Hacker News Reader

Comment by TazeTSchnitzel | Hacker News Reader

I don't think Julian jumping bail and fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy will do him any favours. Now the UK and Sweden are angry at him and Ecuador and Australia's embarrassed.

Sure, the US does want to question him. But they haven't issued an extradition request, and by the looks of things getting him out of Sweden would be just as difficult as getting him out of the UK, if not more so.

I highly suspect Assange is actually just trying to avoid jail time, if he's going to these lengths to avoid going to Sweden for questioning on unrelated accusations of sex crime.

Assange is very attention-seeking and seems to care a lot about his image, which I suspect he is going to great lengths to avoid damaging.

Edit: I hate to compare HN to reddit, but I worry that I'm being downvoted for having an unpopular opinion. (edit: this has changed.)

Edit 2: I'm reconsidering my stance on this, my father's (conservative) opinions have too much influence on me.

View on HN

Assange have suggested that interviews could be held over video conference or in the UK, not an unreasonable request (and something that has been done in other cases so the only problem is this particular prosecutor). Even the defense lawyer for the women have suggested it.

I believe Assange has reasons to be afraid and even if an extradition to the US might be unlikely it is his life that is gambled with.

As a Swede I am quite embarrassed for our part in this.

My understanding is they don't just want to question him, they're at the stage they want to charge him. You can't really do that over video conference.

[edited to change 'prosecute' to 'charge']

EDIT: I didn't understand how Swedish law work. See AndrewDuck's reply. But still, they could interrogate him by videoconference (what Assange offered) or charge him in absence.

He hasn't been formally charged of any crime. If they want to prosecute him, they should charge him of something.

That's not how Swedish law works.

From Wikipedia: "Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[35] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings, which would be equivalent to having been charged under English process.[36]"

There is nothing preventing a Swedish court from issuing charges in absentia, and there's nothing preventing them from carrying out questioning outside of Sweden. This is smoke and mirrors.

And it's something that has prompted a formal complaint against this prosecutor to the Swedish judicial ombudsman.

They can still interview him without laying any formal charges. As far as I know the interviews are generally held long before the formal charges are laid.

I'm extremely late to this thread and unsure where best to post this. That said, if I wanted to seriously question an individual, I would most want to control the environment. Would video conferencing allow that?

Sweden has given prisoners to the CIA to be tortured in Egypt. Sweden has illegally tried to shut down The Pirate Bay under the pressure of the US. Will Sweden give Assange to the US? It seems very likely.

Many people have pointed out in HN that the sex was consensual according to the 2 women, but the issue is about protected or unprotected sex. Rape has a different definition in the Swedish legal code than everywhere else in the world. EDIT: I didn't understand how Swedish law work. See AndrewDuck's reply above. But still, they could interrogate him by videoconference (what Assange offered) or charge him in absence.

About avoiding jail time, why shouldn't he try to avoid it?

Lots of people are trying to point out that Assange isn't being accused of rape, but some sort of "not-using-a-condom" silly rape law that is only the law is whacky Sweden, herp de derp feminists de derp political correctness gone mad.

However in order to be extradited from UK, he had to be accused of a crime that would have been illegal in the UK. I suggest you read the High Court extradition appeal case ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ). The courts quite clearly decided that it wasn't some weird 'sweden-only' law, but what he was accused of would be a crime in England & Wales.

In fact, he's 'charged' with 4 things:

• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex.

• "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW).

• "Sexual molestation" - "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body."

• "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.

Before you talk about what's going on, read up on the charges.

Again: There are no charges. There is an arrest warrant to question him on suspicion. Charges would be the next step if they decide to proceed.

The UK courts found that the Swedish prosecutors unilateral interpretation of the evidence as stated in the EAW would amount to rape under UK law.

But this description has not been used to file charges with a Swedish court, and the woman in question have previously claimed to the press that she refuses to sign the statements that the prosecutor has based this description on. So at this stage it is pure speculation whether or not the prosecutors even believe they have anything that amounts to sufficient basis for a rape charge.

This does not mean that it's not possible that they will file actual rape charges. It does mean that it is worth pointing out that the only clear cut accusation of rape so far comes from the prosecutor, and that only in a document she has every opportunity to ignore the contents off for the future should she so choose.

It would most certainly not be the first time a Scandinavian prosecutor have used claims in an arrest warrant only to end up with no charges at all or much reduced charges once they actually have to file documents backed up by the evidence in front of a court with the power to actually investigate the evidence.

"Again: There are no charges."

Yes and no. Yes has has not been charged, however the Swedish court system is different. In the High Court appeal to the extradition, the English judge ruled that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). So he it is the opinion of the English courts that has been the equivalent of "charged".

The opinion of the English courts is based on representations of the Swedish prosecutor on the express basis that the extradition does not need to concern itself with what evidence there is to support those representations.

In other words, it says nothing about whether or not there is a sufficient basis for charging him in Sweden, nor about whether the proseutors office will actually feel confident enough to actually go through with charges if they get hold of him.

It only says that if the Swedish prosecutor does indeed have sufficient evidence to get a Swedish court to charge him based on claims supporting the same allegations she has made in the EAW, then it would also be a crime in England and Wales.

Which raises the question of why Marianne Ny has doggedly insisted on carrying out this case in a manner that has prevented it from moving forward, nor tried to get him charged in absentia, which the Swedish system most most certainly allows her to do.

    >he had to be accused of a crime that would have been illegal in the UK.

The extradition to the US of the guy who ran a site with links to pirated content comes to mind as a counter-example

e: his name was richard o'dwyer. The only related UK law is copyright infringement, links do not constitute that. He appears only as guilty under UK law (and perhaps even US law) as google, and less than Youtube. He complied with DCMA requests.

Counter-example of what? I'm sure profiting from copyright infringment is illegal in the UK aswell.

> Lots of people are trying to point out that Assange isn't being accused of rape, but some sort of "not-using-a-condom" silly rape law that is only the law is whacky Sweden, herp de derp feminists de derp political correctness gone mad.

I agree. Telling a woman you're going to use a condom so she'll sleep with you, then taking it off halfway into sex because it feels better and you don't care about the woman's choice isn't at all a violation of her sexual rights.

She doesn't get to pick how the penis goes into her, the man does! Fucking herp de derp feminists.

I think the OP was being sarcastic.

OP is referring to very real, disturbing sentiment that tops many discussions of Julian Assange's charges. Hop over to reddit sometime for real fun.

I did not think OP agreed with that sentiment. But he did brush right past it without addressing it.

Exactly, a lot of people are defending Assange by trying to portray this as some sort of extreme law that is "not like normal rape", "not a real crime". It's not just reddit, look at the comment I replied to ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4404277 )

• "the issue is about protected or unprotected sex" (er no, sex with someone asleep is one of the charges).

• "Rape has a different definition in the Swedish legal code than everywhere else in the world". laws are different yes, but the UK courts have looked at it, and decided that the charges would count as crimes if it was in UK. To re-iterate what the UK Judge said about UK law: *"in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003" (§86 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html )

What he is being investigated for would be considered rape pretty much anywhere in the western world. He is being investigated for having sex with a person that was asleep after she had expressed she did not want to have sex with him without a condom. That means no consent was given and would be rape pretty much anywhere.

No please don't think like that. Assange even said today he would agree to go to Sweden, if they promise to not send him to the U.S. He's terrible afraid of being send to the U.S, and rightly so. The U.S. repeatedly demonstrated, that when it comes to political prisoners they don't care much about human rights, the law, or habeas corpus. Look how Bradley Manning is being treated or may I just remind you of Guantanamo Bay? These things really happen.

Now Assange believes, that the extradition to Sweden, for whatever reason, is just a false pretence to send him to the U.S. What makes the whole case dubious is the timing the case came up, which was right after WikiLeaks's diplomatic cables release, and also that Sweden immediately issued an InterPol warrant, which is kinda unusual for the alleged charges. So I'd be highly suspicious, too.

> Assange even said today he would agree to go to Sweden, if they promise to not send him to the U.S.

It's impossible to unconditionally promise something like that.

> The U.S. repeatedly demonstrated, that when it comes to political prisoners they don't care much about human rights, the law, or habeas corpus. Look how Bradley Manning is being treated

Bradley Manning's treatment might seem excessive to you, but it satisfies every legal and constitutional requirement for the detention and treatment of soldiers accused of violating the UCMJ.

> or may I just remind you of Guantanamo Bay?

If the US wanted Assange in Guantanamo Bay, he would have been in Guantanamo Bay for awhile now. There's absolutely no way a promise from the Swedish government would protect Assange from extraordinary rendition in the first place.

A red interpol warrant, no less. Qaddafi got an orange. My views have changed.

It's not a scale. Red isn't worse than orange, they just mean different things. Orange is issued to notice of an immediate threat to life. If anything, orange is more severe.

http://amiobjective.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/assange-case-comm...

[Edit: Added reference]

Ah, the documentary I saw quite poorly framed it, then.

> I highly suspect Assange is actually just trying to avoid jail time, if he's going to these lengths to avoid going to Sweden for questioning on unrelated accusations of sex crime.

He offered to be interviewed from the embassy. Isn't it suspicious that Sweden won't accept that, given that this man hasn't been charged with anything?

This is something to remember: Assange hasn't been charged of anything yet, and still Interpol issued a red notice against him (while not even Gaddafi had a red one). Something smells fishy here.

Where is this meme from? Most Interpol notices are red (3 out of 4). The color codes are not a ranking of severity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol_notice#Notice_types

http://www.interpol.int/fr/Expertise/Notices

(while not even Gaddafi had a red one)

Under what nation's police jurisdiction? Gaddafi was a head of state! (Although Interpol did issue a red notice at one point, at the request of the ICC...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/09/201199949503933...

But according to Swedish law Assange cannot be charged until after this second round of questioning. If you search this document [0] for 'charge' you'll see that Swedish law is very different from US and UK laws where being formally charged happens very early in the legal process. From what I've gather in Swedish law once you are charge formally you go very quickly to court.

0. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...

This is pretty much irrelevant. They have two alternatives:

- They can interview him where he is now, and move things forward at least a little bit. - They can wait - possibly forever - to interview him, and not get justice for anyone.

What changes if they interview him now?

They claim there are legal issues with it, but this would not be the first time someone had been questioned on foreign soil, and it would not be the first time someone has been charged in absentia if they were to go down that route.

He won't magically gain superpowers and fly away from the Ecuadorian embassy if they charge him before they have him in custody. All that realistically changes is that they have to publicly make a decision whether to file charges or not.

So the question the is why is that a problem? The cynic in me tells me that the most likely reason is that they don't believe they have a strong case, and that his dogged insistence on not going to Sweden suits the prosecutor perfectly.

It is relevant, because people are implying the case is much much less further along than it actually is. It is the opinion of the English courts (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged". So the case is far enough along that he would be charged (were this England).

He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.

Oh, I didn't know about that. That could be suspicious, but I'd have to know more.

It isn't the first time. The offer to have him face interviews in the UK have been given regularly ever since they first wanted to talk to him after he'd arrived in the UK. Instead they went ahead with the EAW, and then refused several more offers while sending representatives to London for the extradition hearings instead.

That is, unless Assanges British barristers are lying in ways that'd risk them disbarment.

No, it's in accordance with Swedish bureaucracy.

Except it isn't really. They regularly interview suspects outside of Sweden. One of the most recent well known cases is a pair of Polish nationals interviewed in Poland on suspicion of carrying out a double homicide in Sweden. So apparently it's ok to interview alleged murderers outside Sweden, but not Assange.

Of course you might dismiss this link as pro-assange but I found it quite informing on the different extradition scenarios.

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

I personally will be glad to see Assange in Swede to face his accusations but I'm also concerned by the risks of extraditing him to the US.

For instance this week the Ecuador said they asked Britain and Swede for assurances of not extraditing him to the US and they said No. Even if their argument is that their justice is independent and therefore cannot make such promise I find it very convenient for them to use this argument.

So am I deluded in conspiracy theories? I don't think so, the best proof is to see the treatment Pvt. Manning received at Quantico, I therefore think there are big powers behind the scene trying to shut down this new whistleblower movement by making examples. I'm not approving all of their actions but I really think they are not criminals and it should be easy to find bigger fish to fry.

He's spent more time struggling to avoid jail time than he would spend in jail in Sweden if convicted, in a relatively low security prison likely to have quite decent accommodation and amenities. This isn't like the US where he'd risk years in some horrible shithole.

I'd be surprised if he got more than 6 months if convincted - there's been people convicted for violent rapes in substantially worse circumstances that have gotten less than two years.

Maybe his ego won't allow him to face a possible conviction or something, or maybe he genuinely is afraid - whether justified or not - of being handed over to the US.

But it just doesn't make sense to go to this level of effort "just" to avoid a Swedish prison sentence given the relatively low level of the alleged crimes.

(EDIT: quiet => quite)

Obviously, he is not doing it just to avoid a Swedish prison sentence. He appears to think that if he goes to Sweden, he'll end up going to the US too and once there he'll be "vanished" or worse. I'd say that's not unreasonable given what we've heard from the US already, and the pressure they've been willing to bring to bear on Kim Dotcom (who they're a lot less personally annoyed with than Assange) or the Pirate Bay a few years back.

Exactly. So I think it is unfair to assume he isn't prepared to stand in front of a Swedish court. It doesn't even really matter whether this threat is real or not. What matters is that he appears to believe it, and that there are enough oddities to exacerbate his fears and raise questions for other people too.

So that leaves Sweden with two options: Trying to work around that and coming to a compromise that allows them to try him, or face a standoff that could very well last for years.

So far they seem to have gone to a curious amount of effort to avoid trying to make any accommodations at all to move the case forward. Maybe they are just being totally obtuse and irrational. Or maybe there really is more going behind the scenes.

I would like to see him stand trial. If he's guilty, he should serve the sentence. If he's not, we need explanations for why this case has been treated this way.

One would think that the Swedish prosecutors office would like to see him stand trial too, yet they seem to do everything they can to ensure it drags out.

please read this comment on a previous HN story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391500

or this short post: http://www.ianwelsh.net/assange-and-wikileaks-the-basics/

or this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu4WCskniEc

inform yourself

I'm not sure Hnolable if you did the down vote on TazeTSchnitzel but either way it seems very inappropriate. You're taking a complicated situation and assuming you know all the facts and the motivations. That's presumptuous because it is impossible for you to know. There's nothing in the comments by OP that isn't a fair assumption.

I'm a new account. I have 13 pts. I can't downvote.

His comment was very uninformed. So I pasted 3 links which are a quick way for him to get up to speed on the things that most people are not made aware of by the media covering the whole fiasco.

Yet it's hard to dispute that Assange does a) want to avoid going to jail and b) is a very attention seeking person. At least that comment is no longer down-voted. That ABC/4Corners article you site really isn't credible either if you know Australian media well.

Yes, I can tell you have a very unbiased view on the matter.

I agree, and can't help but question the claims he will be extradited to the US from Sweden, since if he was going to be extradited from anywhere it would be the UK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com