Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
bbc.com
bbc.com
> “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.
> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
This article by the UN expert is also well worth reading:
Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange - https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
> “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.“
That quote lacked information on who was exposing him and what that exposure actually was, so I followed your source. That source elaborates as follows:
> “In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.”
Apart from the last item, that all sounds either like hyberbole ("systematic judicial persecution" -- unless he is above the justice system, that's the system at work), or self-inflicted.
For context, I'm married to a person from a real developing country, as it's actually defined. I'm sending multiple family members to school there so they can get out.
Every single person in her family has done everything they can to get out. Every single person I know there has done everything they can to get out. Every single person they know has done everything they can to get out.
Getting out is the primary motivator for people in developing countries. Whining about the country being unfair is something that perhaps privileged children who know nothing about "developing countries" do -- other people get out.
The US is nothing like a developing country.
Many of the world's most dangerous countries and most brutal justice systems are in Latin America. The US looks bad from a northern European perspective, but it's far from the worst in the West.
I'm not a fan of the US prison system. But are you seriously claiming that the whole justice system is worse than Venezuela or Honduras?
So it says that it is the worst in the west (a term that usually does not include south/central america, even though they are west on a map), and that it is closer to a third world country than many in the west.
From my casual reading that seems pretty much on point.
The justice system does not just mean the prison system, it encompasses laws, police, courts, correctional facilities, some portions of mental health treatment.
If we are bringing up the freedoms enjoyed by citizens in different countries I'd also point out that how the constitution is interpreted seems pretty arbitrary over time depending on who is in the supreme court and what the political climate is. As an example I'm not even sure how solitary confinement can not be considered a "cruel and unusual punishment" under the eighth amendment. I don't get how NSA data collection is not a impacting the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" of Fourth Amendment. The second amendment seems pretty cut-and-dry in the text that any American should be allowed to have a rocket launcher and that background checks are illegal. I'd hate for that to come true, but if you are following the principle that the constitution supersedes all lower law then it seems logical.
Most western democracies seem to have similar freedoms and similar guarantees that the government will follow similarly given that they are also enshrined in law.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but when I hear americans talk about their freedoms they seem to talk in absolutes, but in practice it's no more free or secure than similar freedoms given by laws in many other western countries.
Amendment 1: Why is "In God We Trust" on our money?
Amendment 3: The only time it ever was litigated (in Engblom v. Carey) the government won because a bureaucrat cannot be faulted for not knowing such an obscure law.
Amendment 4: Have you seen what the NSA is doing? Also "unreasonable search and seizure" is, under the doctrine of civil forfeiture, perfectly permissible as long as it is your assets being sued and not you.
Amendment 6: Our out of control plea bargaining system makes a joke out of "fair trial".
Amendment 7: The point of a jury trial is that the jury can choose not to enforce a bad law. The legal system misinforms jurors about this to keep jury trial from being meaningful.
Amendment 8: The overuse of solitary confinement, recognized the world over as a form of torture, certainly qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment". I don't see that the USA has kept the spirit of this one!
Amendment 10: I'm guessing that you are not familiar with the massive growth of power of the government due to the systemic misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause starting in the 1930s. But the ability of the federal government to regulate local workplaces was not intended by anyone.
It is easy to wave a phrase like "our Constitutionally protected rights" around and believe that things are OK. But if you actually pay attention, you'll find that that Constitution has been a lot less protection than most Americans believe it has.
We have three types of penal systems here in the United States: the actual court system, the unconstitutional-yet-protected-in-court 100-miles-from-the-border Constitution-exemption zone that contains two thirds of the US population (and a large portion of the country's non-citizens),[1-2] and the unconstitutional-yet-barred-from-being-contested-in-court intelligence agencies.[3-5] It's hard to claim that you're doing that much better when you're only so far from Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or one of the other hundreds of black sites. Worst is when these systems mix, but it happens more and more often now.[6]
[1-2 I realized this is a weird claim, but it's true, and here are two of the outlets furthest from one another politically claiming it's true to give evidence that it is]
[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
[2] https://www.rt.com/usa/court-upholds-laptop-border-searches-...
[3] https://www.wired.com/2015/08/hard-sue-nsa-prove-spied/
[4] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv...
[5] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-legality-...
[6] https://theintercept.com/2017/11/30/nsa-surveillance-fisa-se...
What do you expect, a pat on the back for not being as bad as those?
Prisons are meant as a way to take people's freedom away for some amount of time, not to sneak in extra corporeal punishment by making them as shitty as possible. What is happening in the US is definitely the latter, and what's worse, many people seem to cheer for it.
This suggests a terminology issue -- we have the same problem here in Australia.
If you assume the system is intended to mete out justice, little of it will make sense.
If you think of it as a legal system, and consider it's working precisely as its benefactors & maintainers want, the arrangement makes much more sense.
I am of course assuming that he wouldn't be extradited to the US, in which case not surrendering was the correct choice.
How can you make this assumption given that he was extradited for the exact reasons he mentioned?
Did you miss the part where Assange went through all this trouble to not go to Sweden because there was the POSSIBILITY of him being extradited to the US end ending up in that prison system?
Yes he could have also done nothing and run the very real risk of ultimately getting the worst treatment that you enact upon your brothers and sisters. But that is the whole thing he was trying to avoid.
If in the process of that, he was exposed to "severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture", which MAY or MAY NOT be worse than the US prison system (which is a pretty low bar to clear and pretty bad either way), then yeah he pretty certainly has a case to be made in the parts of the world where we pretend to treat human beings with dignity.
The entire point was to not end up in the clutches of the US, so if your point was "if you think that's bad, look at the US", then here's a big WELL DUH for you ...
IMHO you should all be ashamed. The very fact that even in a normal adult conversation, an American can gleefully make a remark about anal rape and how they wish it upon whatever criminal. Sexual violence in your prison system has become so normalized that it's gotten its own little disgusting euphemism in your language: "pick up the soap". Even in polite company, use that little phrase and it's suddenly a-okay to joke about rape.
It's very simple. If it's that normal, that expected, that people in prison become victims of sexual violence. Then that is what you're sentencing them to. Which is corporeal punishment. Which is barbaric.
So think about that next time someone jokes about someone going to "federal pound em in the ass prison", what they are in fact advocating is that they deserve corporeal punishment by anal rape. There's something to be said about the countries where they give you beatings or lashings, they do it publicly so at least it functions as a deterrent. You hide it and pretend it's a joke because lol buttrape.
So no, don't EVER bring up the American prison/jail system as some sort of "example" for how to treat criminals .. and maybe check yourself if you DON'T find it disturbing and inhumane.
...brothers and sisters
Before someone brings up "muh drugs" and only cites stats from federal prisons...
"In 2011, 55.6% of the 1,131,210 sentenced prisoners in state prisons were being held for violent crimes (this number excludes the 200,966 prisoners being held due to parole violations, of which 39.6% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent violent crime).[44] Also in 2011, 3.7% of the state prison population consisted of prisoners whose highest conviction was for drug possession (again excluding those incarcerated for parole violations of which 6.0% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent act of drug possession).[44]"
If you want a legal system that treats citizens fairly, you want one focused on rehabilitation. Locking someone up simply doesn't accomplish that goal. Dehumanising prisoners doesn't either.
What's more, crime is a proxy for socio-economic status, which given the greater inequality in the US, partly explains the disparity with other developed nations.
My understanding is that vengeance and suffering are not good teachers and once the vengeance is exacted and the suffering is complete, the criminal comes and and causes more suffering to the innocent.
If this is true, then by arguing for harsh treatment for criminals, you're arguing for a state of affairs in which more innocent suffer.
If causing the innocent to suffer is so bad, then maybe we should be making policy that reduces it.
It is a foreign power putting diplomatic pressure on the Swedish government to put pressure on a man who has embarrassed them.
It's not the only thing in the Assange case which is blatantly political persecution. You got to wonder how most of the press can keep pretending it's not.
The fact that Assange fled Sweden for the UK, skipped bail, and then concocted a Swedish conspiracy theory is a bit on the implausible side.
>He was never formally charged
My understanding is that the Swedish system does not allow formal charges in abstentia.
The Senate would have to have 67 votes in a majority republican controlled body to remove him. That simply will not happen -- even in the House, which is politically far more independent, the Democratic Party was not able to get a single Republican vote, and even had defectors from their own party just to authorize the proceedings at all.
You can't win an impeachment trial without broad bipartisan support, and there is exactly zero bipartisan support for this proceeding.
You aren't paying attention very closely.
And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way.
So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question remains who tortured him. For a long time, by his own choice, it was only the Ecuadorian embassy that had access to him.
Never mind that Assange was ridiculed for most of those ten years for claiming that US would seek his extradition.
His understanding of the world, including the assessment that Sweden is extremely servile to the US in security/foreign policy matters, has been vindicated again and again.
- Sweden dropped the charges after the US pressured them to
- The US has been seeking his extradition for years
- Sweden is extremely servile to the US in security/foreign policy
- He raped a girl in Sweden
The Assange case got uniquely handled in every single step. Even a court found that the prosecutor mishandled the case. Proportionally the case used more money than any other case, used stronger legal method than any other case, and did not follow the judicial rules that all cases should follow.
Journalists has asked the prosecutor if the case had a high likelihood to find Assange guilty even without any witnesses. The answer that was consistently given before the US extradition request was yes, the case looked good in the eye of the prosecutor, years in and years out. Now, all suddenly, the answer is no. Now all the sudden the prosecutor say it is hard to convict someone without witnesses.
The behavior demonstrated by the prosecutor is one of a politician system. It gave special attention. It swings with the political winds. Being the targeted of that is torture.
This is 1A 100% political persecution if you don't close both your eyes.
Not only hyperbole, but it's entirely self-imposed. He wasn't confined to the embassy, he chose to stay there rather than face trial. He chose "deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over defending himself against the accusations.
The US was once a great defender of liberty and democrac, but when you talk to its average citizen nowaday you start to get truely weimarian vibes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
That is how much anyone cared about defending the liberty of the alleged rape victim.
This whole situation was ridiculous and kafkaesque. Charge him or do not charge him, and if you do charge him then, any only then, demand extradition.
I'm pretty sure most people are not allowed to dictate terms to law enforcement as they conduct an investigation. Why should Assange be different?
It's not a stretch that he preferred ""deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over what the US would do to him.
Doesn't mean that's fair or just. Just that he chose something less inhumane than the US.
He stayed in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid arrest. His conditions are self-imposed.
From Sweden?
He fled Sweden, which has stronger protections against extradition, for the UK which has weaker protections. Had he been extradited from the UK to Sweden, further extradition to the US would have been prohibited.
It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.
Is his only current crime skipping bail on charges he believed were fake?
Clearly, facing deportation to the US is problematic for a number of reasons, mostly that it's impossible for even Snowden to get a fair trial there, let alone an Australian citizen.
It makes no sense if one believes that they were accused of fake charges based on political pressure and are to be judged on a rigged legal system.
It would be like if J.E.Hoover had his eyes on you, had his police build some BS charges, and made sure (whether by police planting evidence, fake testimonies, etc or by having his judge pals on the case too) you'll be convicted.
Would you take your chances to have the case judged?
Sure, because trumped up charges are symptomatic of a working justice system.
No, he's already served the time for that. He's held strictly for extradition by now.
That's not torture.
In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation to be "arbitrary detention":
> In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy.
> The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.
> The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
But if you run from the law, why should Assange or a human rights expert expect to be handled like in a 5 star hotel?
The free country responsible for the Guantanamo secret prison? We are talking about the same one?
I still consider the US, Sweeden, and the UK "free countries".
As far as "free countries" go, it's really the worst to end up.
Did you seriously forget all the UN reports about human rights issues in the US? Yeah the US ignores them, but the rest of the world knows it. It's really pretty bad.
Yeah, it's funny how HN typically goes evidence-free where pet politics is concerned.
I'll eat my hat if someone on here can name a single precedent of someone being tortured in the U.S. before being tried for a crime similar to what Assange would be accused of.
Edit: and citations, please!
That's oddly specific, but still be careful what you're asking for. "Police torture suspect" gives a lot of results, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge
There's a good chance some of those 200 cases were rape cases.
Then there is also the torture of terrorism suspects, if you wish to take that angle since Assange has repeatedly been labeled a terrorist.
Here's two more Wikipedia articles that may be interesting to you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_State...
Especially interesting may be the "Domestic Torture in Modern Times" section if you wish to focus on what happened domestically.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techn...
Always worth a read.
What measure of proof do you require?
- "the field of the sheep" - the field only contains sheep
- "the wool of the sheep" - the wool only belongs to the sheep, not the cows, pigs, goats etc.
In the same way, America belongs to some very free people, and the rest are conned into touting that from under whatever thumb they happen to be.
Have you ever stopped to think that there is no such thing as free?
By subjecting himself to probably worse injustice. Torture A over torture B is hardly a choice.
The US and A isn't in the business of assassinating visible targets. There's plenty of people who believe they are, but there's plenty of evidence they aren't. If they were, Manning wouldn't still be breathing.
Ridiculous for the UN to qualify this as the UK state torturing him - it denigrates the reputation of the UN.
the reputation of the UN??? go learn about the un before you defend a corrupt system that acts just like any other foundation. United Nations pays its employees an average of $82,397 a year. and every peacekeeper is paid $1,428/month.
THE UN:
"Charity sex scandal: UN staff ‘responsible for 60,000 rapes in a decade’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/un-staff-responsible-for-...
And thats just ONE of their thousands of scandals.
---
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/16/world/un-details-its-fail...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/12/car-up-to-100...
http://theconversation.com/when-un-peacekeepers-commit-atroc...
"Peacekeepers have been accused of sexually exploiting women in the Congo, being involved in sex trafficking in Bosnia and Kosovo, child abuse in Côte d'Ivoire and Haiti, as well as corruption, stealing, drink-driving and manslaughter.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/16746-...
Due to recent imprisonment or is this due to living for so long in a tiny "dorm room" in the Ecuadorian embassy?
No joke I think that could easily drive someone insane given enough time.
Let me correct that: Mr Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the environment that he exposed himself to
(Edit: I’m talking about the embassy episode here, not his more recent incarceration)
Fuck you.
Did you miss what happened to him when he was arrested? He's now being tortured even more. He put himself there, for his safety, and to think he did it 'just because' is wildly ridiculous.
The take away here is stay anonymous when whistle blowing or handling leaks. Don't talk to anyone, don't say anything just take a USB stick to an Internet cafe while disguised and host a torrent.
Then email the press the magnet link using a throw away email service.
The same Adrian Lamo who told Chelsea Manning that he'd treat what she told him as a confession (he was an ordained minister and the implication was that he'd never tell anybody) to gain her trust[1].
Let's not forget Kevin Poulsen's complicity in this.
The hacker community is not your friend, and you need to assume that members will sell you out for glory or to save their own asses.
I've never celebrated the death of anybody, but I did feel the world was a better place after Adrian Lamo died.
[1] https://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html
Manning was a spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.
It gets so much harder to pretend that they are bringing freedom to the Iraqis. I'm sure the poor government had to double its spending on pro-military propaganda because of this evil spiteful security leak.
Manning was copying any and all classified content and exposing it indiscriminately.
Like, maybe it was important that certain things were exposed, but it wasn't a whistleblower act, it was a spiteful soldier acting out.
If you throw that away and want to talk about probabilities - that's ok too - but then you need to add the probability that the global super power put pressure on people to drum up baloney charges.
Presumption of innocence in criminal cases has value because the state has all the power (including the monopoly on violence), so if they are to use their monopoly on violence to deprive anyone of their freedoms, the burden of proof should be extremely high to offset the inherent power imbalance. In other words, even if all other things are equal, we should make the state's job harder because if the state is "cheating" to get a conviction it's a lot likelier they will succeed than the individual.
As a larger philosophical principle, assumption of innocence isn't really proven out. Iterated prisoner's dilemma solutions suggest trust followed by tit-for-tat (i.e. presume innocence until someone shows they're willing to screw you over, then assume they're likely to continue screwing you over rather than assuming that was a one-off; this is a policy the law notably excludes, as past unrelated felony convictions aren't admissible evidence in a trial). I'm not saying we should toss presumption of innocence in the bin; merely that I'm skeptical of it as a deep true virtue to build one's values upon.
We should have a high threshold for evidence in any arena or we are otherwise way way too susceptible to manipulation.
...or perhaps, more generally - when an opposing entity exists that could conceivably manufacture poor quality evidence, then that should raise the bar of evidence required.
> 4. Rape
> 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.
He did many bad things (especially uncovering the name of sources, not redacting the cables in the cablegate) but like he said, it is interesting to see how censorship works in a democracy.
I also like how no one is talking about the (probably externally provoked) internal drama at wikileaks that led to the destruction of the Bank of America files that they had.
I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
It was just lawfare all along.
If they had obtained internal first-person memos discussion the reasons for dropping the case, then you could probably assume those would be credible.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/19/sweden-withdraws-arrest-...
Could be wrong though...
Does anyone have some news from back then?
In any case, this was always the most likely outcome: very few sexual assault cases ever make it to court in Sweden.
Rape without physical violence like this rely entirely on the victim testimony and even if there is a record and everything that will weaken the case terribly if the victim is no longer on board.
Stay safe Snowden and all you other possible whistleblowers/leakers out there!
To people downvoting me - check out the vox article on this earlier this year.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-ass...
The women were "vehement" about restarting the case. Reportedly were "willing to do whatever it takes to force case to be re-opened" The statute of limitations is August,2020.
But suddenly it doesn't matter according to sweden
If you're so inclined, send something to her legal defense fund: https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...
Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely), he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying.
Australia did little to help him in his situation, and it would be likely America could extradite him from there. There's a good chance it may never be safe for him to return home.
The hard truth is that Assange won't be free nor safe anywhere in Europe. The tactical and propagandistic value of detaining and punishing him is so high, the US won't have any qualms black-opping him out of any EU country like they did with Abu Omar in Italy; and his freedom is not valued highly enough by any EU country to stop this from happening.
The only places where he could safely stay in the long term, at the moment, are Russia and Venezuela. Even Cuba has enough problems that they won't dare adding another one to the pile just out of spite; and that goes for most South-American states in general. China stands for everything he despises, so that's another hard no. Places like Japan or South Korea, so deeply embedded in the US military stance, are extremely unlikely too.
Assange must hope the current administration is replaced by someone so firebrand-y, s/he'd be willing to make a grand gesture of reconciliation. Snowden comes before him in the list though, and doesn't carry the baggage that Julian does, so chances of that are very low too.
Sadly, this is a round that the Galactic Empire has won. The only satisfaction Julian might get, will come from history books.
US has a lot power over UK and Sweden, what makes u think western Europe is different?
That relies on his Australian passport being valid and not being cancelled by a US-friendly Australian government - the relevant Minister has the right to cancel a passport if the person is subejct to a foreign arrest warrant. [1] It would likely also rely on the EU member state being convinced that Assange was only visiting the EU for 90 days and had the intention to leave, thus qualifying for the Schenghen Visa Waiver for Australians. The border officers in France (or wherever the ferry lands) can reject him at the border before he has a chance to travel elsewhere if they aren’t convinced he is legit.
will not easily extradite own citizens but less care is given for foreigners.
My thought was the judge gave him a year to give him a chance to fight the extradition.
Without that - he possibly would have been snapped up pretty quickly.
Apparently, "The Commonwealth will not extradite or deport a prisoner to another jurisdiction if they might face the death penalty"
The UK is in the Commonwealth and has the same stricture. None of the extradition charges carry the death penalty.
So how is this relevant?
Sweden’s involvement in the extrajudicial persecution of Assange is downright shameful.
> 404 Not Found
I used to think Sweden was "woke" and progressive but I was mistaken. A statement like this by law enforcement in California would be unacceptable.
> "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation."
Did Ms Persson also clarify that a lack of evidence suggests that the state consider that Assange may be the injured party. Presuming the accuser injured seems to deprive Assange of an assumption of innocence (not sure if applicable there).
Were Assange's statements not coherent, extensive, and detailed? If so, why favor the accuser? Why deprive Assange of fair treatment?
Evidence is material. A lack of evidence by definition is not material.
What those secrets were and if Assange is a journalist or publisher or rapist or saint or martyr or useful idiot is all moot.
The guy is going to spend time in a US prison at some point unless he dies or flees. If he doesn't go via Sweden is almost immaterial (unless you're a rape victim wanting their day in court).
What exactly is it about Assange that says he should be immune from prosecution and what other loopholes exist to the rule of law?
This is bullshit. Either they had real evidence or not. Evidence does not "weaken" with time. The truth is they never had evidence because the charges were BS in the first place. The only thing that has weakened is the fact that that the U.S. and other powers that want him dead already have him... so they no longer need trumped up charges to snare him.
He should be freed immediately and damages should be paid to him by all those involved in his illegal detention.
It might be a bit foreign, but it does help with some cases, like partner violence, where the victim might not want to press charges against a violent partner. Under this model, if the police learns of the crime, they are obliged to prosecute it if possible.
So state prosecutor can simply drop the charges if she feels like it?
in usa people have the right to jury trial. Seems really unfair that prosecutor can unilaterally simply drop your case, wonder why its that way.
what does 'accused' mean here? I assumed accused = pressed charges.
edit: oh i see wht you mean. thanks.
The accusations might very well be true, but the Swedish prosecutions actions and statements has baffled me from day one.
His legal representation acted quite strange too. I read some court proceedings from some of the UK hearings, among other things the lawyer had called witnesses that had no business being there, it was rather embarrassing to read.
Still a couple of months to go (April + 50 weeks = ~March).
I know that this is an ultra liberal community and I will get downvoted and flagged within a few minutes. But if someone is too scared to even lose a worthless website account to say what he sees as the right opinion, he should not live anyway.
It isn't. HN is actually very far from even a mildly liberal community in the correct sense of the word.
Unless you use the word in the same way people from rural Kansas do when what they actually mean is a leftist.
I also have no trouble believing the testimony that he sexually assaulted someone.
I’m not sure how those things are at odds.
They were responding to a valid extradition request by Sweden. How does the US factor in here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
It’s victim blaming. Would you say a victim of Stockholm Syndrome is “free to leave at any time”? No, because that’s a ridiculous argument. Would you say Snowden is “free to leave [Russia] at any time”? No!
So why is it an acceptable argument when it’s Assange? Because he possibly committed a crime in Sweden? Because he indiscriminately blew the whistle on the US government’s crimes?
Sure, he’s a puppet of Russia, but to say he doesn’t deserve the same protections as the rest of us is to argue for tyranny.
However I want to strongly push back on the argument that: something can't be torture or abuse because the person is physically able to leave. The absence of a locked door does not capture the full scope of coercion and psychological in many situations.
This sort of excuse is often used by cults and domestic abusers to justify why the terrible things they do are not abusive. People die or have life long psychological trauma from hazing rituals that they are "free to leave at any point".
Are you saying we should take your word over theirs?