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.
Apologists for Sweden never seem to have read the UK high court judgment or seem familiar with the actual legal reasoning behind the extradition request. To secure extradition, the Swedish prosecutor needed to insist that Assange was only wanted for questioning (else they should charge) but since questioning alone is not a sufficient basis for extradition requests they also needed to state it was extremely likely Assange would be arrested once questioned.
It is of course nonsensical for the Swedes to refuse to question Assange in London if speaking to him were at all material to the case. As such, their refusal to do so speaks plainly to the obviously political nature of the persecution.
Extradition is only allowed if it's for a crime that's illegal in both countries. Assange's legal team repeatidly challenged the extradition on the grounds that it wasn't a crime in the UK. The UK legal system consistantly said that it was.
Remember one of the charges/claims is that he had sex with someone who was asleep. That's a crime in the UK and Sweden.
This is the key point that apologists for Sweden miss. The prosecution could have charged Assange and got an extradition warrant that way. They didn't because doing so would have required a court filing and granted Assange rights to a speedy trial and freedom from indefinite detention. Interviewing Assange in London was equally impossible -- once it was done the Swedish prosecutor would have been legally required to either charge Assange or close the case. And charging the case would have required a court filing, etc. etc.....
Arguing that Assange would have been found guilty of rape also shows a lack of knowledge of the case. Despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep and has in fact made statements contradicting your claims and accusing the authorities of railroading her. I do not personally know what happened that evening, but her description is striking in showing Assange complying with every request she made. The only possible breach of consent lies in the possibility that Assange broke a condom deliberately, but this is apparently contradicted by forensic evidence which shows the breakage was due to wear and tear. Add on the woman's affectionate treatment of Assange both before and after the night in question, and the way her change in behavior followed her realization that he was sleeping with someone else, and it seems rather obvious that while Assange may have been a cad the rape allegations simply don't hold water.
The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says:
> 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.
> despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep
Assange is/was wanted in Sweden for 4 cases, with at least 2 different women. One of which is the charge that[1]:
> 3. ... deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide.
[1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
> The UK legal system says...
Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations may constitute parallel crimes. Objections on factual grounds (the woman was not asleep, provided consent, relationship context, etc.) "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125)
> one of which is the charge that[1]:
Note the sleight of hand. There have been no charges.
> Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide.
The Swedish courts are not involved until Assange is charged. Until he is charged he will be imprisoned and face indefinite detention. This inconvenient point is of course ignored.
If RMC was honest and believed Assange should face trial he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime. Instead, his defense of prosecution either makes him corrupt (for demanding prosecution without reasonable evidence of wrongdoing), an obvious fool (for believing Assange will incriminate himself) or an apologist for what is clearly an abuse of due process, basic human rights and the welfare of the British and Swedish taxpayers.
Yes, Assange hasn't been tried. The courts want to try him, but he's avoiding them. Yes, that High Court judgement is not a trial, but Assanges challenge to the Swedish extradition request. Which was upheld, and found to be valid and legal under UK law.
> he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime
He has been charged.
"Sweden has yet to formally charge Assange with any offense." - The Guardian
"Sweden has yet to formally indict Assange." - New York Times
"Mr Assange has not been formally charged with any offense." - BBC
"Sweden does not have a time limit on how long the pre-trial stage will last or how long a person can be held in pre-trial detention.... only when an indictment is brought does the suspect acquire the formal rights of the accused." - United Nations UPR http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session...
It's almost like directly translating a word from one language and one country's legal system to a different language and a different legal system can be misleading.
If only there were some sort of body of legal experts who decided this, some sort of "court" of people to "judge" meanings.
If there was "some sort of body of legal experts" that... wait a minute... there IS and they condemned Sweden for its routine indefinite detention of people who have yet to be formally charged IN SWEDEN.
Truly baffling why you think a British ruling on the narrow validity of an extradition request translates into formal rights in a foreign criminal system where the defendant has not been charged and the prosecutor has stated there is not enough evidence to charge him.
There was a fairly high-profile money laundering case in the conservative party in Germany at the end of the 90's. It involved a German arms trader who lived in Canada. They wanted to question him and, had he been in Germany, he would presumably have been arrested. Alas, he was in Canada. So they made the effort to travel and question him there, if I remember correctly. (But eventually he was extradited.)
It's conspicuous that they didn't.
Prior to that they were dealing with an obstructive, bail jumping individual thumbing their nose at the legal systems of two countries (the UK and Sweden). Assange appealed extradition all the way to the UK Supreme Court then decided he didn't like the outcome, quite why the responsibility is on Sweden to cave to his demands has yet to be explained.
Whilst this is ongoing, there would be risk of US extradition requests were he to leave the embassy (to Sweden or elsewhere). His best strategy is therefore to stay in the embassy for now.
Of course his best strategy is to avoid prosecution. That should mean we condemn him as a hypocrite, instead he has actual supporters blaming the victims!
The initial prosecutor dropped the charges, but another prosecutor with a political background and a radical stance on what should be considered rape appealed that decision and got herself appointed to the case. She then declined multiple requests to schedule another interview with Assange (both in-person and via phone/video conference, which Swedish law allows).
I don't understand how anyone could claim, with the facts we now know, that this case has any merit at all and is more than a politically motivated smear campaign.
So the Swedish courts certainly don't agree that this is a case without merit.
I'm usually the last person to fall for any kind of conspiracy theory, but this case could literally be taken straight from one of Kafka's books. Given all the things we know about this case, and things that went on during the peak of Snowden's story (presidential planes forced to land, among others), it would be naive to think this is not politically orchestrated, and arguing on technicalities plays right into their hands.
Oh. If only he'd have done this thing that I'm telling you, without mentioning the well known reason why he is against doing that thing!
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.
Also weird this wasn't an argument he brought up while fighting the initial extradition to Sweden.
See the case of Gary McKinnon as an example (although McKinnon had much stronger grounds to appeal on than I expect Assange would)
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.
That's a pretty low bar for a smear campaign.
The "special relationship" is not a cover-all term for the US & UK to do anything on a promise like a teen couple in love. It covers a lot of military and trade stuff, which wikileaks is a part of, but in this case Sweden clearly acted as a player in a larger game. Assange seems to have presumed an ulterior motive in the charges brought against him and proceeded accordingly.
The reason he didn't travel to Sweden to just get it over with is because Sweden was planning to extradite him.
> Under Swedish law the issue of a domestic detention order in absentia was a precondition to the issue of an EAW. That order was issued by a court which... had to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause and that domestic arrest was proportionate.
The Swedish prosecution (a political appointee) is claiming she cannot demonstrate probable cause without interviewing Assange, and yet she refuses to interview him. Leaving aside the absurdity of any reasonable person thinking that any interview will give the Swedish authorities the smoking gun they obviously lack, from a legal standpoint the only sensible explanation for their behavior is that it allows the option of extraditing without public judicial consideration of probable guilt and proportionality of prosecution. Couple that with the very obvious irregularity of the prosecution, the very real prospect of Assange facing indefinite detention in Sweden and the refusal to offer any guarantees against hand-over to the States and there is plenty of evidence that his concerns are very well founded.
The fact that extradition is legally possible and the Swedish prosecution is proceeding against all common reason and established judicial practice in the only way that keeps it possible is very much "probable cause" as regards the motives of the Swedish prosecution and thus constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that Assange's concerns about extradition to the United States are sensible.
The paragraphs are conveniently numbered. Which one discusses extradition to the United States?
Of course, since your objection is disingenuous (you cannot possibly be so naive as to believe that the Swedish prosecutor will publicly state that her goal is to indefinitely detain a suspect), let us just force your actual beliefs into the open: (1) why do you believe that an interview with Assange will provide the Swedish prosecutor evidence to prosecute if she doesn't already have it? (2) why do you coonsider it reasonable to extradite someone who has never been charged with a crime to answer questions instead of asking them over the telephone, Skype or in person?
Not even the UK High Court considered the Swedish position reasonable (see Section 160), so it is hard to imagine any sentient person coming to the opposite conclusion.
However, look at what happened to Snowden, stuck at the Moscow airport, because no country in the world (bar Ecuador and Cuba, I think) was brave enough to take him (fearing US wrath). The pressure from the US was immense.
At some point a plane flying from Moscow to Ecuador (via Paris) was intercepted and forced to land in Vienna, because it was suspected that Snowden was on it. An out-in-your-face violation of international law.
So, it is now completely reasonable to assume that, if "asked", Sweden would extradite Assange to the US, where he is a wanted man.
From The Guardian: "The US government is conducting an active, long-term criminal investigation into WikiLeaks, a federal judge has confirmed in court documents"
Feinstein (and other Congressmen/Senators) wanted Assange – who isn’t even a U.S. citizen and never served in the U.S. Government – prosecuted for espionage for exposing war crimes.
More here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/05/us-government-s...
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/12/dianne-feinste...