Take a look at how many policemen are standing guard in that picture. In a normal sexual assault extradition case, you would never get that level of response from local police. No matter how much Sweden might have begged for it.
Assange has finished his speech now - he talks about making a stand for the justice system, but doesn't mention at all anything to do with the rape charges* and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process.
He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two.
* And yes, I'm calling it rape: what he is accused of is rape under Sweden's law, and contrary to what many people are saying, it would be rape under English law as well.
@tgasson - unfortunately I can't reply to your next message, but with regards to links: you can view most of the case literature at BAILII and the Supreme Court website. Because Assange made numerous appeals his legal filings are numerous. Link here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank...
A more succint summary can be found at David Allen Green's blog - Assange's legal team did at first try to argue it wouldn't count as rape, but this was rejected by two courts, and when they subsequently appealed to the UK Supreme Court his defence accepted the point and dropped the argument: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat...
Assange's legal defence against the extradition was primarily on a matter of procedural law regarding whether Sweden had the judicial authority to extradite him in the first place.
I hope you will forgive my rather blunt tone - I am not a lawyer, but I have the pleasure (perhaps?!) of living with one. As I've said in other posts here, I'm more than happy to believe Assange is the victim of a conspiracy, but I don't think that is an outright certainty. I perhaps naively hold the English legal system in some regard, although I accept others may not!
In respect of Offence 4, Mr Assange contended that whilst rape was a Framework Offence and therefore didn't require dual criminality, the conduct described in the EAW was not fairly and accurately described and that if it had it would not be rape.
edit: Thanks for clarification.
There is nothing wrong or sinister about an accused person taking every legal step to defend himself, including seeking asylum. This is the whole point of a justice system. Assange is not depriving anyone of due process by defending himself. Due process is to protect the accused, not the accusers.
By definition, only the arbiters of the legal system itself, i.e., the government can deprive someone of due process. The fact that Sweden and the UK are making a sincere effort to extradite Assange is, at this point, all the "due process" the women are entitled to. Assange's actions have nothing to do with it.
"He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two."
Buying the argument that the charges are politically motivated, the fact that they are attacking Assange due to his association with wikileaks mean that wikileaks is under attack. If this sets a precedent that high profile persons leading the push for the release of extremely sensitive information can be rubbed out so easily puts a chilling effect on whoever steps into Assange's place. And that's assuming anyone really can just step up as Assange didn't just start with wikileaks. He's been involved in uncovering suppressed information since he was a kid growing up in Australia and even co-wrote the Rubberhose deniable encryption program.
It's telling that someone like Assange who is undergoing such a massive level of scrutiny that these rape allegations are the best they can do. The guy must practically be a saint.
I am more than happy to concede that maybe these charges are politically motivated, and they are complete and utter trash: if that's the case, then clearly you could argue Assange is totally right to seek asylum. Good on him.
However, there is a chance these charges are genuine. I really hope nobody would try to argue otherwise. I don't pretend to know how large or small this chance is. As long as there is a chance I think Assange's actions do nobody any favors whatsoever.
It's also worth pointing out that:
* Sweden initially dropped the case: senior prosecutor Eva Finné reversed the arrest order and found there were no grounds for the 'rape' allegations. [1]
* Assange was questioned by police in Sweden 10 days later
* Assange spent weeks in Sweden after the accusations
* the case was picked up again two weeks later by prosecutor Marianne Ny
* Sweden is seeking Assange's extradition not to charge him (as some articles and commentators suggest as a matter of Swedish law) but merely to question him.
* the Swedish Supreme Court has ruled that it is appropriate to conduct a videoconference with a suspect who is co-operative and abroad. The same ruling stated that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute. [2]
It's a case that's so transparently political that arguing against it is nothing more than wilful ignorance of readily available facts.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...
Justice systems are allergic to public disrespect. That alone can completely explain the behavior of the police in Sweden and the UK.
Assange is a self-importent prick, cowardly on the run from pretty serious allegations. He exploits his involvement with Wikileaks to sow doubt. I really think it's as simple as that.
For some definitions of "politically motivated," you would have contradicted yourself.
We all know what was meant with politically motivated in the comment I was responding to. Don't be a pedantic ass when I was perfectly understandable.
That's why comments like yours are pedantic self-importance that only want to derail the discussion.
I see that you've retreated with that "and nothing else" part though, admitting that it is, in fact, a factor.
The British justice system is motivated to get him because he is behaving like a prick in public and managed to escape them. That's all. Not really politically motivated at all.
I believe the distinction you are trying to draw lacks a difference. You may consider that pedantry, but being able to communicate precisely what you mean is important, particularly on a story like this where tensions run high.
This is so ridiculously absurd and easily rebutted by there just being one account of him not being a "scumbag" that I wonder why you would even bother typing such a transparent ad hominem in the first place.
- Sweden issued police alerts more befitting of an international terrorist suspect
- Assange was hit by these charges coincidentally just at the the time when he'd provoked the wrath of the US
- the charge they'd managed to conjure up is one for which there can be basically no exhonerating witnesses and no physical evidence, so they simply 'must' question him in person
- the supposed victims were tweeting about how excited they were to be with Assange seemingly after the alleged crime and also did not report it until later as if they were prompted by some other motivation
I'd put the odds of this being a legitimate criminal case at something like 0.0000034%
Just one thing. no country will promise not to extradite someone. They can't. It's just not possible to promise something like that. How is that supposed to work? If (hypothetically) the US were to request Assange's extradition and if they had (hypothetically) evidence and valid reasons for doing so, Sweden would have to break their treaty.
Why do you believe it's possible to promise something like that? That's crazy.
However, the allegation of the charge being 'conjured up' would require that both the UK and Swedish judicial systems be severely compromised. That would be an extraordinary conspiracy, so the claim requires extraordinary evidence. The four points mentioned simply don't meet that standard in my opinion.
Think about this from the start: Assange has just become an enemy of the US due to wikileaks dumping a lot of official documents onto the Internet. Knowing this, Assange would be extra careful not to do anything that could lead to his arrest by a America-comliant government. Next thing we know, he's being accused of the one crime for which there can be almost by definition no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence, no signs of physical harm on the victim. What are the odds? And remember, they haven't even pressed the charges (that way they can deny the judicial system was actually compromised), this is just an excuse to get him into custody so he can then be officially extradited to the US.
But why is that completely out of the question?
I also think he's right to be afraid. The two pieces of evidence that make me fill that way are, first, that the prosecutor that wants the questioning is not the prosecutor that spoke with the women and, second, they won't question him anywhere but Sweden, even though Sweden has done remote interviews in the past. Couple this with one of the accusers refusing to sign her statement and it gets very fishy.
because no "normal" sexual assault case would have this level of media surrounding it.
They're there to manage the crowds.
It's very suspect.
Julian Assange always seemed quite paranoid to me -- maybe rightfully -- so it seems strange that he would have sex with 2 women he met at a conference (I think that's what happened, I'm not 100% sure of the case details as I can't find a detailed summary) if he believed there would be attempts to set him up for crimes, it seems more the behaviour of someone that lives care free.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28...
Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave "their side of the story" right? Wrong.
What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion.
Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.
Journalists really aren't allowed to go around interviewing either plaintiffs or defendants in criminal trials for fairly obvious reasons. Cases all across the world have been undone by press coverage that has contaminated the jury pool. In many countries victims of sexual assault and rape cases are also entitled to have their identities withheld, again for fairly obvious reasons.
It is not for the court of public opinion to decide the outcome of a criminal case, although that is certainly how this particular one seems to be playing out (unfortunately).