> If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?
> Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.
> So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?
> Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.
Much of the commentary around the legal aspects of Assange's case it misleading or outright false.
1. (2012) https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho...
2. (2019) https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/11165977611288453...
Ecuador started arranging for him to leave the embassy at least five months ago.
Why didn't Sweden have an extradition request ready? They had at least five months to prepare one.
The US does not need Sweden's involvement to extradite and try Assange. The rape charges are separate and irrelevant to the charges he faces in the US, and whether the UK would even grant his extradition to the US is not a sure thing.
These two cases are unrelated, and the only reason they have been conflated is a concerted effort on the part of Assange supporters to discredit the accusations of sexual misconduct by lumping them in with his WikiLeaks activities and make up a whole lot of guff about CIA plots rather than just accept that he should face the criminal justice procedure for some shitty personal behaviour on his part.
Ecuador hardly needed to notify Sweden. It was international news. The Guardian article from five months ago that I linked was just one of many. "No one in the Swedish government reads international news" is not a credible explanation.
I see two possible explanations:
1) Sweden doesn't place a high priority on prosecuting famous accused rapists who've escaped justice for years, or
2) Sweden doesn't consider Assange a famous accused rapist who's escaped justice for years.
I don't find that believable, but whatever.
It really does look to me like you are grasping at straws, but maybe I've missed something.
I just realize Assange is a high-value target for political and legal attacks (including false allegations), so I think people who unquestioningly believe what they hear about him from official sources are naive. Haven't we all seen enough to know that governments and the media don't always tell the truth?
And when Sweden cracked down on The Pirate Bay we saw that the Swedish government is not immune to pressure from Washington.
All I'm saying is: wait for conclusive proof before leaping to conclusions.
From what I recall about the situation from past threads is that Sweden cannot send extradition requests in advance. Most criminal courts don't go out of their way to break the rules as that costs and they have to justify the budget.
Also why spend extra time and money on something when they could just wait until he was under British custody? Where is the urgency when normal procedures would suffice?
The Americans went out of their way because this is a political matter to them and their budget was approved.
These things normally takes quite some time.
Interesting, this is the first I heard about the DNA evidence, which is compelling. The prosecutor's dropping of this charge is reasonable given the lack of any DNA present on the sabotaged condom.
Also should mention that Craig Murray is a personal friend of Julian Assange, something his blog readers are well aware of. Murray is the one who testified he personally collected the DNC email leak from a disgruntled DNC employee in Washington DC and hand couriered it across the Atlantic where he handed it over to Assange. This leak origin account contradicts the Russian hacker narrative regarding the DNC email leak.
Based on all the problems Assange has faced in the last 8 years, it's pretty much "mission accomplished, total victory".
They did find DNA in the other woman's condom, but that condom was not split and there was no claim by her of condom sabotage.
With that in mind, I've moved 19797118 to be a child of 19796933. Even if the guess is wrong, it makes more sense in that context anyway.
The original case was closed since the prosecutor didn't expect a conviction because Assange was hiding under a rock.
> No it hasn't.
IIRC, a couple of the less serious crimes expired but the most serious one remains prosecutable.
The rape charge is the one that's still prosecutable, but he'd previously faced allegations of "sexual molestation" and "unlawful coercion."
> August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion because they have run out of time to question him. But he still faces the more serious accusation of rape
Edit: This article clarifies the meaning of the other Swedish allegations by quoting them in detail: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-ass...
Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy.
They are considering re-opening the investigation.
Top prosecutor Marianne Ny said his arrest warrant was being revoked as it was impossible to serve him notice.
You are unlikely to come to sound conclusions if you reason on the basis of your knowledge of US law. Sweden is not the US.
There are many differences between the US and EU/UK.
His questioning here is clearly in bad faith. Assange successfully evaded justice on most of his charges in Sweden because they have a statute of limitations. It's not something to celebrate.
The situation with Assange is all public record. Obama DoJ didn't pursue extradition, Trump DoJ did.
Separately to this, Assange was suspected of sexual offences in Sweden, most of which have now expired. Connected to those charges, he committed an offence under the Bail Act in the UK for which he has now been convicted.
Anyone arguing that USA was intending to extradite Assange in 2010 is misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Only Sweden wanted to extradite him in 2010 because they had strong evidence he had committed a sexual offence in their jurisdiction.
Downvoters - did I get something wrong?
He regards "bellingcat" as an enemy; they are the supposedly independent blogger producing OSINT that showed the Russian missile launcher used to shoot down MH-17. These days I'm suspicious of people defending the argument that this wasn't Russia.
He was removed from his ambassadorship to Uzbekistan because he protested against human rights violations in Uzbekistan. This may not be what an ambassador should do, but displays integrity.
Considering how well its working, I'd say they're left looking pretty smart.
EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
The jail sentence for skipping bail is the reasonable part of the whole story. No question that it was about as bad a case of bail-skipping as could be imagined.
The issue is more one of why exactly is the justice system involving itself in his business. He didn't think he'd committed a crime in Sweden. His 'victims' didn't think he needed to be arrested. The police didn't think he needed to be arrested at the time either. The word 'rape' seems to be something of a mistranslation on this one.
I gather (from Wikipedia) that he maintained he had consensual sex , so it's going to be interesting, if he does get to Sweden before the US grabs him, what actual evidence is involved.
If he feared the US, why the heck did he flee from Sweden to the UK in the first place? The UK is notorious for its one sided extradition treaty with the US.
Here's some of the ridiculous things:
* the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses,
also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially
* the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station
* the only actual formal accusation that one of the women is standing behind is that Assange tampered with a condom.
How the heck is anyone supposed to investigate that?
* the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor
* once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist
* for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward
* now that they have a chance to prosecute him, of course they will not bother
He had sex with someone who is asleep. Some who is asleep cannot consent. You understand that this is rape, right? The women involved does still want to take him to court and the Swedish Prosecution Authority is currently reviewing the matter. The other allegations have passed the statue of limitation and cannot be prosecuted.
To be clear, the alleged offenses happened between 13 August 2010 and 18 August 2010. They were reported to the police on 20 August. Assange was interviewed on the 30th and had left Sweden by 27th September 2010, after an arrest warrant had been issued. They had tried to interview him before he left.
On the 26 November 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued after hearings in both Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal (in which Assange's lawyer was present). The arrest warrant was issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Subsequently this warrant was certified by the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency. It was also upheld by a district judge on 24 February 2011 and by the High Court on 2 November 2011.
So it's been thoroughly reviewed by two legal systems that both agree there is a case to answer.
It's not clear what exactly the accusation is or what the injured party actually wants. But the odds are that this is a ruse.
It's incredibly clear what the accusations are even if you don't speak Swedish as they're spelled out in the European Arrest Warrant:
> On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
> It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity.
It follows that using your logic, a husband cannot rape his wife, no matter the circumstances, which is not only sexist but incredibly stupid logic
>the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station
Why does that matter?
>the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor
This happens all the time
>once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist
Interpol is not just for terrorists
>for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward
That's not how Swedish law works, he does not deserve special treatment
That does not follow, but it does mean that in a case of one persons word against another, the subsequent behaviour of the accuser can make their accusation less or more believable.
>>the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station
>Why does that matter?
Because when two people independently accuse someone of a something, it lends credibility. But if the two people in fact colluded in stating the accusation, they are not independent, and are less credible.
> Interpol is not just for terrorists
Sweden currently has 17 Interpol “red notices” and all of them are for murder and/or organised crime. I do not see any cases along similar lines to Assange, suggesting that the Swedish authorities were giving this case special treatment.
So ridiculous he chose to hide in a broom cupboard for yearss rather than go to court for a trial.
Instead he ran from the UK authorities too. So it seems that Assange didn't have your faith in the UK. Either that or he was fleeing Sweden and not the US.
It's not a guaranteed conviction. The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go.
But America isn't a dictatorship so the decision isn't exactly up to him. There's a whole legal system operating under their own framework that the president doesn't have much control over.
You should probably let the Met know. They seem to think there is one.
>UPDATE: Julian Assange arrest.
>Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April).
However in these cases they were both done with co-operation from the local police (or military) and government as part of the US "war on terror" (abductions without local government approval have also happened in the past -- Mossad did this in the 1960s -- but I don't recall a US example).
> The case was picked by the international media as one of the better-documented cases of extraordinary rendition carried out in a joint operation by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) [emphasis added]
A joint operation implies there was co-operation. I'm not saying the US has never conducted extraordinary rendition without local government involvement, just that the two examples aren't like that.
In that context, I wouldn't really be surprised if it's happened before, tho the blowback potential, if it should become public, would be massive so it will probably be kept under extremely tight wraps.
It was a decent sized scandal that rendition flights had even just refueled in Diego Garcia (a UK territory).
These sorts of things can't be looked at in terms of broad 'alignment'.
So yes, even just refueling is something the MSPs demand action over.
Not sure why that's worthy of "come on" like it invalidates my point.
Yep, Members of the Scottish Parliament have been pissed off. Scottish police were blocked from doing anything however. Westminster unfortunately rides roughshod over both of them and has been a supporter of the rendition flights, as noted in the article from The Times.
>"The CIA has been accused of using Scottish airports to facilitate the transfer of terrorism suspects to overseas black sites for interrogation and torture.
>A report by Westminster’s intelligence and security committee (ISC) says that MI5 or MI6 was involved in at least 50 rendition operations."
They don't allow extraordinary rendition starting from the UK.
.. sorry to say, my prediction came true.
“[Julian Assange] is presently under close observation in prison hospital because he has suffered ‘severe transient psychotic episodes.’ My source(s) indicate these episodes occurred after two sessions of coercive interrogation at the hands of UK and US officials. The source(s) stated the HUMINT interrogators used psychotropic drugs in the course of the sessions.”
Also, what benefit would that have? If the people who Assange truly speaks to are already claiming that he's going to be brainwashed, who does his brainwashing influence? Is there a large group of Wikileaks fence sitters who are arguing that "I'd believe him if he were just a little more mainstream"?
This is assuming the less conflict is the desired result. It seems that having conflict leads to greater voter support of taxes being spent to protect against that conflict and to adoption of more authoritarian policies.
There is also far more instances of conspiracy theories being true than just MKUltra, some of which serve to fill in the gap.
As for the why him... why would they have gotten a CIA agent tied up into the whole mess to begin with?
Yes, I particularly enjoy the ones about aliens - some conspiracy theories being true doesn't mean others are as well - each must be judged on it's own merits, and not as a group.
> As for the why him... why would they have gotten a CIA agent tied up into the whole mess to begin with?
Who are you referring to with the CIA agent? And let's be honest, he trades in classified documents - why wouldn't intelligence be involved with him?
I still don't understand what value brainwashing him would have - assuming he's not already compromised by some other power in this clandestine game of cat and mouse that apparently exists below the mainstream medias reckoning, why would we believe he is in fact one of the good guys?
Just like the people of the UK don't know what is being done, in the name of their ruler, in sites such as Belmarsh.
Those who find this incredible, might want to look - for themselves - at Belmarsh's long history of being a used as a programming site. The idea of Assange becoming the subject of mind control procedures in Belmarsh is, unfortunately, not un-realistic. The UK and its master, the USA, has a long history of these kinds of activities in cases where it is politically expedient .. if this is unreal to you, I suggest you have a milquetoast view of the intelligence community. Read the Wikileaks.
Yes, read the Wikileaks. Investigate for yourself and move outside the comfortable safety bubble of mainstream mediathink, which makes such acts 'too incredible to be true'.
It starts with Wikileaks, but ends with effective use of political power by the American people to ensure these heinous acts are revealed to the world. That is, entirely, the point of Assange in the first place - that Americans are being swindled by their governments secrecy into being complicit in crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Or, is your standard "we have been told we are all the good guys, so - no matter what 'mah Russians' have to say about it - we are the good guys"?
The exact same sort of obfuscation that you claim is being used to pull the wool over the mainstream could be being used on those who see the "truth", couldn't it? If the message was modified to appeal to your ideals, why is Wikileaks a source that's in any way more trustworthy than the mainstream?
The people of America, are.
Wikileaks are also not the only ones reporting on all of these acts. Certainly, one must seek multiple sources.
Read the Wikileaks - START there.
But then follow up with Amnesty International, AirWars.org, and any one of a number of other non-state/non-corporate organs of Americas military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex.
>why is Wikileaks a source that's in any way more trustworthy than the mainstream?
"Mainstream" American media is owned by the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex, who stand to profit greatly from media coverup of its crimes.
It doesn't take much work to discover that truth.
EDIT: Where has Wikileaks ever lied? It has only ever released the facts. Its up to you whether you like those facts, or not .. of course, that depends if you have the temerity to face up to the criminal behaviour that Wikileaks has exposed ..
Wikileaks itself likes to say nothing they have published has been disputed as being incorrect. Since 2006 they have never published a retraction/correction and Wikileaks claims that no one has proven a factual inaccuracy in any of the documents they published. I don't know of any factual inaccuracies myself, but if you know of any I would be interested to hear about it. I think most can agree that this is uncommon in most media (mainstream or otherwise).
Another weaker argument is the incredible lengths various governments have gone to suppress Wikileaks. The demonization of Wikileaks (especially in the media) is sometimes cited as a reason to trust its publications. The argument goes that because Wikileaks is attacked by such powerful and arguably corrupt institutions that Wikileaks must be a perceived threat to these institutions. On its face, this argument is much weaker than the previous one. Censorship of InfoWars makes the comparison you made seem quite apt in this regard. Another counterargument to this point is that apparent opposition can be purely theatrical similar to professional wrestling. Lenin's quote on controlled opposition is appropriate in this context.
This is an extremely weak argument. Various governments have gone through great lengths to suppress neo nazi propoanda but that's not because the neo nazis are actually speaking truth to power. Just because you are the underdog doesn't make you the hero.
More importantly, the argument begs the question: Who's to say that the US government is corrupt? Wikileaks is to say. How do we know that Wikileaks is telling the truth? Because the US government wants them gone. Why does the US government want Wikileaks gone? Because it is corrupt.
"Wikileaks itself likes to say nothing they have published has been disputed as being incorrect"
How would you fact-check Wikileaks? The majority of what they publish is leaked documents. The issue with those is not veracity but authenticity. Are all of the documents on Wikileaks authentic? Maybe but how would you know? You'd have to trace the source of the various leaks and Wikileaks doesn't usually share that.
"Since 2006 they have never published a retraction/correction and Wikileaks claims that no one has proven a factual inaccuracy in any of the documents they published."
This doesn't speak to their favor in my mind. Newspapers publish retractions not to cover for lies but to correct mistakes. Nearly everyone makes mistakes. If a newspaper doesn't publish any retractions ever, it's not because they have an amazing track record of journalistic excellence, but because they are unwilling to admit to their mistakes and makes them less trustworthy not more.
Wikileaks is not a newspaper and what they publish is not so much factual claims as simply leaked material as they receive it, so talking about factual claims in Wikileaks material doesn't really make much sense anyway.
"Wikileaks claims that no one has proven a factual inaccuracy in any of the documents they published."
What does this really mean? They published thousands of US diplomatic cables. Does Wikileaks really mean to claim that no US diplomat ever made a mistake or lied in any of those cables? I doubt it. Are they only talking about secret programs that they revealed? How could we verify that? This has the quality of forcing one to disprove a conspiracy theory. What's their standard of proof? Can you prove the Freemasons don't control the US government?
EDIT: Just because you don't like what they have released, doesn't mean it is factually incorrect. It is factually correct, based on real evidence, that the United States of America has committed war crimes for which it has not prosecuted the perpetrators. It is factually correct that America has been involved in the destruction of sovereign states all over the globe.
It is factually correct that Clinton is duplicitous.
Just because you don't like these facts, doesn't mean that Wikileaks cannot be trusted.
Ask yourself this question: why is it so hard for you to consider that Wikileaks never lied to you? Who has convinced you that it is an organization that cannot be trusted?
You might not like the truth, but that doesn't excuse you from investigating it for yourself, especially when its in your name as an American that these crimes are being committed ..
And yet, you seem to.
>"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf.
>So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil.
>He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him."
I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.
But all of the leaks were factual, no "crafting" to form a narrative involved. The DNC did undermine Bernie Sanders, she did say she had "private and public positions", and a whole host of other things. Just because they didn't publish what the RNC was doing doesn't make the leaks any less true or important.
There are many people who continue to hold him in high esteem, despite claims about his organization's ulterior motives.
I also really don't think it is a difficult concept to understand that when choosing what to release and what you don't release you can greatly influence what is "true".
Let's say I was a military organization and I released some information that I killed 12 terrorists.... but I didn't say that I killed 200 civilians doing so. I could use your same argument "point out something I said that wasn't true"... but obviously I wasn't telling the whole story.
I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).
I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.
People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been arbitrarily detained . The judge could have factored that in, she did not, probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police operation and pandering to US relations.
So? It's only to be expected that more money will be spent on enforcing the law when it's being flagrantly violated in the public eye.
I think in reality you object to any attempt to hold Assange to account for skipping bail, and you'd be no happier if only, say, £10,000 had been spent in attempting to do so. If you don't object to the law being enforced, I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent. It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking.
The UN finding was daft, as Assange was not detained at all, and hence obviously not arbitrarily detained. If you look into that in more detail, you'll find a dissenting view by one member of the relevant panel - presumably the only person with his or her head screwed on:
> The finding in Assange’s case is a surprising one. As a dissent by the working group’s Ukrainian member, Vladimir Tochilovsky, points out, there is a thin basis upon which to argue that Assange is detained in the Ecuadorean embassy. “Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest,” Tochilovsky wrote. “Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention.”
If you are UK taxpayer, you can.
> "It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking." It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.
As a UK taxpayer myself, I'm happy to see the rule of law eventually prevail in this instance. It strikes me as stingy and short-sighted to value that outcome at less than a few million pounds.
> It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.
Not really. I'd use the Madeline McCann case as a comparison. Millions of pounds of public money were spent looking for one missing girl who was (sadly) quite unlikely to be alive. You can question whether that's money well spent. But it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain why large amounts of money sometimes get spent investigating cases that are extensively covered in the news.
(i) An EAW can only be issued for something that's a crime in the country that issues it.
(ii) European countries can't extradite people who would face the death penalty on conviction.
The courts could have been forward thinking and left his bail-skipping as a misdemeanor.
(the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.)
On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.