Swedish woman's texts could clear Assange
thelocal.se
thelocal.se
This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. The political situation will not change even if this case falls apart - so Assange would still be a refugee or a fugitive, depending on who you ask. British authorities would certainly find some pretext to arrest him and extradite him even if the Swedish government publicly verifies his safety and innocence.
I would love to be proved wrong if someone is better informed about this than I, but this just seems completely obvious.
Many people end up in prison on the UK for breach of bail despite being aquitted in court of the original charge they faced and it is naive to think that any hypothetical dropping of charges by Sweden is either the end of the matter or the end of the risk of a one-way ticket to the US.
Good job, sir. Good job.
Rather, it is instead a textbook example of how public figures that are supported by a group suddenly become incapable of fault.
Instead of letting the legal system of Sweden play out (you know, like Snowden had been trying to fight for with his leaks against the FISA Court), Assange's supporters simply declare that this is some vast world conspiracy against Assange, or that it wasn't really "rape" anyways, and even much more misogynistic things.
In addition all the contradictory evidence against that hypothesis simply gets glossed over. E.g. the extradition thing makes no sense, and never made any sense. Assange was being processed through courts in the U.K. while avoiding Swedish justice, and the U.K. is hardly knowing for making it difficult to extradite suspects to the U.S.!
If Assange was worried about extradition to the U.S. he should have fled from the U.K. ASAP. Given that wasn't what he did, he must have been more worried about something different (perhaps the veracity of the charges of which he was accused?). And either way, as mentioned in a sibling comment, the U.S. would actually have to charge him with something for extradition to apply, and those charges would have to come within the statute of limitations (and perhaps even within a shorter timeframe for whatever country Assange flees to).
I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing.
"I agree to have sex with you so long as you send that email tomorrow."
Next day: "You didn't send the email! That means you raped me yesterday!"
Er, no.
Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't. If you don't, that should always be respected entirely. If you withdraw your consent halfway through sex, that should also be respected entirely. However, you can't withdraw consent later when you find out that the other person wasn't using protection. Or rather, you can accuse them of being an asshole, but you can't accuse them of raping you.
A few questions for you:
If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier?
Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine?
Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't
I hope my questions above illustrate that it's more complicated than the black-and-white views you're putting across here.
Edit: removed crappy BDSM question.
Edit II: I guess I'm just really confused that you agree with the principles of consent unless that consent involves a condom.
Personally, I find that strange, least of all over the increased STD and pregnancy risks involved.
Yeah, that seems reasonable enough to me.
I'm not a lawyer though, no idea what the courts in any given country would or wouldn't do.
Then that person is an evil asshole who should go to jail for purposefully infecting others with a disease, just the same as if he were to purposefully put anthrax spores on your pillow. However, he's not a rapist. That's something completely different.
Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine?
Sure, that's a fair point. But there some might argue that that's a different kind of sex. Don't oversimplify my point: obviously agreeing to a blow job is not the same as agreeing to penetrative sex or agreeing to anal sex or agreeing to be tied up in a harness and whipped. But once it is clear that there is agreement for that kind of sex, you can't go after the fact and say "oh actually that was conditional on X and therefore you raped me".
As I said, the person who betrayed the other person's trust may still be an asshole - but a rapist, they're not. Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually is: a violent and despicable act of "taking" a form of sex that was refused.
...your definition, and nobody else's?
This is a marginally unfair comparison: you realise saying this puts you in the same camp as those who talk about "legitimate" rape?
I honestly don't understand why we can't keep a simpler definition for rape: sex without consent.
You're saying that sex without consent is fine if that consent involves a condom.
Because that's not the definition of rape?? That seems like a good reason not to oversimplify.
Here's our good old friend the dictionary to the rescue: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
Now, it could be that it ends up being called rape under definition #3 - because the statutes say it is. To me, that is a perversion of the english language, though. Rape is clearly intended to imply some kind of forcing. It's not just "I didn't consent to have sex in this specific way", it's "I either gave no consent or I asked them to stop and they still did it".
(first usage c. 1350) 1. The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering. Also as a count noun: an instance of this, a robbery, a raid. Now rare (chiefly arch. and literary).
...
(first usage c. 1425) 2. Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.
Subnote:
The precise legal definition of rape has varied over time and between legal systems. Historically, rape was considered to be the act of a man forcing a woman other than his wife to have intercourse against her will, but recently the definition has broadened. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in the United Kingdom the crime of rape includes the penile penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person of either sex, where consent to the act has not been given. This includes marital rape: in 1992 the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, decided that the previous understanding (i.e. that a wife had given an irrevocable consent to intercourse) was no longer part of the law. Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13 also constitutes rape irrespective of whether consent is obtained. In the United States the precise criminal definition of rape varies from state to state.
As time moves on, so do definitions and the laws that go with them.
One bit of the subnote that really sounds out for the sheer number of horrible bits in it: "an act of a man forcing a woman other than his wife..."
Thankfully we've progressed quite a bit from those dark days.
> it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing.
Actually, that's exactly like it is. Sexual consent is not an on or off switch. I can't do things to another person they don't like simple because they agreed to get in the same bed with me.
Seriously, you need to give this way more thought.
Yes, it is more nuanced than an on/off switch, if you consider all the different varieties of "sex" out there. No, omitting to use a condom while having consensual sex is still not rape.
This is tremendously different than your email example, because this 1) happens in advance of any acts (we're not retroactively making anything rape), and 2) condom use has manifestly significant consequences as to the safety and consequences of the act (so is very much something that should be impacting whether someone consents).
Depending on the nature of the email, the circumstances, and intents at the time, I'm not sure that I would say that situation could never be rape, but there is oodles of room for that to not be rape and this to still be.
And why not? Why would it be unreasonable to stipulate something to the effect of 'no unprotected sex'?
However, he is also accused of having sex with her while she was asleep. In that situation, I think it could very well be rape (if she felt violated). So, assuming that neither the girl nor the prosecution are lying, I consider the charges valid.
>How is that rape?
It is molestation because a safety protocol has not been used.
This is nothing like your example of sending an email. This is about ensuring personal health and safety. The charges are he deliberately deceived her over this.
The latter, as I've said, may still be criminal. But it's not rape.
The logic being applied here is that she consented to protected sex, not unprotected sex. If we want to split hairs over whether that distinction is meaningful, let's look at a couple of example scenarios:
1. Someone convinces a blind woman that he/she is her partner and has consensual sex with her. Is this rape? Did she only consent to sex with her partner, making the sex non-consensual? Or did she consent to sex with the person in the room with her, making this consensual sex?
2. A woman consents to sex, thinking that she is talking about vaginal intercourse. Her partner penetrates her anally. Did she consent to 'sex' in a general sense, so the specifics (anal vs. vagina) are not really important?
Number one is tricky. I don't know what the answer is there. My gut tells me that should be rape. But if I think about it, I think that's because the consent was never given to that person.
On the second one, I think most people are capable of telling the difference between whether they're having anal or regular intercourse, and, forgive me for going into details, but unless you're having exceptionally vigorous and violent anal sex, it's not like it's going to just "go in" unnoticed. There will at least be a brief period of, erm "engaging".
At that point, the recipient can just say "no". If they say "no", and the other person continues anyway, it's rape. Otherwise, I would think that consent is implied...*
* unless the perpetrator has threatened violence if the other person says no, obviously, in which case it's a whole different kettle of fish.
He ties her up and blindfolds her (maybe she's
into bondage). She consents to only be penetrated
by a sex toy. He lies to her, and penetrates her
with himself instead. She doesn't notice until
later. Consent or non-consent?
[1] i.e. she doesn't realize that there is no condom
She agrees to have sex only if he doesn't come. Unfortunately, he gets over-excited and comes anyway. She obviously doesn't notice until it actually happens.
In this scenario, he obviously has breached the initial conditions. Is that rape though?
In the Assange case, it's hard to say that he 'accidentally' didn't put on a condom after agreeing to put on a condom.
"[...] what is alleged here is that Mr Assange 'deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state'"
"It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."
Here's the allegation in English:
"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.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity."
If so, I see two possible cases here:
1) He forced himself into her before she could even wake - a very aggressive thing to do to anyone whether or not they've consented. Then it's definitely rape without any doubt.
2) He cajoled her while she was half asleep and started having sex with her in a way that she would have consented to had he been wearing a condom.
If 2, the point where it becomes rape is when she realises he doesn't have a condom and yet he continues despite her protestations. If she never realised he didn't wear a condom, then it's not rape. It's an evil and possibly criminal thing to do, but it's not "forcing someone to have sex against their will".
For the record, I think either action makes Julian Assange a total asshole, and quite possibly someone who should go to jail. But unless he actually committed rape I don't see who it helps to call him a rapist.
"1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange 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."
You can also see why there were initially two allegations of rape....
Per Wikipedia, it would appear offenses 2 and 3 are "sexuellt ofredande", "which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment"." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...)
Well, that's very clearly rape (unless she had actually agreed to this kind of borderline BDSM sex, which he never said she did, afaik, so that likely means she didn't).
So why are we talking about condoms then? Seems largely irrelevant except in a legal context of bringing on as many charges as possible...
For offense 4, it's explicitly "an aggravating circumstance".
No, the point where it becomes rape is when he starts having sex with her without her consent!
It is perhaps not as irrational as some people make it sound. The police report was leaked and can be found online.
Who cuts a condom pre coitus? What possible goal would that achieve?
The girls stories only changed to concur after collusion from what i recall.
The only reasoning that I could come up with for it is that Assange has HIV/AIDS and is one of those "I'm angry at the world so I'll give the disease to others" characters, which doesn't seem likely.
If Assange wanted to flee he would have done so straight away instead of hanging around two weeks more. But a set up makes even less sense, why leave him around for two weeks then? There is more than enough here to weave a conspiracy theory from, but please don't. It just doesn't make sense.
Personally, I don't hero-worship Assange, nor have I researched the public knowledge on this case. I'm just mentioning that the action of 'cutting up condoms prior to intercourse' is really weird behavior, even if it's true.
If you come across a sleeping woman, and start to have sex with her, well...
I'm not commenting on the strength of the rape allegations, just that the US can easily get to someone via the UK without ever needing to formally start extradition proceedings.
I'm not a lawyer so that's as far as I know :) Seems applicable to this situation.
What a fucking travesty.
I'm appalled at the number of people who think this is some grand world conspiracy.
It would be a lot easier to believe that was actually the case if Assange and his campaign team hadn't subsequently spent the next few years fighting on "not really an extraditable crime" technicalities in the UK courts whilst simultaneously asserting he's quite happy to answer prosecutors so long as Sweden rewrite their legal procedures to his design. And, in the case of some of the more lurid blogs from some of his supporters, claiming the women involved are CIA agents.
Not to mention the Ockham's razor angle: if US interests wanted to nab Assange on trumped up charges one would assume they have the ingenuity to come up with something a bit less flimsy.
Why? It's rape. All rationality goes out the window if someone's accused of rape. It makes a lot of sense.
If I claim that I don't think that Assange raped anyone, I am now a misogynist? That seems like an extreme view, unless I'm missing something...
That said, I think that Assange's publicity seems like it plays a part into why this is being pursued. There doesn't even need to be nefarious pressure from the USA for that to be true.
I think Sweden has a general policy of pursuing alleged rapists even when they aren't public figures. The UK have undoubtedly spent far more time and effort pursuing him than they would for a non-public figure, but that's because non-public figures are unlikely to have the ability to claim asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy.
It doesn't even have to be at the government level. Maybe he did rape her, but she only came forward after seeing him in the media. This would still be his publicity playing into it. Also, his publicity make it easy for Swedish authorities to know where he is to pursue him.
If the idea of an HN user saying that the charges are B.S. because a rape victim didn't file them until she found out he was a public figure doesn't fully demonstrate my point about misogyny, I can't imagine what would.
P.S. He was a public figure even before 2010, btw.
"In her statement SW said that she had been captivated by Mr Assange when she had seen him in a TV interview. She had attended a lunch with him and others on 14 August 2010. He had flirted with her over lunch...."
> That said, I think that Assange's publicity seems like it plays a part into why this is being pursued. There doesn't even need to be nefarious pressure from the USA for that to be true.
(I'm not heavily invested in the Assange situation, and I don't spend hours pouring over all publicly available material on the matter, so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here.)
I said this because it seemed like a few things could be true:
1. The woman could have come forward due to the extra publicity that Assange was getting at the time [ If I remember correctly, this happened around the time the Wikileaks was publishing the leaked diplomatic communications. ] Note, that this says nothing about whether or not he actually raped her, nor does it say anything about whether or not he should stand trial for said rape.
2. The Swedish government could have been pursuing the case extra hard because he was a public figure. [ Maybe I'm cynical, but I feel like authorities may not pursue a case that hard after the suspect has fled the country. Especially if it's "only rape" rather than something sexy like "terrorism" that will get them a promotion. ]
3. The publicity surrounding Assange makes him easier to find abroad, unlike someone with less of a profile, who might be more difficult to find for extradition.
> It doesn't even have to be at the government level. Maybe he did rape her, but she only came forward after seeing him in the media. This would still be his publicity playing into it. Also, his publicity make it easy for Swedish authorities to know where he is to pursue him.
In response to @notahacker saying:
> think Sweden has a general policy of pursuing alleged rapists even when they aren't public figures.
This plays back to those original 3 points.
How does any of this make me a mysogynist? At no point do I express an opinion on:
- The veracity of the woman's claims
- If Assange should go to Sweden to sort out this issue / stand trial.
Just because a woman doesn't come forward right away does not prove that she was not raped, nor does it prove that she has some nefarious purpose.
Utterly inept, you mean?
If they wanted to lock up Assange so badly, why not just stick some child porn on his laptop?
Or send a bomb threat coming from his email address?
Or punch someone in the face and claim Assange did it?
Or get him rip-roaring drunk, deny him use of a lavatory, and arrest him when the inevitable happens on the walk back to his hotel?
Or 5,001 variations on this theme.
In other words: I believe it's neither competent enough, nor incompetent enough to be staged.
Hang on, hang on; is the conspiracy to get Assange to the USA, or to lock him up for a long time in Sweden?
From the sounds of things, I thought this was all a ruse so the US could grab him?
If you're willing to accept that the powerful do have secrets they don't want exposed then you should also be willing to accept that they probably don't care exactly HOW he's neutralized, just that he is. And judging by that criteria having him effectively locked up in the embassy is pretty good.
So why Sweden? If the US wanted him extradited, it would be far easier to do it from the UK.
I think it is better to look for a more likely explanation. Perhaps it is not more complicated than it seems on the surface. Some strange things happened between him and two girls, we don't know what's true there, and when they finally got around to question him he had already left the country. Assange either saw the opportunity to make a PR coup out of it, or he was genuinely paranoid (in which case I wouldn't blame him). So here we are in a stalemate with no easy way out.
Also do note that it's not altogether fair to call this "rape allegations". It is the lesser form of the crime and would be better translated to sexual misconduct, or something like that (IANAL).
(That link is off of the article cited here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988717 and by the same author.)
Rape and sexual misconduct (but I am unsure of the exact translations here) are different severities of the same type of crime. We only know that he is wanted for questioning regarding crimes on this scale.
The document you linked to is in regards to the extradition laws, not the criminal case. It is my personal opinion (hence the IANAL) that the lesser severity is more likely to be pursued, but I wanted to stress that it is not correct to say that he is wanted for rape. That is simply not decided yet.
(This process, by the way, is why one must be physically present for the formal questioning.)
While it's clear neither of us really understand Swedish criminal law procedures, it's beyond initial questioning (that happened 30 August 2010), it's at the point for him to be formerly arrested. It's clear in what I've been reading that the case is much further in progress than what in common law based countries is called "questioning", as a matter of Swedish legal procedure formal charging must come after the arrest.
That's why I tried to say that using words such as "rape" can be misleading if it is indeed a correct translation. The same goes for "questioning" apparently. For some reason this was downvoted so I won't dwell more on the subject.
Although that's not something Americans can easily understand due to our Constitutional right against self-incrimination; if we tell the authorities to stop questioning us until we get a lawyer, they must stop, and when it comes to a trial aspersions cannot be cast on the defendant for asserting this right. As I understand it the reverse is currently true for the latter in the U.K.
As for "rape", per U.K. law "offense" 4 equals it, and in general, in US law it would also count as "rape" (we've got at least 52 legal definitions of that word, for D.C., the Federal government, and each of the 50 states, so I can't make a definitive statement).
"Offenses" 2-3 are apparently "sexuellt ofredande"; while obviously the first word is rather easy to translate, per Wikipedia the two words have a wide variety of possible translations, as I note here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7989290 "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment". Ugh.
If the claim was that it was some sort of backhanded punishment - that he's going to be stitched up for rape and go to prison as some sort of punishment beating from the US because they know they're not going to get him convicted of what they want to get him convicted of, I could understand that, but how does it aid or enable an extradition to the US?
No US citizen was involved, the crime didn't happen in the US, the Swedes would want him to serve any prison sentence before they'd release him elsewhere, the extradition from Sweden will be more complex than from the UK (as if he's been extradited from the UK the UK also have to agree to him going to the US) and it's not as if the UK aren't massively friendly (indeed in cahoots with) US intelligence.
I can completely see the idea that the US want Assange on US soil to try, but I don't see how this helps them to that end.
If the UK sent him to Sweden both countries (the UK and Sweden) have to agree to the extradition as the law is set up to prevent exactly this sort of thing happening.
The claim you outline doesn't really make sense if you look at what's really involved.
There is a major issue with this: By law, extraditing Assange from Sweden would require the consent of the UK and Sweden. So if the UK is not willing to see Assange head to the US, then he cannot be extradited from Sweden. Conversely, if they are, then the extradition to Sweden is not needed.
See "Myth Two" here: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
DAG isn't a man you can easily accuse of being the sort who would be rabidly anti-Assange - almost the opposite.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol...
0: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor...
Even if such a text exists, it doesn't mean she couldn't change her mind. Or maybe she was lying in the text for some reason.
"The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010."
The article further states he's wanted for rape of 2 women. So if it's reduced to 1, he'd still be extradited.
Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof.
Or she could just get payed off to get him into the country for a different purpose which judging by the fact that he was granted asylum seems very likely to me.
This is such a myth and I'm really tired of hearing it. The fact is the vast majority of sexual assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any conviction. Also, rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates sexual assault and rape, so the reality is that it is rare when something like that happens.
Most women you attempt to press for a sexual assault charge are often unable to get one on the very basis on which you seem to think they can magically send you to jail: people don't believe them, proof is often hard to come by due to the nature of sexual assault, and misogynistic cultural stereotypes are often held up as reasons why sexual assault couldn't have possibly happened.
It's very possible, for example, that the reason the 'vast majority of sexual assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any conviction' is because they were either false accusations, or not clearly rape of the sort where the woman was forced into the act.
It's a amusing to watch someone both say that the majority of cases don't end in a conviction, but also that the rate of false accusations are tiny.
How does one make that conclusion based upon the evidence as presented?
The answer is simple: One simply has that opinion, and the facts are irrelevant.
Remember, he was in the UK on bail for months before he went near the embassy.
EDIT: what I'm clarifying is that he's not avoiding Sweden because he thinks they'll deport him to the US, that would have been more likely staying in the UK.
A bunch of the newspapers here (the UK) looked into this at the time and the short version was there was no realistic, workable way of getting him out without the UK co-operating.
Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not
enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign
territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises
of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of
the host state while being afforded special privileges
(such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
He jumped bail because the UK was going to deport him to Sweden, and Sweden was likely to deport him to the US, where he'd be Manninged before (eventual) trial.
Jumping bail isn't a crime in the UK. It simply means the gov gets to keep your bail money.
If Sweden drops charges he'll be free to go, unless the UK can manufacture a pretext for extradition (always possible) or the US sweeps him off the street (also possible, but unlikely to make the US popular with European countries who are already unhappy about being spied on.)
"A person who is convicted summarily of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above [which outline not attending without good reason] and is not committed to the Crown Court for sentence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and a person who is so committed for sentence or is dealt with as for such a contempt shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or to both."
The court and / or the CPS may view that there is no public interest in that, though similarly they may view given the cost to the tax payer of the round the clock surveillance of the embassy he should be made an example of.
I'd be inclined to believe the later.
A few people in this thread are saying that he's not on English soil; that the embassy is under Ecuadorian law.
That's a myth. Ambassadors get immunity and international politeness means we don't go raiding embassies[1] but Assange is in England, on English soil, subject to English law, and being in some other country's embassy doesn't change that.
[1] unless they hold hostages or shoot our police officers
That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference.
If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today.
Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist.
Let's also remember, the UK has spent years being the US's bitch when it comes to foreign policy, defence and intelligence matters. I can't think of a single nation in the world who have been more willing to do America's bidding than the UK. It really makes no sense for the US to involve a third party.
He was on British soil for months while his extradition case dragged on. And whatever "covert" ties Sweden has with NATO (which is not the USA), the U.K. has substantially many more with the U.S. directly. The "special relationship" is a real thing, so if some sort of covert rendition were a real worry for Assange, it would have already happened without needing to involve a Scandinavian nation.
> That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference.
He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest and formal charge proferring. You can't book people by VTC last I checked; either way, Assange is in no position to unilaterally demand the conditions of his treatment as compared to any other defendant under Swedish law. Does he think he's royalty or something, and above the law as applied to the rest of Sweden?
> If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today.
See above.
> Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist.
Perhaps. If only there was some deliberative process by which a group of persons might decide where that nugget of evidence stacks up in determining whether Assange is actually guilty or not guilty, we could help clear all this up.
It could have been that this was the most convenient excuse.
> He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest
Yes, they've asked to arrest - ie, detain - him to question him. They haven't charged him with any crime.
I think there's a very real danger that someone wants to punish him for exposing government war crimes. But maybe you're right and it's just because he's a primadonna and the US government is pretty chilled out about the whole thing.
He's been properly charged. The fact that this meme refuses to die is my whole point about tribalism, the meme's not merely misleading, it's false, and yet it continues to persist, and for no reason. After all, he might very well be found not guilty, especially if the evidence against him is so flimsy as his supporters claim, but Assange has prevented the trial from even reaching that point, and his supporters believe that this is proper because the situation pertains to His Wikiness and for no other reason.
The "questioning" they will be doing of Assange is to ensure that there are no mitigating facts that Assange would be able to bring to cause the prosecutor to rescind the charges based on the mounds of evidence already accumulated. Afterwards he will be immediately taken into custody (and somehow I doubt he will be released on bail given his current ongoing flight from justice).
Nor is this simply a rogue prosecutor in Sweden, Assange's case was heard by an appeals court in Sweden and in multiple appeals courts in the U.K., all of which determined that there was sufficient evidence shown to demonstrate that the trial could proceed.
The UK co-founded NATO, and is still in it. Assange was walking around the UK (a NATO member) for months while his appeal was on-going. In fact he left Sweden for the UK after he was first questioned by the police. If he was so concerned about NATO, why did he leave Sweden for the UK?
> That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference.
No, they want to arrest him. In his appeals, the UK High & Supreme Court have acknowledged that.