Every time I read about this I'm struck by the number of people who see Assange's treatment as politically motivated and seem unable to accept the possibility that he assaulted two women.
That being said I don't think there is some big dark conspiracy with the CIA pulling the strings, but more a case of local prosecutors and politicians who saw a chance to make a name for themselves, and a tiny country with self-esteem issues desperately wanting to swing their dick with the big boys (and I say that last bit as a Swede).
What Assange claims to fear, and with our spineless government here in Sweden I can't blame him, is that he will be extradited from Sweden to the US.
I've heard this claim before, but is there any data to back it up. If Sweden believes a sex crime has been committed on its soil it has the right and the duty to seek to prosecute the perpetrator.
The money quotes from the prosecutor is: "If we where to try to bring home everybody who commits a crime that isn't serious enough we'd never get anything done...It doesn't work like that, we only do that (attempt to extradite) for serious crimes, like murder".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-brit...
Choice quote:
In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.
In any case, Assange's done time at this point is more than he can expect to be sentenced to if that happens, and so if convicted he should be promptly released anyway.
First, normal suspects are harder to find. Assange is a semi-official person, not a lot of work went into tracking him down.
Second, the case was already opened. Assange's location in the world did not affect it.
It'd be different if Assange's identity was not known, and if, at the time of making the decision to investigate the case further, his whereabouts were unknown and him likely in another country.
Here is Glenn Beck explaining the charges (cause he's funnier than a translation of swedish court documents): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVt-WD-p950
Sending him to Sweden only makes sense if he will get a fair trial there. Based on the fact that this case hasn't been dropped, and the trial will be held in secret, there is a good chance that he may not.
That's a fine opinion, but when you visit another country you have to obey by its laws regardless of your opinion on them.
Basically, the case looks ridiculous, and the Swedish legal system as a whole probably isn't.
A UK court shouldn't be deciding the merits of a case based solely on press reports about the prosecution.
(For the sake of argument, please ignore the possibility of inhumane punishment, and just assume that the alleged criminal will be sent to a euro-style prison.)
Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
If they were accused of sluttiness while they were in Iran, by an Iranian citizen or two, then there might just be a case to answer. Like what happened to these two unfortunates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7673046.stm
The treatment have most likely not been politically motivated, as Sweden's justice system doesn't work that way. Politicians can't really sway prosecutions.
It's also likely that Assange is not guilty of rape (the allegations have a lot of holes and inconsistencies in them), though probably guilty of being an asshole. Alas, that's not a crime. Nevertheless, this is not a reason to drop the case without investigating it properly.
Swedish prosecutors might be immune from official or open political pressure, but I'm sure back channels exist. That said I don't think any are being used in this case.
One thing I've seen a handful of times in Sweden, is a problem the US has too, prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. I'd say that is what is overcoming the shaky facts of the case, a prosecutor who thinks it could pay off career wise.
But any system can be swayed, and from 3000 miles away, the Swedish system doesn't look really resilient: e.g. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9622/swedish_prosecutor_wont_in... , and both the Pirate Bay trial and the Assange case look like a charade.
If you believe that there's such a thing as an independent, only-cares-about-the-law-and-not-about-any-ties-and-pressure justice system out there, there's a bridge near my house that I can offer to sell you.
Things aren't (much) different now than they have always been - there's law for the common people; there's law for the influential people; and when you upset the _really_ influential people, the law will be rewritten against you, retroactively.
Thanks for your input!
> If you believe that there's...
I don't.
What I know is that sweden prides itself on having the strongest freedom of speech laws in the world (which is why Assange wanted to bring Wikileaks there in the first place), and that other disruptive forces like piratebay haven't felt any governmental pressure in the past.
I've seen nothing that suggests that any government official have commited the serious crime of involving themselves in a particular prosecution case. It's extremely unusual for a politician to even offer their opinion about a particular case, as that is borderline illegal for them to do.
Most likely, government officials weren't involved in this case. Most likely, it's just another overblown rape charge. Sweden has lots of those, as they're constantly redefining what constitutes rape. Slippery slope.
But whatever you and I think, we'll find out for sure if/when Assange faces trial in Sweden. If he is found not guilty, clearly the government couldn't or didn't sway the prosecution. If he is convicted, then at least the possibility that some government official did intervene exists.
How hard could it be to set him up on phony charges of being involved with child pornography? If you want to take the guy down then do that, or something that'll stick.
But truthfully how hard would it be to honeytrap this guy? Suppose you go with my child pornography scenario, your sexy blonde Swedish secret agent only has to get close enough to slip a USB key into Assange's luggage so that when he flies through LHR customs can stop him and discover it. And if he checked any luggage it would be even easier.
One also assumes that he might be a little paranoid about sexy blonde Swedish secret agents hanging around his suitcase...
You'd expect that, wouldn't you. But then his whole career show less risk-aversion than most people. To put it mildly.
Are you finding it hard to believe that the US government is trying to disrupt Wikileaks by unusual means, outside of any potential legal proceedings? But this is not theory, it's known fact - both Visa and Amazon dropped Wikileaks after pressure. It's been successful too.
That's a really funny quote. I'm tempted to downvote you for being so ridiculous (but I've upvoted instead, so others have a better chance to see it).
I'll apologize, if you elaborate on how your personal experience might be relevant (though, the only good explanation I can think of is that you are some omniscient being who has good knowledge of conspiracy theories and whether or not they are based on fact; good enough knowledge to derive statistics, at least).
He's saying that it is necessary to face a trial to determine it, and he isn't going to just brush the charges away and say they were definitely nothing. He's saying there's enough uncertainty that there should be a trial to answer it.
I would just say, "I'm not going to answer your questions, so save yourself the cost of the flight and arrest me when you get some evidence."
First the prosecutor at call (Marianne Ny) decided to arrest Julian Assange on the accusations from the two women. Meanwhile the news of his arrest has somehow been leaked to Expressen (a daily newspaper) the same evening.
Next day the chief prosecutor dismisses the case, this should have been the end of it.
However once Assange leaves the country, Marianne Ny (prosecutor on call) brings up the case again, and somehow manages to have Assange arrested on suspicion of rape, sexual assault, and has issued a european arrest order in order to question him.
This makes no sense, Marianne Ny says that the purpose of the international arrest is to 'question him', why couldn't she do that while he was still in Sweden? Why turn down the offers to question him on video conference or at an embassy in England BEFORE extraditing him given that Marianne Ny herself says that she doesn't have enough evidence to prosecute Assange and only wants to hear him at this time? Also given the huge costs that an 'international arrest order' brings along, to do so for questioning a suspect in such a weak case as this is unprecedented.
Yes, this is political.
WikiLeaks became Enemy Number One after the State Department cables. I'm sorry, but if you think this is anything other than politically motivated persecution you are simply mistaken.
My point was that I am surprised by the people who do take sides. Surely, the right thing is for him to be tried in Sweden as that's what the rule of law would require and to see what the outcome is.
wince
For example, was it right that Turing was tried for his homosexuality? Yes, it was right. I believe that the law itself was despicable but it was right that he was tried as that was the law at the time of his 'offences'.
I believe that same standard applies to Assange. He is alleged to have broken Swedish law, the British courts believe that under European law the right procedure has been undertaken for the extradition and so we see the process of law operating.
The voice comes from behind a nearby Rhododendron, as you are unlocking your front door. The stage whisper belongs to Alan Turing, the scene is: the past.
"The police are after me", he says, "and I think you know why. Please let me hide in your house".
You haven't adjusted to the spontaneous time travel or meeting the living dead very well, and you're staring without answering for too long; he continues: "It's only for a couple of days until I can make a run for the continent. I guarantee you with the power of suspended disbelief that none of your neighbours or the police will ever know".
"But it's just an enquiry", you say, "that's what the police do all the time, at this stage there's nothing to fear. Hire a lawyer and go with it".
"We both know that in this case (unlike your future Julian Assange, whoever he is) I'm certainly guilty under the law, and they have strong evidence to show it. What I'm saying is, it's a bad law, will you help me escape the consequences?".
"No, no I wont", you reply, "I want to live in a society with a rule of law. This is the law and you should be tried by it. It's the correct thing to do according to this system".
He pauses a moment, then "Think of the public humiliation, the jeering and mocking. They'll chemically castrate me, they'll make my life not worth living, the resulting depression leads to my /suicide/. They'll as good as kill me themselves!"
"Ha ha ha. Alan, m'boy, nevermind the jeering, and your resulting /death/. Think of the alternative! Your suffering is surely better than /anarchy/".
"I'm a real human, it's real personal suffering here, and on the other hand, your ideology!"
You reach for your cellphone to call the police. "If it's any consolation, Alan", you say, giving him a hearty slap on the back, "I think it's despicable too". Your cellphone has no signal - the past, again. You look around for a phonebox.
"'s easy for you to say, you're not the one being involuntarily sacrificed to someone elses political ideology under rules they don't even agree with themselves". He jogs across the road. "Why do you think it's useful to call it despicable if you go along with it regardless?"
"I don't know", you answer, "maybe I'll reply to this comment and explain it".
There's no evidence I'm aware of to back up the conspiracy. On the other hand the Swedes obviously believe there is enough evidence for a prosecution given the extradition request.
Why shouldn't the normal legal process occur? If he's got a good defence case then he should present it to the Swedish court. If he doesn't then he deserves the punishment for any crime he's found guilty of.
Edit: I see John has responded himself. See his response :)
In addition, the degree to which spycraft entails placing people in compromising sexual situations, as well as, the explicit actions taken by the US and other wealthy governments in the interest of neutralizing and containing Wikileaks (e.g. trying to cut off funding), when combined with the vast resources available for a counter-espionage operation, certainly make a setup plausible even to people without tinfoil beanies.
Heck, the honeypot meme was even proposed here on HN.
That's not to say Assange didn't violate Swedish law. But as Stallman's rider might be said to illustrate, it can would pretty damn easy to place a couch sleeping nomad in a compromising position.
And although I in no way condone or approve of sexual assault, from a utilitarian standpoint, the ability of Wikileaks to continue its mission is highly likely to curb much worse behavior on a much larger scale. In my opinion, the argument that it is more important to hold governments and corporations accountable for their actions than it is to hold Assange accountable for his deserves the same consideration as arguments regarding the justifications for the wartime actions Assange helped expose.
I try to keep a pretty sane, "normal", law-abiding lifestyle, but it would take a motivated official about 10 minutes to find dirt on me. And I'd imagine a lot of it isn't necessarily surprising nor as bad as it might sound.
Not saying Assange doesn't deserve to be punished for his wrongdoing, just don't think it should be held as being more important than if someone like myself committed those offences. If I helped uncover several cables illustrating corruption among elected officials everywhere, I shouldn't be surprised to be on the news often for uncovering incredibly important, politically sensored information.