Now only UK's consent required, not UK and Sweden.

[https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/86550564980685619...](https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/865505649806856192)

~~~
vidarh
That assessment, though, is based on an assumption that Swedish authorities
would have complied with Swedish law. Part of Assanges fear of going to
Sweden, whether justified or not, is presumably that Sweden had a history of
letting Swedish police get away with blatantly violating Swedish law in
support of US rendition. One could argue that this risk is not real in his
case, but that is/was not relevant to whether or not it affected Assange's
concern about which country seemed safer.

Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the
Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that
"something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions.

In any case, UK courts have a history of taking extradition hearings very
seriously, and there are ample opportunities to appeal both to UK courts, the
ECHR, and (for the time being) to the ECJ, so it'd by no means be easy to get
him from the UK direct.

~~~
notahacker
If Assange truly feared the police _blatantly violating Swedish law_ in
support of rendition, then it would seem strange for him to base himself in
Sweden, remain in the country whilst being well aware of the investigation
under way against him and leave only on the day they notified him they'd
received legal authorisation to detain him. And then repeat the whole thing in
the UK...

~~~
vidarh
They had closed the case, and notified him of that. Then a new prosecutor
reopens the case and goes after him.

The point is that Sweden might very well have seemed perfectly safe despite
those past actions _until_ a prosecutor took those steps which still seems
exceedingly odd.

To have one prosecutor say there was no case to answer, only to have another
prosecutor specifically go after the case and reopen it, is uncommon to say
the least.

~~~
notahacker
(i)The case was _very publicly_ reopened the week after it had been announced
it was being dropped. I mean, it's not like headlines like this would have
escaped Assange's notice [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-
investig...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-
investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html)

Assange spent 26 more days in the country and then flew out hours after his
arrest warrant was signed.

(ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor
overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor following an appeal
from the alleged victims' lawyer and an interview with the accused. Especially
when it's a one-party's word against another's case and the accusing party had
initially seemed reluctant to pursue a prosecution.

~~~
draugadrotten
> ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor
> overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor

The prosecutor who dismissed the case was senior, and not junior in any sense
of the word, rank or age.

You say it's not unusual (in Sweden). I've never seen a single example of
another rape case which was dismissed and reopened in this manner. Can you
give a few examples of other re-opened Swedish rape cases, seeing that it's
"not unusual" from your point of view.

~~~
bjourne
> > ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor
> overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor

> The prosecutor who dismissed the case was senior, and not junior in any
> sense of the word, rank or age.

Marianne Ny was Överåklagare and she was senior to Eva Finnè who had the title
Chefsåklagare. According to her, she reopened the case because new relevant
information had become available.

> Can you give a few examples of other re-opened Swedish rape cases, seeing
> that it's "not unusual" from your point of view.

It's rare but it happens: [http://www.nsd.se/nyheter/forundersokning-om-
valdtakt-aterup...](http://www.nsd.se/nyheter/forundersokning-om-valdtakt-
aterupptas-5493837.aspx)
[https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vast/forundersokning-om-
va...](https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vast/forundersokning-om-valdtakt-mot-
barn-aterupptas)
[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artik...](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=569547)

------
Sephr
What about the secret US charges?

I honestly don't understand how in our democracy there is even such a concept
as "secret charges". It just sounds mind-bogglingly corrupt and out of place.

~~~
sschueller
There is a "kill list" [1] which is unbelievable on its own so I don't see
this as much of a stretch.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix)

~~~
skrebbel
Oh my god. If Trump would introduce something like that the entire internet
would explode.

~~~
joshschreuder
"If"?

~~~
arethuza
I think the relevant part of the page being "Developed by the Obama
administration beginning in 2010"

~~~
dahart
I'm not sure why that's the relevant part, but the part of the Obama
administration responsible was CIA director Brennan, who was doing similar
stuff during the G.W. Bush administration and just happened to give it an
official name while Obama was around.

It's nowhere near the first kill list the US has had, it's just the first one
called "Disposition Matrix". Previous administrations had other names. For
example:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_actions_of_the_CIA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_actions_of_the_CIA)

------
contingencies
Congratulations Julian! It's been a long time coming.

On a related note, for those unaware, the asylum seekers who helped Snowden
escape Hong Kong are currently under threat of being sent back to their own
countries (which they left for various reasons including violence, torture and
rape). Snowden has called for people to help them. 56% of the €100k goal has
been raised so far.

[https://www.gofundme.com/snowdenguardians](https://www.gofundme.com/snowdenguardians)

~~~
cjrp
Really? We're congratulating people who successfully skip bail now?

~~~
k__
Didn't they setup fake accusations to destroy his reputation and make it
easier to let the US imprison him?

I thought this all was pretty obvious :/

~~~
iddqd
The rape victim is still holding on to these "fake" accusations even after 7
years. Strange eh?

~~~
gribbly
Who knows, the accuser, Anna Ardin left Sweden for Israel shortly after making
the accusations and has not made a single comment since then as far as I know.

~~~
bjourne
Doesn't twitter count?
[https://twitter.com/therealardin](https://twitter.com/therealardin) If you
mean that she hasn't made "a single comment" about the allegations, then it is
possibly so that she is a public figure and doesn't want to be "the girl who
accused Assange of rape" for the rest of her life.

------
belorn
It should be noted that the prosecutor had three options:

1: Drop the charges.

2: Drop the arrest order but continue the investigation. To do so require a
plan which would progress the investigation.

3: Charge Assange with rape, arguing that the evidence collected so far is
enough for a case.

And we got the first option, and thus we can conclude that the prosecutor
don't have enough evidence to go to court and have no plans on how to further
the investigation.

~~~
rmc
Well if you cannot question the accused, it sort of limits what evidence you
can collect...

~~~
belorn
That question was tested by the Swedish court, and they found that the
prosecutor was able to continue the investigation by questioning Assange in
the embassy through an agreement between the Ecuador and Sweden. This decision
to drop the case was partial because of the result of that interview.

~~~
efraim
That interview was led by a prosecutor from Ecuador. The Swedish prosecutor
and police was only allowed to be present, so they could not question Assange
as they wanted.

~~~
nailer
Edited:

You're right. The Swedish prosecutor and police were present but indeed the
questions were posed on their behalf.

> On Monday morning, a Swedish deputy chief prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren, and a
> police inspector, Cecilia Redell, arrived at the Ecuadorean Embassy, in the
> Knightsbridge section of West London, as journalists gathered outside.

I don't think this means that Sweden didn't get the chance to ask question
though - and if there were any they were prevented from asking, I'm sure they
would have stated this in the aftermath.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/world/europe/assange-
wiki...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/world/europe/assange-wikileaks-
rape-sweden.html?_r=0)

~~~
efraim
Did you read your link? Ecuador was the one that shut him out and the
questions were asked by a prosecutor from Ecuador.

>The questions were prepared by prosecutors in Sweden, where an arrest warrant
for Mr. Assange was issued in 2010, but were posed by a prosecutor from
Ecuador under an agreement the two countries made in August.

>“For some reason that I am not aware of, I am not on the list of approved
persons that Ecuador has established,” Mr. Samuelsson told Radio Sweden.

~~~
nailer
Amended.

~~~
efraim
The Swedish prosecutor has said that they hoped to get a sample of Assange's
DNA during the interview, but since it was carried out by a prosecutor from
Ecuador that seems unlikely and I haven't seen anything about them getting it.

~~~
gribbly
What on earth would they need DNA for ?

Assange has already stated that he had sex with both women.

------
dalbasal
I suppose the ball is now in the US' court .

Assange is a strange case, hes (Wikileaks is) really a journalist, and should
be protected by laws and conventions protecting journalists. But he doesn't
seem to identify too strongly with the press and presents more like a
political dissident.

I used to live in Melbourne (where wikileaks is sort of based). I stopped to
sign a petition in his support. The petition mentioned Assange at the top of a
long list of dissident left issues: release off-shore asylum seekers, withdraw
from afgahnistan, free palestine, jail Blaire & Bush, stop Tasmanian timber
harvests, overturn some ruling on Aboriginal land title... They were also
inviting people to a dissident-socialist gathering later on that day.

Now, I don't want to misrepresent the situatoin. This wasn't Wikileaks
petitioning. It was a local activist group promoting their agendas, headlined
by the Assange cause. That said, I do think it's kind of indicative of how
present themselves & why the Assange debate is associated with the Manning or
Snowden cases. They were US operatives "gone rogue." He wasn't. He was just a
journalist receiving and diseminating leaked information.

I in now way suggesting the protections of a free press system are mooted
because he doesn't act or present recognizably as a journalist. But I do think
that statements like the CIA Director's (Wikileaks is a hostile non-state
actor) would be a lot harder to say if he presented as " Senior Editor of The
Wikileaks Times."

~~~
mcv
When he still was just a journalist receiving and disseminating leaked
information, I supported him. But after the Manning leaks, his power seems to
have gone to his head, and he thought he could get away with anything.

Journalists need to be protected from persecution for their work as
journalism, but they don't get a free license to violate laws in completely
unrelated cases. Rape is still rape.

And his recent grandstanding trying to manipulate elections through mostly
bluff, is really disgusting. I'm done with him. He doesn't stand for anything
I support anymore.

~~~
empath75
Actually, I think it wasn't the manning papers, it was being locked up in the
Ecuadorian embassy, where the Russians were free to compromise him.

~~~
mcv
That happened later. He was already becoming somewhat unhinged well before
that. Though living for years locked in an embassy probably hasn't done him
much good either.

------
beilabs
I wonder if the UK taxpayer will be asking some questions about the
justifications of policing the embassy? A pretty abysmal ROI.

So, will the police presence now simply disappear?

~~~
matt4077
I really don't think ROI of individual cases should be a benchmark for the
justice system (or, actually, a lot of the processes of democracy).

There are endless reasons against, but just to state an obvious one:
prosecution should not depend on the subject's ability to raise the costs for
the government–both because it would create an incentive for such shenanigans,
as well further tilting the justice system in favour of the rich.

------
panglott
No mention of the alleged victims in the OP?

Here's the NYTimes story:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/world/europe/julian-
assan...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/world/europe/julian-assange-
sweden-rape.html)

'Elisabeth Massi Fritz, who represents the woman who accused Mr. Assange of
rape, issued a scathing response after the prosecutors abandoned the case.

“A legal examination is very important for someone who has been raped, as is
the possibility for redress,” she said. “In this case, there have been many
turns and the wait has been very long. My client is shocked and no decision to
shut the case down can get her to change her position that Assange raped
her.”'

~~~
jameslk
There is a mention of the plaintiff in the original article:

> The plaintiff in the rape case was "shocked" by the decision, her lawyer
> said, and maintained her accusations against Mr Assange, Agence France-
> Presse reported.

------
tontonius
According to his Swedish defence lawyer Per E Samuelson, Assange sent a text
immediately after being noticed: "Seriously? Oh my god!"

Question kind of still remains: how "free" is he now?

~~~
sschueller
He still can't leave. The US is just going to kidnap him off the streets of
London. Wouldn't be the first time.

~~~
mootothemax
>He still can't leave. The US is just going to kidnap him off the streets of
London. Wouldn't be the first time.

When was the last time the US kidnapped someone from London's streets?

~~~
scandox
I think you're being a tad literal there. The last case I remember was Hassan
Mustafa Osama Nasr who was kidnapped in Italy and brought to Egypt by the CIA
in 2005. Italy's streets are not less intrinsically sacred than England's.

~~~
mootothemax
>I think you're being a tad literal there. The last case I remember was Hassan
Mustafa Osama Nasr who was kidnapped in Italy and brought to Egypt by the CIA
in 2005. Italy's streets are not less intrinsically sacred than England's.

I'm being literal on purpose.

Look at the other replies to me; everyone talks about the CIA, yourself
included, and ignores the fact that Italy was working hand-in-hand with the
CIA:

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

That's _very_ different, and it remains absolutely disgusting nonetheless.

~~~
scandox
Ok, so is it your contention that the UK would not co-operate in similar
fashion? And, if so, why? Genuine sense of political autonomy or PR?

~~~
mootothemax
> Ok, so is it your contention that the UK would not co-operate in similar
> fashion? And, if so, why? Genuine sense of political autonomy or PR?

My contention is that the US would not kidnap him from London's streets.

Word choice is important; I'm sick to the back teeth of hyperbole backed up
with "wouldn't be the first time."

~~~
ionised
Is it hyperbole when it has actually happened before?

Surely a precedent means the suggestion is not hyperbolic?

------
hardlianotion
Not sure where this leaves him. He is wanted by UK police for skipping bail.
Presumably his US concerns still complicate his living arrangements for now.

~~~
Darthy
Since he skipped bail for something which is now dropped, doesn't that move
back up and nullify his wanted status as well?

Or is there a process that he could now start, like "remove my wanted status
because there is no point now", and that would then get decided by some
organization?

~~~
hardlianotion
No. He gave his bonded word that he would give himself up, which is what the
bail was about, then went back on it. That has consequences that are not
automatically overlooked.

------
chx
Is there a good article -- does even anyone know? -- on how did Wikileaks turn
from a whistleblower into a mouthpiece of the Kremlin?

Edit: some examples:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/10/should_the_press_consider_wikileaks_motives.html)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2017/03/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2017/03/03/was-wikileaks-low-hanging-fruit-for-news-organizations-
to-act-as-kremlin-tools/)

~~~
ionised
You know, I harbour a lot of anti-American sentiment too (US government that
is, the American people seem mostly fine) and I frequently speak up about it.

Does that make me a Russian agent/mouthpiece/troll too?

~~~
fsagadhadffsh
Of course, comrade! From the left's point of view everyone is a Nazi, Fascist,
Kremlin puppet. /s

~~~
ionised
But I am absolutely a 'lefty'.

~~~
Sunset
They have a word for that too now. You're apparently a brocialist.

------
geekpowa
Stars align in strange ways. Chelsea Manning walked free from prison a couple
of days ago. so will Assange honour promise made an Jan or will he weasel out
of it.

------
throw2016
The hypocrisy is stunning. Chinese or Russian governments harassing whistle
blowers and leakers on this scale would be met by a frenzy of hysterical
global condemnation by the media, human rights orgs, governments and citizens
with their domestic courts systems summarily dismissed and pay a price in
global reputation and even sanctions.

Yet here we have Snowden and Assange being harassed brazenly for years with
little respite under the cover of 'process'. If Snowden or Assange were
Russians and defected to reveal global Russian surveillance they would be
legends feted by every single media organization, university, NGO and
government every single day. Why the double standards.

It appears some are more intoxicated by the moral high ground than committed
to it.

Kangaroo courts, secret processes and harassment of whistle blowers and
journalists are the tools of trade of despots whether used brazenly by
unsophisticated tinpots or covered in process by governments and their courts
in the UK, Sweden and the US. The end effect is the same. Simply covering
inherently despotic and corrupt action with law and 'processes' does not make
it lawful.

But the big difference is chinese or russian citizens are under no illusions
about their rulers while we see a dissonance in our citizens, media and
organizations rushing to condemn others while completely failing to hold our
governments accountable in any meaningful way.

How have Swedish and UK citizens, the media and all human rights orgs from
western europe experts at creating global frenzy against despots worldwide
held their own governments to account, or helped Snowden or Assange in any
meaningful way all these years? So ultimately there is no accountability. Only
blatant self serving hypocrisy.

~~~
Kiro
> How have Swedish and UK citizens, [...] helped Snowden or Assange in any
> meaningful way in all these years?

Well, since I believe he's guilty of rape I have no interest in helping him.

~~~
throw2016
Since even the lady in question has not accused him of rape I wonder where
your belief emanates from?

You just can't believe someone is guilty, there has to be due process to
decide guilt and the court itself has dropped charges. So there is no basis
for your beliefs.

Dissidents have traditionally faced trumped up charges. It's predictable that
Assange would too. When charging dissidents the evidence and process has to be
extraordinary and beyond reproach. But there are too many issues with the case
and it makes the Swedish justice system look corrupt.

~~~
Kiro
> The plaintiff in the rape case was "shocked" by the decision, her lawyer
> said, and maintained her accusations against Mr Assange, Agence France-
> Presse reported.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39973864](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39973864)

------
gregman1
That is very very bad for Sweden because it proves that it was a low class
political game so Sweden cannot be viewed as an independent state.

~~~
Numberwang
No it does not prove any such thing.

~~~
ageofwant
It was blindingly obvious that it was. Sweden's reputation took a huge hit
because of this incident, and rightly so. They should have resolved the matter
within 6 months. But it became such a hot potato that they were willing to
sacrifice a man's live, and demonstrated to the world that principles and
truth is inconsequential when the bully is sitting on your chest. The stench
of this shit will cling to Sweden for generations.

~~~
youngtaff
Whether Swedens's reputation took a hit is a matter of opinion.

If he was innocent why didn't he go back to Sweden and face the charges?

All the stuff about the risk of US extraditing him in nonsense, they'd find it
easier to do from the UK.

All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual
assault.

~~~
micheljones
At the time, Sweden was a better candidate for extradition because it has less
limitations on extradition than UK in Assange's case (because he is a
Commonwealth citizen).

As for the 'if he was innocent', I see this argument quite often, and I have
only this to say: his self-imposed punishment of being locked up in a closet
for 5 years is worse than any possible punishment he would have received for
the crime he was accused of. So tell me, if he was only looking to avoid
punishment for the crime he commited, why did he impose an even worse
punishment on himself?

~~~
youngtaff
Because he's a narcissist and martyrdom suits his ego

(and perhaps he figured it would come to exile in an embassy, or for so long)

~~~
micheljones
So, for negative conclusions about Assange we need to apply Occam's razor (if
he's innocent why didn't he turn himself in), but for positive conclusions
about him we need to avoid that and invent more and more complex, evasive
answers?

Thank you for your help in getting president Donald Trump elected.

Sincerely,

A Russian Bot

------
walkingolof
Article in English, by a Swedish newspaper, about the why
[http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/swedish-prosecutor-drops-
ca...](http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/swedish-prosecutor-drops-case-against-
julian-assange/)

------
hosker4u
Well - he will certainly be charged in the UK for breach of bail conditions if
he steps out of that embassy.

------
tontonius
Press conference held by Director of Public Prosecutions, Marianne Ny, listen
here:
[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default.aspx?programid=4540](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default.aspx?programid=4540)

Held both in Swedish and English

------
tray5
Anyone know why they dropped it?

~~~
coldtea
Because it was a shady "character assassination" attempt without real standing
in the first place...

    
    
      "*The woman of whom Mr. Assange is accused of the offence 
      of "lesser rape" (a technical term in Swedish law) sent an 
      SMS to a friend saying that she "did not want to accuse JA 
      [of] anything" and "it was the police who made up the 
      charges". The other woman tweeted in 2013 that she had 
      never been raped. Both women’s testimonies say that they 
      consented to the sex. A senior prosecutor already dismissed 
      the ’rape’ accusation, saying that there were no grounds 
      for accusing Mr. Assange on this basis. But a third 
      prosecutor, lobbied by a politician who was running for 
      attorney general, took over the investigation and 
      resurrected the accusations against Mr. Assange.* [1]"
    

That's what happens when you mess with the big powers (and of course it
doesn't stop to the "politician who was running for attorney general" being a
single bad apple).

[1] [https://justice4assange.com/](https://justice4assange.com/)

~~~
notahacker
Strangely, the women's lawyers had a slightly different view of their desire
to pursue the matter through the court than the Assange campaign to prevent
the matter going to trial.

It stretches credulity to argue that responsibility for the affair lies more
with the "big powers" than the decision of two apparently major fans to report
him to the police after comparing notes on his sexual behaviour. And
suggesting the "bad apple" most at fault for the whole affair is somehow the
second prosecutor to look at the case is just unhinged.

Ultimately it was pursued then dropped then pursued then dropped because murky
allegations of sexual impropriety are difficult to make up stand up in court,
even when the alleged perpetrator isn't an articulate celebrity with an
excellent defence team and the accusers desperately want him off the streets.
If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker
on much more straightforward charges without the opportunity to change
jurisdictions and identify new angles to try to dismiss the whole thing on a
technicality.

~~~
crdoconnor
>Strangely, the women's lawyers had a slightly different view of their desire
to pursue the matter through the court than the Assange campaign to prevent
the matter going to trial.

You mean the politician-lawyer Claes Borgstrom who was subsequently fired by
the woman in question because he wasn't representing her and "he just wanted
to be attached to a high profile case"?

Yeah, nothing suspicious about that.

>It stretches credulity to argue that responsibility for the affair lies more
with the "big powers" than the decision of two apparently major fans to report
him to the police

"They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-
up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate." \-- GCHQ officer,
"straining credulity" with their wacky conspiracy theory.

>And suggesting the "bad apple" most at fault for the whole affair is somehow
the second prosecutor to look at the case is just unhinged.

Because cases being dropped and then picked up again suddenly by people _much_
higher up the political food chain isn't at all suspicious. That's just
unhinged...

>If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker
on much more straightforward charges

Aside from the whole "first amendment" problem which prevented the
straightforward charges, rape is a much better charge than treason if you can
make it stick. It kills his credibility and prevents him from being martyred
(like happened to Chelsea Manning).

~~~
notahacker
> You mean the politician-lawyer Claes Borgstrom who was subsequently fired by
> the woman in question because he wasn't representing her and "he just wanted
> to be attached to a high profile case"? >Yeah, nothing suspicious about that

No. I mean Elizabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer who is currently making
statements on their behalf that it is "a scandal that a suspected rapist can
avoid the judicial system and thus avoid a trial in court" and that despite
the prosecutor's latest decision her client "can't change her view that
Assange has exposed her to a rape", having frequently issued statements
calling for a trial over the past few years.

The fact they sacked Borgstrom _and hired someone else to continue to pursue
the case against Assange_ actually undermines the Assangist theory that
actually the whole thing was a conspiracy by the authorities that his accusers
had no agency in.

Yes, it is entirely unhinged (or staggeringly ignorant of how legal systems
work) to suggest that a case based entirely on apparently-reluctant witness
testimony being reopened on appeal by a more senior prosecutor after an appeal
from the hitherto-reluctant accusers' lawyer and interview with the suspect is
more likely to be evidence of a conspiracy than a properly functioning legal
system.

~~~
coldtea
> _actually undermines the Assangist theory that actually the whole thing was
> a conspiracy by the authorities that his accusers had no agency in._

The thing being a conspiracy and his accusers having agency in it, are
orthogonal matters.

------
pdimitar
Maybe this is just a bait so he goes out and is easier to apprehend?

The way the laws are, they can be bent to serve almost any agenda, given high
enough payment to a skilled prosecutor.

------
mootothemax
Five years living in a single room, not able to leave or walk outside.

Millions of pounds/dollars spent enforcing the same.

A gigantic show of idiocy from both sides.

~~~
dullgiulio
All he had to do was answer some questions to the Swedish prosecutor.

I still fail to understand why Sweden, NOT a NATO member, would have been more
dangerous than the UK. Also, Sweden is not exactly the worst place in the
world to spend prison time (which was only the worst case scenario.)

Answer the questions, clarify everything, and walk free. He chose himself not
to answer. He chose to dump all the rich people who paid for his bail.

He was always able to leave the embassy to go to Sweden for an interview.

~~~
icebraining
Not being a NATO member doesn't mean they don't collaborate with the CIA:

 _Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to
CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both
men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in
Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. (...) Despite post-
return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt._

[https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-
torture-...](https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-
cia-rendition)

~~~
dullgiulio
Just to be clear, it's two Egypitians being transferred to Egypt. Assange is
not American.

The case you quote is obviously a violation of International Law, but it
doesn't make me more suspicious for the fate of Assange in Sweden.

~~~
vidarh
It's two egyptians asylum seekers being illegal black-bagged and handed to a
foreign power who turned around and handed them to the country they were
fleeing.

It was not just a violation of international law, but a violation of Swedish
law which the relevant police officers were not punished for.

So it is an indication that Swedish police can illegally pick people off the
streets of Sweden, treat them in a way that is blatantly illegal, illegally
hand them off to a foreign power, and not be charged with anything.

Maybe that is not enough to make _you_ more suspicious, but the question is
whether or not it gave _Assange_ more reason to be concerned.

------
cannonpr
Sigh, about time, even for the US this was starting to drag, I wonder how much
it had become about saving face ? Either for the US actors or the Swedish
assets.

------
faragon
That's arbitrary. And scary.

------
gadders
I wonder if he will now pay back the people that put up bail for him:

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-
supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail)

------
grabcocque
The UK police will arrest him for obstruction of justice the moment he tries
to leave the wardrobe he's hiding in.

He'd probably be convicted, which carries a maximum sentence of [EDIT] 1 year
in prison.

~~~
wbhart
Can seeking asylum be used as a reason for bringing charges against someone?
As far as I understand, exercising legal options cannot ever be interpreted as
an illegal act. I think it's much more likely the UK will pick Assange up on
behalf of the US, who have threatened to charge him.

~~~
grabcocque
IANAL, but fleeing from an arrest warrant is very definitely illegal in the
UK.

~~~
Arnt
Illegal, yes, but is it still prosecutable if/after the arrest warrant has
been dropped?

~~~
ascorbic
Yes. Failure to surrender is a separate offence. The Met has already said that
he's still wanted in connection with that charge, but they'll be scaling back
resources as it's a much less serious offence than rape.

------
jaboutboul
All I can say is... WOW.

