Though I back his politics 100% and consider him a hero to be remembered, he has every responsibility to face his accusers in a fair trial. Shame on Sweden if they hand him over to the Americans after his trial has concluded.
First off, sexual assault and rape laws are very different in Sweden, and the crimes he has allegedly committed wouldn't be translated as assault or rape in most countries. Though that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do something bad to someone that requires legal recourse; what currently stands are accusations of crime under Sweden's legal code.
More importantly, suspicion arises because the Swedish prosecutor's office initially withdrew the rape charge and warrant for Assange's arrest, and weeks later the charge was brought back. Some time after that, a European arrest warrant was issued. Some are suspicious that this was due to pressure from the US government, as they would like to see Assange in prison, but I'm not going to give my opinion.
Also, Assange has yet to be charged. I'm not sure how this works in Sweden, but it seems in this case that they don't want to charge Assange until after a second round of questioning. That is what the extradition is for.
It's not a double jeopardy situation.
"Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them." David Leigh of the Guardian newspaper tells FRONTLINE of meetings he attended with Assange in the run-up to publication of the war logs. "And we said: 'Julian, we've got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.' And he said: 'These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.' And a silence fell around the table."
This is David Leigh, an fairly reputable guy who runs investigative reporting for _The Guardian_, not exactly an institution known for cowtowing to the military industrial complex of the US. Do you think he made this up? I don't.
The Guardian and David Leigh in particular do seem to have issues with Assange. Personally I wouldn't automatically believe something to be true just because it was in The Guardian.
[1] "Gives Julian Assange no right to reply libelous statements such as "Afghan informers deserve to die". Nick Davies was not present at the conversation described, and John Goertz and Holger Stark from Der Spiegel can attest that they have no notes or recollection of Julian Assange saying this and would have recalled if he had claimed such a position." http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-s-WikiLeaks-Secrets-and.ht...
"We did talk with others about David Leigh’s allegation. Several people confirmed that you had initially wanted to publish all the Afghan War Logs without redacting names. We also allowed you to deny the charge. As for content sales, you mentioned in your interview that you had explored financial incentives to improve the reception of the Collateral Murder video. There is more about this in the transcript of your interview that is published on Frontline's website."
That's Marcela Gaviria, a veteran PBS FRONTLINE producer. So that's The Guardian and PBS FRONTLINE --- both extraordinarily reputable newsgathering organizations, and both thoroughly on the liberal side of the spectrum with regards to conflict reporting.
Against that, you have Julian Assange's word and the fact that two Der Spiegel reporters apparently didn't add Assange's statement to their notes.
I tried to track down a denial from John Goertz or Holger Stark; maybe you could point me to one? Leigh's made a bombshell claim. If Der Spiegel reporters are calling into question, it shouldn't be hard to find!
I believe The Guardian and PBS FRONTLINE.
I did also look for a denial from Goertz or Stark, I couldn't find one either. They do have a book, perhaps there is more detail there.
The "they deserve to die" quote is very damaging, and quite frankly probably the kind of thing a journalist would remember, and perhaps even report. You could conversely say that Goertz or Stark should confirm this if it's true. I couldn't find any evidence of this.
I agree that it's a very damaging quote.
With Sweden's looney toons laws, I strongly disagree.
Assange and his legal team have tried every possible angle. Sweden has very different laws to say the US. This is not unexpected. The English courts have determined that Sweden's justice system is fair and balanced. Assange attempted to avoid extradition by arguing Sweden didn't have the right to issue an arrest warrant, not that he was going to get an unfair trial.
This is an act of total desperation. It does nothing to further his innocence. If the US wanted him they would have extradited him from the UK already - Britain has a long history of being more than happy to comply with US extradition requests. It's why Roman Polanski refuses to visit the UK from France.
This is all about accusations of sexual assault and rape which Assange is totally unwilling to face.
Saying this is all about avoid accusations of sexual assault seems to contradict the actual facts.
Assange cannot have his cake and eat it. It is somewhat hypocritical for Assange to seek asylum on the grounds of human rights whilst denying the women who are accusing him of obtaining due process through the law (most countries agree that due process is in itself a fundamental right).
And when faced with insufficient evidence of extraordinary affairs we resort to the status quo: due process in light of a sexual assault charge. The conspiracy theory being invoked is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence that has yet to be forthcoming.
Everything about these allegations are clumsy. While we may never know what has transpired, it should be a wake up call to the legal system - you can't just push the regular processes aside and treat a case exceptionally because the suspect is somewhat of a celebrity. The Swedish legal system has also failed these women, if indeed, they are victims.
Point me to any country in the world where a telephone interview of a suspect or person of interest in a crime is an acceptable totality of due process or investigation.
Not if the law which he is accused of breaking is fucked up (to say the least).
Then again, Julian Assange could very well be safe in a Swedish prison, relatively impervious to a drone strike.
Rational, maybe. Ethical? Not so much. I don't like the idea of a world where people are free to rape and sexually assault with impunity provided that they are not at home.