
Julian Assange unlikely to be charged in US - salient
http://www.smh.com.au/world/julian-assange-unlikely-to-be-charged-in-us-20131126-2y7uk.html
======
RyanZAG
Not a chance. They would charge him with whatever they could find - true or
not. Probably in a secret court no doubt.

~~~
sschueller
Or just kill him.

~~~
mhurron
Because if there is one thing the US is known for, it is waiting for legal
jurisdiction to kill someone.

If they were going to kill anyone ever for anything they didn't like, it would
have happened already to a whole lot of people. Life is not a James Bond film.

~~~
speeder
You mean, like it waited to kill a minor citizen that was in Yemen to visit
his father accused ( but never judged ) for terrorism?

~~~
bausson
I see what you did there.

I wonder what's wrong with me, it took me three times to understand what was
the weird stench coming from this sentence. I then understood than 'minor
citzen' thing you did. Well played, almost got me.

~~~
kelvin0
I must be slow as hell, I really can't see what you supposedly detected. Mind
explaining to the rest of the class?

~~~
bausson
I may have over-read it, but I understood it as than citizen being targeted
because of his presence in a third-rate country, and therefore by default a
possible terrorist and an affordable loose.

What is strange is the use of 'minor'. As far as I know, their is officially
no caste system in the US, so no minor or major citizenship. It may also be
another case of me over-reacting, 'minor' meaning in this situation 'only
one'.

.

I suppose the referred story is there:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-
kil...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-
grandson.html) but I don't know if it's the only time that happened. Close
enough I suppose.

~~~
entendre
Au contraire mon ami. The entendre is there. Look at the victim's age... the
victim is indeed a "minor" and a second class citizen in the US.

------
belorn
If the Department of Justice issue a official statement to this fact, then
Assange can leave the embassy and return to Sweden for that short interview
with the investigator.

Afterward if the Swedish prosecutors want to continue and go to court with
only one out of the two women as witness (the other one refuses to cooperate
with the prosecutor), and have a nice and likely quite short, then hey, that
would make for an interesting day or two in the news. No one really expect it
to be much more than that.

~~~
jafaku
He doesn't have to and obviously doesn't want to go to Sweden to answer any
questions.

Would you go to China to answer questions just because allegedly you have
broken some ancient law about sex costumes during your last trip there?

~~~
akjj
His proceedings have nothing to do with obscure laws or costumes. He is
accused of raping two women. Sweden is a democratic country with established
rule of law, unlike China.

~~~
jafaku
Do your research. What he is accused of is considered rape only in Sweden. It
wouldn't be considered rape in the US, the UK, or any other country except
that one.

------
bowlofpetunias
When it comes to what the US considers a security threat, being formally
charged would actually be a luxury.

------
waqf
"When the NYT does it, that means that it isn't illegal."

(In this case I agree that it isn't illegal, I just think that this kind of
reasoning from consequences is a funny way to run a country.)

------
mariuolo
This is just a trick to lure him out.

------
duiker101
if you were Assange, would you believe this? I wouldn't.

------
octo_t
you know what he should be charged with? rape. because he raped two women.

~~~
SwellJoe
I think you're being downvoted unfairly. It seems likely he crossed serious
boundaries. Forcing or sneaking unprotected sex after being asked repeatedly
to use a condom is pretty damned rape-y, and in some jurisdictions _is_
legally rape (and by my personal definition, it is rape...consent can be
withdrawn by either party at any point in the interaction).

So, yeah, he probably should answer for that behavior. I'd be willing to
believe that one woman lied to discredit him...I'm less willing to believe
that two women did so. Unless they were actually in the employ of government
agencies, in which case, he's merely imprudent.

Assange is, unfortunately, a very flawed sort of protagonist. Snowden and
Manning seem vastly more sympathetic, to me. Where Assange has a massive ego,
Snowden and Manning seem extremely humble...and I have a difficult time
imagining either being assholes that force themselves on others sexually. It's
a shame they're the ones facing the most serious charges.

~~~
gillianseed
Here is the view on the case from a female journalist who has covered rape law
for 23 years and is supporting women at rape centers (Naomi Wolf):

[http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-
with...](http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-
case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/)

Assange isn't even charged with anything, he is wanted 'for questioning' and
he has agreed to be questioned over video link but for some reason the police
demands that he comes here to Sweden to be questioned.

It's purely political, and the second he sets foot in Sweden (heck, probably
outside of the Equador embassy) he will be shipped off to the US.

~~~
icebraining
_Assange isn 't even charged with anything_

This is due to differences in the procedural law. Under the Swedish system, he
can't be charged until he's arrested and interrogated.

    
    
      According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be
      taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at.
      Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary
      investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is
      surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated. 
    

[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html)

The "but they haven't even charged him" is just disinformation.

 _for some reason the police demands that he comes here to Sweden to be
questioned._

"Some reason" being that he's a suspect who has evaded an arrest warrant.

~~~
gillianseed
First off it's a lie that Assange needs to come to Sweden for interrogation,
we (sweden) interrogate people abroad all the time, it's called 'Mutual Legal
Assistanced Treaty'.

So he can be interrogated in England or at the Equador embassy just fine.

After the first chief prosector dismissed the case directly, and another
prosecutor (Marianne Ny, who is a close friend of the womens attorney) brought
it up again a week later, Assange stayed in Sweden and was available for
questioning for four whole weeks!

Then he was told by swedish authorities through his lawyer that he was free to
leave Sweden and did, for England.

Three months later prosecutor 'Marianne Ny' issues a european arrest warrant
for suspicion of sexual harassment, so that they can question him which they
according to the prosecutor was unable to do during the four weeks he remained
in Sweden.

Also, neither of the two women went to the police to issue a rape accusation,
they wanted to know if they could force Assange to take a HIV test, as they
both had unprotected sex with him (the women were also friends).

Here is the actual preliminary investigation on which this 'case' is based,
it's in swedish naturally, but if you are able to read it/translate it you
will be absolutely clear on how this is all a sham and not even remotely
sexual harassment.

[http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-
avs...](http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-
assange?file=files/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-
assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf)

