
Swedish court upholds arrest warrant for Julian Assange - mvanvoorden
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28328806
======
belorn
When ever we read new articles about Sweden vs Assange, we have to keep in
mind that the wishes of the two women in the dcase is not represented by any
side.

This does make this case a bit strange. The woman in this case went to the
police in order to ask them if it was possible to force a person to take a HIV
test. While there she explain how she was half-asleep when Assange initiated
un-safe sex, and when she heard about his other sexual partners a few days
later she became concerned. When she contacted Assange about a HIV test, he
brushed the concept off, which is why she were there at the police station
asking them for help.

The result was by all reports (ie news papers), not what she wanted. They
charged Assange for rape, which resulted in that she broke of any
communication with the police and prosecutor, and refused to sign the written
report from the police station.

Now, criminal case do not need that the woman agree with the charges, but it
makes for a strange case. It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is
all for. All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a
partner they previously that day/night had sex with?

~~~
rmc
In the 1990s, Micheal Jackson was being investigated for child sexual abuse.
He settled out of court with the family of a boy, and they dropped the
charges, meaning the case fell apart. California (/USA?) changed the law so
that the child/family cannot choose to drop charges like that, and they went
after Jackson again.

If the victim of a crime can often be pressured/forced into dropping cases,
there can be good reasons to prevent the victim from doing it, to ensure
justice is done.

~~~
belorn
If pressure or force is applied, then yes that would server justice.

But this case is not about a woman that got pressured or forced to dislike the
case. Her objective, and her statements has so far been very clear on that
point. We have to actually admit that a woman can, as a person, disagree with
the decision of the prosecutor.

A child sexual abuse is distinctly different in that a child is normal not
held to be able to make that decision. We assume that either the family or the
state will do it for them. I strongly object bunching together women and
children as individuals that need to have their decision been made by someone
else, as that reeks of old-style sexism.

~~~
notahacker
> Her objective, and her statements has so far been very clear on that point.

Yes. They very clearly made accusations in statements to the police, hired a
high-profile lawyer to very aggressively press the case after the initial
decision to close it and did not retract the allegations.

One of them (the one _the Assange defense team claims_ expressed reluctance to
pursue the case in unseen correspondence) got fed up with that lawyer, fired
him, and ended up with another one who issued the following very clear
statement of her position:

 _My client has the right to her day in court for the rape she 's reported to
the police and for which Assange is today suspected of. She has the right as a
plaintiff to have her case tried in a customary way in accordance with the
Swedish judicial system.

The rape Assange is suspected of has left deep scars and meant a serious
violation of her personal integrity. The violation is especially serious and
the psychological symptoms are there every day. Assange's behaviour and
prolonging of the preliminary investigation in this case exacerbate the
suffering of my client when the preliminary investigation does not move
forward. The wait is long and the suffering great.

Speculations in the media have been many and directly erroneous. This
preliminary investigation is about suspicion of rape for the part concerning
my client. There is no form of conspiracy as has been claimed by the media. My
client is both a plaintiff and a crime victim just as many others I represent
daily in numerous cases. Her rights as a plaintiff shall not be forgotten in
the process._

[Pro-Assange] source for the statement:
[http://rixstep.com/1/20130526,00.shtml](http://rixstep.com/1/20130526,00.shtml)

~~~
belorn
> hired a high-profile lawyer to very aggressively press the case after the
> initial decision to close it and did not retract the allegations.

hmmm, got source for that statement? Hiring laywers is the exception in
Sweden, and the common method is for the state to provide one to everyone
involved.

In this case however, it seems that lawyers are being paid by outside parties
or provided pro-bono. That means to me that I will take such statements with a
slight of salt in favor of direct statements from the person herself. There is
a bit too much media circus to take such statements as representable of their
client, when the client is not the person paying the bill...

------
adityab
> _A Swedish court has ruled that an arrest warrant against Wikileaks founder
> Julian Assange on charges of sexual assault will stay in place._

This article uses certain terms very loosely and irresponsibly.

No "charges" have been brought against Assange (yet). The _prosecution_ claims
to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so in the embassy or
remotely.

Indeed, this FUD-like assertion about "charges" keeps floating about so much
that the Wikipedia article about the case has an explict section[1] about
that.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#No_charges_exist)

~~~
notahacker
The FUD-like assertion about "the prosecution claims to want to question him,
but has turned down offers to do so..." keeps floating about so much that the
paragraph immediately below in that very same Wikipedia article expresses the
_actual_ position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal
procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody
before the charge is formally made (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order
to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not
simply because they "want to question him" (iii) based on information they
presently have he _will_ be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he
provides them with a very good reason not to.

"Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he
should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter.
It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting
criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our
enquiries"

~~~
adityab
> _expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish
> legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in
> custody before the charge is formally made_

My statement that the prosecution has refused offers to question him by other
easy means is entirely factual and not FUD-like. Perhaps I should not have
used that acronym, it triggers too many strong reactions. ;-)

You yourself quote from the Wikipedia article that the "brought into custody"
requirement is, in fact, not a requirement of the Swedish legal procedures,
but is the _position of the prosecution_. The legality of said
requirement/interpretation is, among other things, up for debate in this
proceeding.

> _(ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to
> charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to
> question him" _

In Swedish law, "charges can be laid only after extradition and a second round
of questioning". Questioning him is a prerequisite to placing charges. Of
course they want to charge him, but that is another matter. They need to jump
through the proper hoops.

> _(iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he
> ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not
> to._

Wrong (AFAIK).

1\. A whole round of questioning and presentation of reasons has to be done
before you can charge someone. I am not an lawyer, but this is what Swedish
law requires, apparently. The burden of reasonable suspicion is on the
Prosecution, not the Defense.

2\. It is yet to be decided, legally speaking, if Assange has been evading
arrest. One argument presented by the Defense is that the entire _holed-up-in-
the-embassy-for-years_ situation is equivalent to house arrest.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

~~~
notahacker
The technicalities are many and complex, and Assange's legal team has appealed
the extradition order on a wide range of technicalities and thus far failed in
all of them. But it's beyond dispute that the prosecution claims to want a lot
more than mere questions, and it's Assange who has refused to remain in a
position which allows for the usual legal process to run its course.

The wider question is whether it is more accurate to claim that Assange has
not yet been formally charged with the offences (or had the charges thrown
out) (i) because the Swedish prosecution is refusing requests or (ii) because
Assange did not respond to attempts by the prosecution to contact him whilst
in Sweden (as verified by his own legal representatives), left Sweden on the
day an arrest warrant was issued, and then following arrest and bail in the UK
took the unusual option of relocating himself outside the reaches of the
British police whilst fighting the extradition order in the courts.

I would suggest it's near impossible to believe the former factor is the
primary reason no formal decision on charges has been made, even if one feels
the rape allegations are extremely unlikely to be true and Assange has good
reason to be afraid.

------
teddyh
Official verdict from the Stockholm District Court, in English:
[http://domstol.se/Om-Sveriges-Domstolar/Sveriges-
Domstolars-...](http://domstol.se/Om-Sveriges-Domstolar/Sveriges-Domstolars-
pressrum/Nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/Beslut-i-fraga-om-haktning-i-utevaro--
Decision-concering-a-detention-order/)

------
vidarh
That's hardly surprising, given how Swedish courts have no problems with
keeping people in prison pending judgement in cases like this. If they see
that as justified, then self-imposed "house arrest" in an embassy is hardly
going to strike them as particularly onerous.

What's more interesting is whether or not his lawyers manages to get anywhere
with their demand for access to the remaining prosecution evidence. E.g. the
SMS's the women sent, for example, which Assange's lawyers have previously
been allowed to see but not get copies of.

------
porsupah
There's very good coverage of the hearing over on Falkvinge's site, including
a full translation of the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution,
as it happened:

[http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/16/live-detention-lift-
hearings...](http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/16/live-detention-lift-hearings-for-
assange-stockholm-district-court/)

------
jamespo
Once again people should read [http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-...](http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition)

------
tzs
Assume he were tried and convicted of the alleged crimes. What penalty would
he be facing?

~~~
bitJericho
Treason? The death penalty.

~~~
rogerhoward
Is Australia interested in prosecuting him? I doubt that.

Treason is a crime against one's own country; the US cannot try him for
treason, nor can Sweden.

Let's not exaggerate here.

~~~
tptacek
Actually, while you're right in spirit, I think you're technically wrong: you
do not need to be a citizen of the US to be charged with treason. You just
need to have betrayed an allegiance to the US. So for instance, resident
aliens in the US can technically be charged with treason.

~~~
deciplex
This is an interesting discussion but ultimately meaningless. You need not be
charged with or convicted of anything for US authorities to decide to lock you
up indefinitely and to deny habeas corpus, forever. There is absolutely no
expectation of due process of law in the US.

~~~
rogerhoward
There is quite a bit of expectation of due process in general; the exceptions
are notable because, well, they are exceptions. I'll grant the case of
Guantanamo prisoners as heinous violations of the rule of law, but I consider
it a huge stretch to suggest that Assange would - if extradited to the US -
face either treason charges (for reasons already discussed) or indefinite
detention without due process. Whatever you may think of the US policies of
indefinite detention, he doesn't fit the profile for those who would qualify.

He would, no doubt, be given a lengthy federal trial, likely found guilty and
serve Federal prison time, while receiving moral and legal aid from many
corners, particularly organizations concerned with civil rights,
whistleblowing, and journalism. His conviction might even be eventually
overturned.

Indefinite detention works (in that it has not been stopped) because those who
are imprisoned without due process have few mainstream defenders - plenty of
people object to the methods, but are ho-hum on the actual people involved.
Assange's detention without due process would be a political nightmare for the
administration at very least.

~~~
tptacek
Indefinite detention "works" because it's structurally the same process as is
used for prisoners of war, and we (in one of the great foreign policy blunders
of the century) managed to declare war on a terrorist brand name instead of a
state, meaning that we've created a military conflict that won't end --- where
the conclusion of a conflict, usually (in the last 2 centuries) within single-
digit years, is the normal way you resolve prisoner of war dilemmas.

Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's
interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process
in the US" is going to be productive, but the nature of indefinite detention
is, in a positive sense, not a normative one, interesting.

~~~
deciplex
>Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's
interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process
in the US" is going to be productive

I have found that most discussions you take part in are not terribly
productive in the first place - though they never lack for postcount, so I'm
not going to be too hard on myself here. That said, I didn't say there was no
such thing as due process in the US, so your summary of my post misses the
mark. I believe Assange should not have any expectation of due process, and
that his treatment by US authorities, while perhaps not as brutal as that of
prisoners in Guantanamo, would not be considered fair.

Nevertheless I found rogerhoward's response interesting, making - for me at
least - the signal-to-noise ratio temporarily high enough that my previous
post was worth it. But, now here we are. In the future, maybe if you don't
find a line of discussion productive, you can try not posting.

~~~
tptacek
You write as if your original comment wasn't right there for everyone else to
read. Also, you write without addressing anything in the comment to which
you're replying.

~~~
deciplex
Yes, it's right there. And?

I addressed your stupid jab at me. As for the other stuff, yes I'm aware how
US authorities justify their actions. Insightful stuff.

At any rate, rather than 'not posting' perhaps you could try tapering off a
bit. Start with single sentences, then a 'heh' or an 'I agree', and then
finally work your way up to just not posting in discussions you claim aren't
productive.

------
buckfitchesget
shit like this is exacerbating

shit like this
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/07/15/british-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/07/15/british-
secret-agents-no-more-skilled-than-an-average-hacker/)

lolol

