Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit.

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



Again, he was scared of the US so he fled to the UK. That makes sense to you?

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 is not established that he 'fled' to the UK, versus leaving with permission, and obviously if they really wanted to they could have stopped him leaving.

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.


His own lawyer admits[0] that Assange was informed that Swedish authority were seeking Assange for interrogation, although the lawyer apparently suffers from a certain amount of selective amnesia (as many lawyers do).

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[1]:

> 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.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange...

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


That's what the Swedish authorities are saying but for all we know the alleged victim is not even standing behind these claims. Since the Swedish authorities just want to 'interview' Assange there is no downside for them to use some trumped up accusations/statements as a pretext to get that interview (and get him into custody). Assange's lawyer is on record saying that text messages contradict the allegations. I doubt he's staking the defense and his professional reputation on a lie.


> the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially

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


> 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

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.


Indeed, there was no mystery involved in the reopening of the case. After the preliminary investigation was initially dropped on 25 August 2010, a lawyer representing one of the alleged victims requested a review of the prosecutor's decision. On 1 September 2010 (a week later) it was decided that the investigation should be resumed.


It may interest you to know that this lawyer was a former government minister and then a named partner at Bodström & Borgström, the other partner being both the justice minister who once presided over the illegal rendition of two terrorist suspects from Sweden to Egypt where they were tortured for the CIA, and also a member of the organisation which invited Assange to Sweden for a talk (one of the women was also part of this org). So I’d say it’s at least a little mysterious.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: