
Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped - ourmandave
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33907874
======
Bohahahaha
"Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember
the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed
to be carrying Edward Snowden."

If you think of Sweden as ABBA, think again:

"In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had
discussed his onward extradition to the US."

"The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in
2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are
documented in successful civil litigation"

[http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-
of-a...](http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic-
struggle-for-justice)

~~~
stenl
From that link: "the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse
to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US
under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington."

Weeeell, maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can
guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings.

Also, note that Assange was obviously _in_ Sweden when the rape allegedly
happened, and only became conveniently afraid of extraditiom to US after those
allegations surfaced.

~~~
jbssm
"maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can
guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings."

An extradition is not a legal proceeding, it's a diplomatic one and being a
democracy they can very well agree not to engage in a diplomatic exchange
beforehand.

~~~
gamblor956
Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing
extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is
sought for charges not covered by the treaty.

~~~
ryanlol
Treaties are not laws.

~~~
arjunnarayan
> Treaties are not laws.

Well, I don't know what treaties are to the United Kingdom and Sweden, so I
can't speak to the relevant matter, but there is a _general sense_ (insofar as
"international law" can be thought of as an actual concrete thing) that
treaties _are_ laws. To the United States, for example, treaties are
explicitly treated as laws (see
[http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-...](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-
as-law-of-the-land.html)). Most other countries take their treaty obligations
very seriously, although the actual mechanics depend on each country's
legal/political system.

------
Bohahahaha
"On the day Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military
intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST -- publicly denounced
WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers."
Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told
by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would
be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him."

[http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-
of-a...](http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic-
struggle-for-justice)

------
Tloewald
There's a concrete dispute mentioned in the article. Assange says the Swedes
can interview him any time in the embassy, the Swedes say they've asked, and
been waiting months, for permission. The article blithely quotes these
conflicting statements and makes no attempt to find out who is telling the
truth or what the details are.

~~~
philh
I don't think those are quite conflicting. It sounds like Assange says he's
happy for the Swedes to do it, but the Swedes are saying they can't get
permission from Ecuador.

OTOH we have Assange saying "this Swedish official refused both", which could
be conflicting, but it's pretty vague.

~~~
nedwin
I read in an article posted here yesterday that the reason for the stalemate
is that Ecuador is demanding Sweden make statements to the effect that Assange
is in a legal asylum at the embassy. Sweden don't want to get involved in that
side of things, they just want to interview him and so have refused that
demand.

~~~
Tloewald
Ecuador has denied this:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/us-sweden-
assange-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/us-sweden-assange-
idUSKCN0QF1N820150810)

> The Ecuadorian embassy also said in its statement that no representative
> from Sweden has turned up on their steps to interview Assange.

> Karin Rosander, spokeswoman for Swedish Prosecution Authority, said a
> prosecutor had been to London in June, ready to question the Australian, but
> lacking necessary permissions, she had to return home without visiting the
> embassy.

So the prosecutor flew to London but wasn't willing to just take a taxi over
to the embassy and knock on the door?

~~~
_up
I think the necessary permissions missing were from her supperiors.

------
belorn
From the perspective of fact finding and evidence collecting, the case was for
all practical purposes finished August 31, 2010. The last interview occurred
that day which was with Assange, and there he was told of the charges against
him which was when he then told his side of the story. All this could be read
in the news papers a few days later thanks to the leaked investigation
documents.

------
Bohahahaha
Love this in the Guardian article:

"Sweden’s justice ministry said it welcomed Ecuador’s acceptance of its offer
of negotiations, but the Guardian understands the ministry rejected a proposal
by Quito to meet this week because officials were on holiday"

[http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/julian-
assange-...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/julian-assange-case-
progress-sweden-ecuador-negotiations-wikileaks)

------
rmc
The Ecudardian embassy/Assange demanded from the Swedes that they agree to
something that they legally cannot agree to before interviewing him. It's not
really fair to blame the Swedish authorities for that.

~~~
wereHamster
> that they agree to something that they legally cannot agree

I'm curious what that was.

~~~
cmdkeen
That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish
prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do.

There is a good writeup from a British legal blogger at
[http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-
limitation-...](http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-
and-the-next-eight-days/)

It's worth picking out as well that Assange faces British legal issues from
breaching his bail conditions. The bail set during his very lengthy legal
process which validated the Swedish process as just. The British legal system
isn't perfect but when you're a high profile individual with access to plenty
of fine legal minds it's about as good as you're going to get.

~~~
andyjohnson0
The extradition hearing took three days, which is hardly a "very lengthy
process". And it didn't validate the Swedish judicial process because that
isn't its function. An EAW extradition hearing in the UK is merely to
establish that an extraditable offence is alleged, that the party requesting
the extradition has standing, and that there are no Human Rights Act issues
[1]. Persons facing extradition on an EAW don't get to argue about the merits
of the allegations they're facing: that happens when they arrive in the
extraditing country.

[1] [https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-
review](https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review)

~~~
cmdkeen
Except many of the claims his supporters make, including in this thread, are
that what he allegedly did aren't actually crimes. The UK court system has
repeatedly held that they are analogous to UK sexual offences. Others have
argued that the Swedish prosecutor can't issue a warrant, again the Supreme
Court decided otherwise. Given the scope of the UK Human Rights Act, along
with the argued abuse of process claims, I'm not quite sure what objections to
the extraditions don't come under a heading that the court would look at.

The problem for Assange is that "but the Americans might try to extradite me,
and the Swedish and British courts might suddenly become supine" isn't a valid
reason to not be extradited.

~~~
pfg
I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to
a rape charge in Sweden. That makes sense. However, there's a difference
between acknowledging that and ruling on whether the allegations have merit.

They specifically didn't look at anything other than the allegations made on
the European Arrest Warrant. From the High Court decision:

> In respect of each offence, Mr Assange contended that the court should
> examine the underlying material from the prosecution file... [W]hat was
> provided contained the principal statements of the complainants and other
> material which made it obvious that the conduct of which he was accused was
> not fairly and accurately described in the EAW. [...]

> In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the
> prosecution file. [...]

~~~
rmc
So he wanted to be tried in the UK instead of Sweden?

~~~
pfg
That's not my point. It was implied that the High Court decision somehow
validated the charges against Assange, while all they did was confirm that,
yes, the UK do have laws against rape.

------
Bohahahaha
"A Freedom of Information request by the Hazel Press news organisation
revealed that Sweden has been granted 44 requests to interview a witness or
suspect in the UK since 2010."

[https://uk.news.yahoo.com/swedish-prosecutors-slammed-
victim...](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/swedish-prosecutors-slammed-victimising-
julian-assange-wikileaks-100414957.html)

------
brodo
> He still faces the more serious accusation of rape.

This should have been in the headline.

~~~
Sone7
The two women say they were not raped, and were railroaded by Swedish police.
So why exactly should that have been the headline?

~~~
hedwall
Yes, but the state can arrest you for rape in Sweden. It doesn't have to be an
accusation coming from any of the victims.

~~~
wavefunction
Certainly, but if the victims in the case don't feel that they've been raped,
perhaps that's more important than the technicalities of what the State may or
may not do.

~~~
afarrell
Rape is a crime defined by its elements, not by whether or not the victim
feels they were wronged. With all crimes, if a person commits a certain act
with a certain intent/state of mind, they've committed a crime and the
victim's feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Now, in a rape case, without
the cooperation and testimony of the victim it is very hard to present enough
evidence to convict a jury that the government has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that the crime's elements were all present.

If rape was defined just be whether or not the victim felt it was rape, the
victim could change their mind after-the-fact and Assange would go from not-
rapist to rapist (and possibly to not-rapist again) based on not on their own
actions by based on someone's feelings of guilt, anger, intimidation, or
forgiveness a month from the act. This only makes any sense if you view crimes
as being individual injuries to one person. But that isn't how criminal law
works. If I walk up to you in the middle of a hackathon and stab you in the
forearm, I have indeed harmed you and you can sue me for damages in civil
court. However, I have also harmed society, specifically that part of society
where people assume they can go to hackathon a without being stabbed.

A great source to learn about the fundamentals of criminal law and criminal
procedure is this page maintained by a former prosecutor who now works as s
defense attorney in NYC.
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5)

All of this should also apply on a smaller scale to communities with Codes of
Conduct: [http://thebias.com/2015/08/12/take-responsibility-for-
handli...](http://thebias.com/2015/08/12/take-responsibility-for-handling-
abuse/)

EDIT: I am not a lawyer and comments from a random person on the Internet do
not establish an a attourney-client relationship. For actual advice about
criminal or international law, please contact Nathan Burney, an actual lawyer
who also happens to maintain the illustrated educational resource that I've
linked to and I think is fantastic.

~~~
talmand
So, you are saying that while watering my lawn if I feel deep in my heart I'm
committing a crime then I am, in fact, committing a crime?

Plus your stabbing example doesn't explain anything since you would have
indeed physically harmed someone which is against the law in most
jurisdictions. Considering your rape/not-rape example, a better example is
that you would be arrested for thinking about stabbing someone in the arm as
you are placing your hand on that arm.

If I were on the jury for either of these examples, supposed victim says no
crime committed and the only evidence is the accusation from the state?
There's no way you could convince me to vote to convict.

~~~
afarrell
No, you need two things: the intent* and the act. If the act of watering your
lawn isn't an element of any crime, then you're fine.

If the victim says that the accused did X, Y, and then Z, that is a statement
of fact about what happened. If the victim then says that he doesn't think
that X, Y, and Z constitute a crime, that is a statement about the law..which
might just be incorrect.

* except for strict liability crimes like speeding

~~~
thekingofspain
The thing about rape is that the intent and the act are very much intertwined
with the victim's feelings of it. If the victim does not appreciate whatever
is going on, the onus is on the perpetrator to realize that and stop. Failure
to do so is "the act" and the intent is.. well, the state of mind where you do
not choose to find out/acquiesce to the other person's desires.

However, if the "victim" says there was no rape, and has never said so, then
the whole premise, including both the intent and the act, is unseated.

Disclaimer: I am no lawyer, and do not know much about this specific case.
These are just my intuitions about rape laws. I also believe that if the laws,
in fact, are much different from these ideas in spirit, they are SORELY off-
base.

~~~
CHY872
In this case, the alleged victim when interviewed described events that could
certainly constitute rape - for example waking up and finding Assange having
unprotected sex with her.

------
cinquemb
Are the Met Police still spending ~$16k per day on him?

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/londons-police-
is...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/londons-police-is-
spending-11-per-minute-to-stake-out-julian-assange/)

~~~
bruceb
I am sure 16k a day is a BS number anyway.

------
discardorama
The aim was to put a damper on is activities, and for the most part, it's been
achieved. The Ecuadorian embassy is practically a jail for him.

~~~
jacobr
The "aim", by who?

------
Bohahahaha
Assange was now 5yrs 'imprisoned', how much would he have gotten in Sweden on
the charges? (if proven guilty)

~~~
kiiski
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know much about Swedish law, but based on
Finnish law (which tends to be very similar to Swedish), the maximum combined
sentence for all the charges would have been 7 years in prison.

The combined sentence is capped to the maximum for the most severe charge plus
3 years (when the most severe max is at least 4 years). In this case the most
severe one is "lesser degree rape", for which the max is 4 years (that is
still open).

Based on what I've read about the case, I would have been very surprised if
the actual sentence was anywhere near the maximum. Probably more like a year
for the rape and another for the other three charges, if they even hold up in
court.

~~~
rmc
There's another sentence. For life, Julian Assange could be talked about as "a
convicted rapist".

------
1337biz
Anyone having some ideas how how one can support Ecuador for their willingness
to stand up for Assange?

I wonder how much pressure they have experienced from the US and EU over
granting him asylum.

------
Bohahahaha
"The Republic of Ecuador already made the sovereign decision to grant the
journalist Julian Assange asylum on 16 August 2012. At no point has the
Republic of Ecuador asked the Kingdom of Sweden to grant Mr. Assange asylum."

[http://reinounido.embajada.gob.ec/statement-by-the-
embassy-o...](http://reinounido.embajada.gob.ec/statement-by-the-embassy-of-
ecuador-to-the-united-kingdom-on-the-assange-matter/)

------
Qantourisc
Anyone considered having an appeal-able trial without his statement ? As I
understand the victims claim to be no victims of a crime.

But that's probably not allowed in the legal framework.

------
jamespo
Wonderful how Assange wants everything done on his terms, if I was accused of
a serious crime I'd want to be questioned from somewhere they couldn't extract
me from too.

~~~
vinceguidry
It's Ecuador demanding the terms, not Assange.

What makes this whole process so strange is the fact that there's multiple
countries involved. Each country has it's own idea of human rights, it's own
conception of judicial process. Judicial process in one country can easily
resemble a human rights violation in another. It's one of the reasons
political asylum exists. Ecuador granted Assange asylum because they recognize
the possibility of Assange being extradited to a country where he's never
resided for a political crime and possibly tortured for is a grave rights
violation.

Ecuador is now responsible for ensuring that those rights aren't violated.
They're the one's laying out the conditions, not Assange. It would make
Ecuador look bad if they allowed Sweden to take charge of him, and then he
ended up being extradited to the US by an organ that doesn't recognize his
asylum status in another country.

Everybody involved is just trying to do their jobs, it just takes a long time
to work everything out because the legal systems involved were never intended
to work like this. If it were just one system, it could work as designed.

~~~
rmc
> It's Ecuador demanding the terms, not Assange.

I'd be shocked if Assange didn't agree to them.

------
youngtaff
Oh such crocodile tears…

He could have avoided disappointment by allowing the Swedish authorities to
question him!

All that time he was stuck in a Norfolk mansion he could have travelled to
Sweden been questioned and if he was innocent as he claims be free to travel
the world again.

~~~
BasDirks
But wasn't he afraid of extradition?

~~~
fwn
Yep. But that is often left out. (No accusation intended. It's just something
people forget.)

~~~
cmdkeen
Well he became afraid of extradition conveniently at the point at which he was
facing extradition. Before then he was quite happy to spend lots of time in
the West apparently unconcerned by the threat. Something that is often left
out...

The UK was happy to extradite him to Sweden, we extradite people to the US as
long as they aren't going to be executed. So quite why the UK extraditing him
to Sweden who would then extradite him to the US is a plausible conspiracy
never really gets explained.

~~~
marrs
In fairness, most people only become afraid of something when they're facing
it.

As for the conspiracy theory, maybe it was the product of paranoid thinking. A
more obvious conspiracy theory to me is that the US saw an opportunity to
smear Assange and lent on Sweden to trump up the charges.

~~~
FireBeyond
And yet the best they could do was 'these girls who said that he had quasi
consensual ('I was sleeping') sex with them and want him to do a HIV test'?

That's a pretty low bar for a smear campaign.

