Second time lucky: Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation A rape investigation involving everyone's favourite cupboard-dwelling WikiLeaker, Julian Assange, has been dropped, Swedish prosecutors told the world's press today. Deputy director of public prosecutions Eva-Marie Persson told journalists that the case against Assange had been discontinued, around seven years after …
Trying the charges separately . . .
Many things are illegal, but the question is: Are they lawful?
What Assange did (IMO) was to expose the criminal activities [unconstitutional, thus unlawful (but not illegal, according to the gov'ts interpretation)] of government. Naturally government says what he did is a crime.
No matter what the demonstrably corrupt U.S. Supreme Court says, the only valid test for a law is if it meets the written (not interpreted) words of the U.S. "Law Of the Land". There are many "laws", the vast majority of which exceed the authority granted our government under the Constitution. Of course the Court and law enforcement say otherwise; would you talk yourself out of a very well paid job?
Remember, the United States' Constitution places limits on government, not on the people. It specifically delegates and authorizes certain activities (only those activities). It is not a blank check as the Court, over the years, has made it out to be.
There used to be a time where they taught this in school. Now, schools teach little or nothing. Instead, they indoctrinate. Revive the old Soviet Union, anyone?
As a publisher I'm not sure that anything Assange did was illegal. The US is really trying to nail him on a technicality, the idea that he 'conspired with someone to unlawfully crack a password' or some such. Its about a bogus a charge as that rape claim.
As for dragging the Soviet Union into this I don't know of any situation where the old USSR -- or even modern Russia -- claimed extraterritorial judicial rights over foreign citizens. The Federal judicial system in the US is very dicey to get involved with, unless you're well resourced you're basically screwed if it sets its sights on you. (Most criminal cases you hear about are in State court.) As for the criminal justice system being non-existent in the USSR, that's not true, its just that Russia, like most of Europe (and even Scotland) uses a different judicial model to the adversarial one used in the US and England. In this "Napoleonic" system guilt or innocence is generally determined before the trial which leads to the trial proper being more of a formality and so easily painted as some kind of kangaroo court. (In truth this is pretty much how the system works in the US for most cases -- culpability is decided by negotiation between a DA and the accused's attorney for the most part with the charges being adjusted to incentivize a plea bargain. Justice? Its all a matter of opinion....)
The US is really trying to nail him on a technicality, the idea that he 'conspired with someone to unlawfully crack a password' or some such
It seems to me that all laws are is a collection of technicalities in much the way that protons, electrons and neutrons make up atoms. There my be smaller legal particles waiting to be discovered, but construction on the Large Jurisprudential Collider is offline pending upgrades to the tort reactors and civil inducers.
Mine has a copy of Complete Idiot's Guide to Business Law in the pocket.
That's because the old Soviet Union, as well as the current Russian government, doesn't really bother with judicial process when it decides to murder someone. Or are those polonium bottles just fake news?
Seriously, every imperial power has attempted to assert itself to the ends of its range. I do not defend the US in this regard. But, to this date, we have a formal process of law in which failures are still noteworthy.
As for the case at hand, the publishing of the data by Assange led directly to the death of agents in Iran (and possibly elsewhere.) The First Amendment was never intended to protect some supposed right to endanger ongoing intelligence operations, and invoking it in this case is despicable. Yes, severe (in our system, mind you, NOT by the standards of the governments of Russia, China, NKorea, Iran, ...) abuse by the government was revealed. But there was no requirement to bundle both pieces of information and release them together.
" the publishing of the data by Assange led directly to the death of agents in Iran (and possibly elsewhere.)"
So sayeth the TLAs that have most to lose if someone decides to actually limit or put in check their mass spying and most to gain by setting a harsh and thorough example for anyone who might care to investigate their gross misconduct and abuse of power worldwide.
{Citation needed} as they say.
As a publisher I'm not sure that anything Assange did was illegal. The US is really trying to nail him on a technicality, the idea that he 'conspired with someone to unlawfully crack a password' or some such. Its about a bogus a charge as that rape claim.
Dealing with the latter first, the rape claim was far from bogus, and him succeeding in dragging it out until time and process expired is by no means evidence that it was a hoax. Based on the data I have seen, I'd say it was as genuine and serious as they come, but the girls didn't have hero worship in their corner.
Secondly, Assange actively convinced someone to commit a crime (and then didn't offer the promised legal support when the consequences arrived, but that's just a side note revealing his character, not germane to the case). That makes him part of the "conspiracy", which is where the charges originate.
There may, however, also be older offences added as Assange only set up Wikileaks as a belated justification for earlier hacking activities.
I personally think Assange has to get his backside in gear and get over to the US as soon as possible. As soon as Trump is either impeached or booted out, St Jules™ chances of getting a pardon become very slim indeed..
"As soon as Trump is either impeached or booted out, St Jules™ chances of getting a pardon become very slim indeed."
AFAICS until Trump the US govt had made no great efforts to extradite him. He imprisoned himself. The most effective and subtle punishment would have been to ignore him as insignificant. Trump, however, is not subtle.
it wasn't there, but I'm sure arrangements have been arranged. It is very... convenient that the Swedes got for dropping the charges. And that our new(ish) post-May secretary has already paved the way for that plane to take off WHEN. I wonder if developments would have been any different if Assange was less of an ego-maniac, and all that? I fear not.
we'll never know what they were offered (Greenland perhaps? ;) but I'm pretty sure there are deals behind the scenes made all the time. Even a little discount off a multi-billion arms deal saves a pretty penny, and in this particular case, they didn't even have to pull out any fingernails Swedish, just a chain of friendly phone calls passed down to the right people in the legal system to wait and let the law - and time - take its course. Nothing even REMOTELY illegal in that, surely!?
We, the public (aka plebs) get to see just a show of friendly smiles and warm embraces of course, no change here. Only very, very occasionally a pesky nobody sneaks in, grabs and shares that confidential information with the outside world and then we gasp in shock (real or fake) that friendly top world leaders tap each others' phones and "ask" other leaders for little quid pro quo. Those that reveal the secrets are made an example of, not only to deter other potential whistleblowers, but to show our own supporters, our "foreign partners" (and our "ex-partners", currently status undecided) that we're strong and don't fuck with us (so much for extolling the value of genuine whistleblowing).
And don't think that the latest impeachment in the US proves me wrong, if it were democrats' president in cross-hairs, they'd be defending their president with the very same excuses we hear now from Trump's backers now, and republicans would be trying to rip a democrats' president apart (while the liberal and conservative polarized media and establishment would equally follow their allegiance), nothing to do with getting real justice done.
On the one hand, our cheeto-in-chief loves wikileaks, so clearly he won't be extraordinarily renditioned.
On the other hand, the deep state gonna deep, so clearly he will be extraordinarily renditioned.
The never-never-Trumpers get to have it both ways, whichever way it goes.
Naomi Colvin, an Assange campaigner currently with the Bridges for Media Freedom campaign group, tweeted: "Without wanting to state the obvious, if the investigation had ever been conducted properly, this [today's dropping of the investigation] would have happened many years ago."
Wanting to state the obvious: If Naomi Colvin is correct and Mr Assange had remained in Sweden to face the charges at the time they were made he would be a free man now somewhere where they (perhaps) do not have an extradition treaty with the US.
Nonsense. He was facing multiple long terms of imprisonment. And that's just the two victims who came forward - given the nature of what he did, it's unimaginable there aren't many more victims who haven't complained because of the intimidation of the two victims who did, and who would have come forward after he was safely convicted.
The swedish court has decided that, since 7 years have passed, far too little reliable evidence [b]now remains[/b] to be sure of anything. They didn't decide there was [b]never[/b] any reliable evidence to convince. Assange seems like just the kind of guy to do exactly what he was accused of doing. He simply managed to stall things long enough to get out of those charges. Not exactly justice for anyone there.
he would probably have been released by now
No, he would have been "released" immediately after the court decision. Sex by Surprise is punishable by a (reasonably hefty) fine, not by any gaol time.
If he'd pleaded guilty regardless, the fine would have been a lot less than his wealthy friends lost when he skipped bail, meaning he wouldn't have had to spend all those years sleeping on an uncomfortable sofa at the embassy.
Of course, pleading guilty would have left a terrible stain on his otherwise unimpeachable character ...
oh wait ...
Of course we know it was rape, since Assange admitted it - his defence was a point of law; he claimed he'd found a loophole in the rape legislation. He fled to the embassy after multiple English courts told him his defence was ridiculous.was
It beggars belief that his supporters have clouded the issue to this extent. He has stayed under oath that he held down and raped a victim who was physically resisting and pleading with him to stop.
"Assange admitted it [...]. He has stayed under oath that he held down and raped a victim who was physically resisting [...]"
-- I second the call for a citation for the above comment. I have never heard this assertion in years of media coverage and have a hard time believing that this is anything but hearsay (i.e., a vile smear).
From what I heard, the characterization "Sex by Surprise", as given by DiViDeD, better describes the situation.
Everything I have read about this case is that the women involved consented to have sex with his blondeness but did not consent to have it without a condom. I have read a lot about this case but never have I read that there was sex without consent. I demand a citation.
I fear, Twanky, that you are seriously misinformed: Like the good ally vassal (although not formally a NATO member) it is, Sweden has indeed had an extradition treaty with the US in effect ever since 24 October 1961. The EU as a whole also has an extradition treaty with the US....
Further, the investigation against Mr Assange was indeed dropped while he was still in the country ; it was later started again after the venue was moved from Stockholm (where the offenses were alleged to have taken place) to Göteborg, which had nothing to do with the case, but did have a prosecutor specialised in cases of this type....
Henri
I believe the point here is that Sweden's extradition treaty with the US is more equitable than ours, and requires evidence to be put forward, rather than simply allegations.
IANAL, but my understanding is that it is considerably easier for the US to extradite someone from the UK than it is from Sweden.
Erm. No. If Ms Colvin is correct and a proper investigation by Sweden would have cleared Mr Assange 'years ago' then if he had not blocked their investigation by absconding he would have been cleared and free to leave the UK (or Sweden if he had returned) and go somewhere (anywhere) else with a lower risk of extradition to the USA.
You suggest that Sweden is a vassal state of the USA. That is irrelevant to this argument but a great conspiracy theory 'sound'bite. It is bollocks to suggest that he would go to the UK from Sweden to lower his risk of extradition to the USA, If he did, then he's the one who was seriously misinformed.
I'm stating that blocking the Swedish investigation made it likely he would be detained on behalf of Sweden in the UK or elsewhere in the EU. Which in turn gives time for the USA to start extradition proceedings.
I happen to remember that most extradition agreements have exceptions for offences of political nature, and the Sweden-US one does.
It should not be impossible to argue that "I didn't do it, but if I did, it was political" I would imagine.
Also, _if_ the US gets him on the PW cracking charge they cannot try him for spying. Also part of the treaties.
Without wanting to state the obvious...
It tends to be more difficult to obtain evidence 7 years after the fact. If the investigation hadn't been hampered at the time by Mr A skipping across the North Sea to Blighty, it would quite conceivably have meant that the investigators at the time would have been able to interview him, and then if this indicated further avenues of enquiry to follow them, and possibly obtain corroborating evidence (or otherwise; no assumption of guilt or otherwise is made).
Mr A repeatedly, openly offered to be interviewed by the swedish authorities, it was quite the puzzle (unless you considered the US extradition issue) as to why they felt they could only conduct them in sweden. They were only over alleged crimes, not like it was regarding details on an offence that had already been prosecuted.
The accused does not get to state the venue, method, style or scope of his own interrogation.
Note "accused".
For a start, they would have no way to control his recording of the interview to play to the press shortly after, which though you could say "they would record it anyway and it should all be public" is likely to prejudice any trial and be taken out of context.
Generally speaking, interviewees do not get to say "come to my house and do it", rather than being asked to appear at a police station at a given date and time for questioning.
It's the height of arrogance to assume that a criminal on the run from court charges somehow gets to choose how they are questioned by authorities.
Yeah, that whole, "I'll comply with the laws of the country I'm in, but only when I've left the coutnry, and at my convenience, at their cost" defence. Why should the Swedish prosecutors have to leave the country and travel to a place of Assange's choosing to do their job?
To use an analogy, imagine buying an item from an online tat bazaar (let's call it iBuy) where the seller states that the item is collection only, and is based in, lets say, Leeds.
After negotiating the sale, you then refuse to pay until the seller comes and personally delivers the item to you, at your new address, in the south of France. You refuse to return to Leeds to collect the item, and complain that the seller is being unreasonable. Now, I don't know what the wholly fictitious iBuy's terms of service would say about this, but I doubt they would smile favourably upon you.
Wanting to state the obvious: if he had stayed in Sweden, that would just mean his Appointment in Samarra would have been that much quicker, and whether --- as punishment for WikiLeaks ---- he was now in a grave or lost in the bowels of the USA's truly terrifying penal system, everyone would now have forgotten him and he would be in or on American soil forever.
Wanting to state the obvious: If Naomi Colvin is correct and Mr Assange had remained in Sweden to face the charges at the time they were made he would be a free man now somewhere where they (perhaps) do not have an extradition treaty with the US.
Maybe, but then he would also have become a convicted rapist which would have taken a bit of the edge of his halo. In my personal opinion that's exactly what he is and what he deserves, but Trump has already demonstrated that hero worship is blind to logic.
AFAICS every single step he's taken has been misjudged. He wasn't going to escape extradition to Sweden from the UK if the Swedes presented a prima facie case and, if he feared extradition to the US it was more likely from the UK than from Sweden. I can't see why he'd skip from Sweden to the UK unless he felt there was a strong prospect of conviction in Sweden.
And then holing up in the embassy would achieve nothing unless he was prepared to spend the rest of his life there or thought, on no good basis, that somehow he'd get a diplomatically protected free passage out. If everything he feared about extradition to the US was the case (and there were no visible signs of it at the time) then it simply gave the US time to set things up while he was there.
His entire conduct seems to be predicated on extremely short-term thinking.
The Swedish extradition case was a test case. If he couldn't win that then he wouldn't win a case to not be extradited to the USA. People would be shocked if they realised how the courts operate. I've read some of the court documents and there are instances in it, written in the judged own hand, explaining that he rule against Assange's legal defence based on a guess.
It wasn't a test case in the verdict but the process. It was a test case of can Assange face a fair trial and the answer to that is no. Reading the court documents, if the USA had an invalid extradition case against me and I was innocent, I could not say that it's a certain thing I would not be extradited and convicted anyway.
Reading the court documents, records of events and evidence in the Assange case I would not walk away from those trials with the belief that either the British or Swedish justice systems could be relied upon. I'd get out of dodge.
There were various irregularities in the proceedings against Assange that undermine trust and faith in the legal system. You don't have to take this from Assange. If you read that material yourself then you'll notice a number of instances where justice was not properly conducted and what appears to be an effort to get a guilty verdict no matter what.
The embassy situation was not expected. You would expect once Ecuador gave Assange asylum status that he would be allowed to travel to Ecuador. He was effectively held prisoner by British authorities.
The ruling in this article has some anomalies as well because the allegations made against Assange aren't meaningfully more credible. It's very subjective but if you read the testimonies and evidence yourself very carefully then I doubt you would come to the conclusion that they are greatly more credible. When it comes down to it, it's a coin flip case.
Tempting, particularly if you add "cancel his UK visa and put a permanent no-entry to the UK ban on him".
Since Australia has a extradition treaty with the USA and tends to do anything that Big Brother says, I suspect that Julian would be seeing the inside of a US jail even faster than he is currently facing.
Regardless of whether Assange is guilty of the charges that have been dropped in Sweden: holding him in largely single isolation in a high security prison is not an acceptable situation for someone who has skipped bail. He has really embarrassed some politicians and wannabe dictatorship regimes therefore the only justification that I can think of for this is that it could possibly be for his own health - he's not exactly a remorsless and likely to repeat murderer.
holding him in largely single isolation in a high security prison is not an acceptable situation for someone who has skipped bail
And yet I find it entirely acceptable. He has a history of absconding and thumbing his nose at the nation, so frankly he ain't getting an open prison.
he's not exactly a remorsless and likely to repeat murderer
Well, he is remorseless. Literally, he still thinks his actions are just peachy. As to the latter part, well, did anyone die due to his actions, and was that predictable ahead of time?
He's a convicted criminal who was charged with skipping UK court bail.
Quite what entitles him in that to not be in a prison without hope of parole or release, I can't fathom.
He's also made a celebrity of himself, and claimed that he's under threat of kidnap, torture or even murder. Hence he's under strict security.
You can't have it both ways!
His "isolation" is rather self-imposed but not an unusual measure with difficult prisoners.
The guy's been voluntarily living in a box for 7 years... that he's acting a bit odd by now is pretty much to be expected.
The current ruling elite absolutely hates him and believes him to be a master villain.
That was made clear with the home secretary's openly angry and hot headed statements condemning Assange.
These people believe he's a rapist in the worst possible meaning of the word and don't want to believe anything else and that's not the worst thing they believe about him by far.
Anything is possible and I suspect his prison treatment may very well be based on nothing more than the belief that he is an arch villain. In their minds he might as well be Osama Bin Laden.
Whatever your views of Assange (which will generally be coloured by whatever media you frequent), it was reported widely at the time that his main concern was unjustified extradition to Sweden 'to face unfounded charges'. These charges would be summarily dropped and this would open the doors immediately for removal/extradition to the USA which is what the USA government has been looking for all the time.
Until today, he was still potentially facing extradition to Sweden as the UK political lobby had called for the severity of the Swedish charge to take precedence over the US case. However, by dropping their case, Sweden have left the door open for the US ...
Assange's assertion that removal to the USA was the main aim, is now coming to fruition ... whether as a result of a correct legal system or as a result of political shenanigans in the background. What he now has to do is claim he has Asperger's or similar as otherwise he hasn't got a hope.
That conspiracy theory is insane. No one would flee to the UK from anywhere in the world of they were worried about extradition to the US. If the US was interested in Assange, they could have got him simply by asking, when he was on police bail.
The fact is that Assange fled Sweden after he was asked to surrender to police so he could be prosecuted. He has admitted doing things which are crimes. The rest is just an attempt by his cult-followers to cast doubt where none exists.
"Assange's assertion that removal to the USA was the main aim, is now coming to fruition"
Whether or not it was originally the main aim in anybody else's head than his own, it's now coming to fruition entirely as a result of his successive missteps: fleeing to a country with a stronger extradition arrangement than where he started, fleeing again into an embassy he couldn't get out of without being arrested on a charge of bail-skipping and staying there long enough for a more vindictive US govt to get into office.
"The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question," said the Swedish Prosecution Authority in a public statement.The reason for this decision is rather that the Brits have him and help from Sweden in delivering him to the tender mercies of the US (in)justice system has become superfluous. No longer need for an investigation which would simply interfere with the process (and which, moreover, would have freed Mr Assange)....
Henri
I doubt the excuse given is true. From what I have seen about criminal cases, either you have a pretty solid forensic case or you don't. If you have solids forensic case it does not suddenly weaken with time unless you are incompetent such as you lost all traces of the test results or your lab 'dry labbed' the results (aka faked them). Now if they had a weak forensic case they were relying on a confession to get a conviction. However, if the interview is done incorrectly the 'confession' can be challenged as being forced under duress. The movie 'Boomerang' was based on 1920's murder case were there was a forced confession and other shaky evidence. The DA in this case took 90 minutes in court to outline why he refused to prosecute the defendant, indicating the defendant was innocent.
An essential aspect of a rape case is consent. It becomes a matter of claim and counter claim unless there's contemporary evidence of violence. The scientific* evidence will stand the lapse of time. Witness evidence, including complainants' and accuseds' becomes less reliable over time and, critically, it becomes difficult to give the accused a fair chance of putting on his own case. That's why courts don't like allegations made long after the alleged events and very probably why the prosecutors are dropping this case. The long delay has helped him there but not exactly to his advantage.
* Scientific evidence. The ford "forensic" simply means to do with the courts. All evidence in court is forensic. Some if it is scientific. <Sigh>
"I doubt the excuse given is true. "
Well, I remember hearing at the time, claims that the US was pushing for this prosecution, that the women were not interested in charges, that he was rough and inconsiderate in bed but not forcing, and about there being this controversy within Sweden at the time because they have specific laws barring political influence of the police or judicial processes (pro-Assange types said major influence, others agreed "influence" but that it was US and Swede politicians leaning in on whether Assange should be extradited to the US). I also recall hearing claims that of course the charges were true, and replys that the claims that it was all true were some smear campaign, both to smear his name and hoping if he didn't get arrested for the rest he'd be arrested for this.
Other than the Swedes worrying over political influence on the judicial process (which was not really disputed), I also recall my "BS detector" at the time going off for both scenarios; not enough concrete info to conclude even which was more likely, and very few neutral parties (people either thought Assange was some hero or downright villanous, so you did not find objective hashing over what little info there was.)
"It is the US that must now be persuaded to drop its unfair and dangerous pursuit of Assange."
They'll never give up because they have to pretend they are all powerful and never learn from past mistakes. Took them.years to admit defeat in Vietnam. Years to realise they shouldn't of been in the Korean war and despite past history showing you can't control Afghan, they tried to do so and again got shown why you can't.
Seem to always win in the movies though.
I see the Swedish prosecutors are (again) having to cover their ar$e$ after not being able to come up with a case against Assange. He's been in only place for 7 years, they knew exactly where he was. So they've had years and years to get every possible piece of information and evidence prepared for the day hecame out but have totally failed..
Just as well Assange managed to avoid whatever faked case they would have put up against him, as once they had him in jail he'd never have been given any chance of having any form of retrial. Once the original charge was dropped and then reopened by a prosecutor with an axe to grind the whole thing has been politically motivated.
"He's been in only place for 7 years, they knew exactly where he was."
Yes. Out of reach in a foreign embassy.
"So they've had years and years to get every possible piece of information and evidence prepared for the day hecame out but have totally failed.."
Except rape cases depend critically on witness statements. It becomes very difficult to put on a fair trial at that lapse of time. It's not that they didn't have the evidence needed at the time, it's more that the passage of time erodes the value of it.
First the normal disclaimers, Im not a lawyer or anything close to it, I just have some general knowledge about the Swedish juridical system, some of which may be misunderstandings (I do however live in Sweden). I just post a little information on how things work in Sweden here to try to clear away some misunderstandings that people might have (you have to have some knowledge to build a good conspiracy theory).
Politicians trying to influence a juridical process is a big no here (it is against the law) and attempts to do so generally result in the press attacking the politician in question like starved wolves. Swedish politicians are in general very careful to even comment on an ongoing juridical process, even more so to put any kind of pressure on courts and prosecutors.
A prosecutor must by law investigate and follow up on leads that might be to the advantage of the suspect. There have of course been cases where prosecutors have ignored this.
A prosecutor should not bring a case before a court unless he/she thinks the court will find the suspect guilty, based on the evidence presented.
Swedish courts are pretty free to choose what counts as evidence, there is no law that forbids the court to accept evidence that was illegally obtained (the person obtaining evidence in an illegal manner risks being sentenced for any crime committed obtaining the evidence.). In general Swedish court want pretty solid evidence, especially in the higher courts (the first court (tingsrätten) can sometimes have very strange rulings).
Search warrants are issued by the prosecutor, courts are not involved. Police doesn't have to show an actual warrant the prosecutor just have to have made the decision that a property should be searched (there are of course law on when a prosecutor may do so).
While a court decides if someone should be kept locked up while investigations are ongoing the requirements for doing so are low and the prosecutor generally gets their way. While such decision have a time limit it can be extended pretty much infinite, there have been cases where people have been locked up more then a year without the prosecutor deciding if the person should be charged before the court. (Human rights organizations as well as lawyers in Sweden have been complaining about this).
There is no bail in Sweden, you get locked up or you don't, is you are suspect of a serious crime you usually get locked up (it has to have a possible prison sentence of at least one year I think).
Its not uncommon with hefty restrictions if you do get locked up waiting for the investigation to proceed, including not being allowed to read news, restrictions on communications etc. (including family etc).
Even if you get a not guilty sentence in court you can be charged again for the same crime if new evidence turns up.
In this case the prosecutor didn't think she would get Assange convicted on the evidence at hand and did see no reasonable means of gaining enough evidence to get Assange convicted and decided to close the case, as is expected by a Swedish prosecutor (note that if new evidence turns up a case can be reopened).
One should not that the Swedish law on rape changed between the time Assange presumably committed the action that made him suspected of rape and now. He would be tried against the old law if the case went to court. It is possible that if the new law been in action back then things would look different, or evidence might still not have been enough. (The new law basically states that unless there is a clear active consent then it is rape, the old law basically stated there had to be force or the victim had to be in a state where he/she couldn't say no (drugged, unconscious, drunk etc) in order for it to be rape).
Some of the fear Assange may or may not have had might be because you can get locked up without bail for a long time while the investigation is ongoing, if you are the slightest bit of paranoid this might be quite scary especially if you think there is a conspiracy to get you. Regardless if USA would ask Sweden to extradite Assange to the US he would probably been faced with being locked up/stay locked up until those proceedings where done.
"The new law basically states that unless there is a clear active consent then it is rape, the old law basically stated there had to be force or the victim had to be in a state where he/she couldn't say no (drugged, unconscious, drunk etc) in order for it to be rape"
So, it means written consent by the new law ? As for being drunk, does it mean any lady can just have a drink, then have sex, then sue the dude for rape ? So easy ! I should be sued dozen times under swedish law !
No question the US has been accused to set Assange up for rape in Sweden, then. Just 10k USD for 2 low morale ladies to set this up, is nothing for the CIA ...
As someone who had to testify, years ago, in favor of a male friend, accused of the most atrocious pedophile crimes there could be, I really have no sympathy with so vague laws.
There is a whole business of dudes/ladies falsely claiming rape in such countries.
As for my friend, things could have gone real bad but it ended up OK: the mom of his 2 kids, who abusively accused him, was banned to see them un-monitored for years, he was allocated the exclusive rights to his 2 kids, and more than that, so many years after, both are beautiful persons !
Yet again this is a waste of time and money. Why, just because the US of A is pissed off that he disclosed a password, really, and now the UK is paying £2000 to £3000 a week to keep him in nick. Hopefully the UK are sending the bill to the US to keep him in prison. Why should the UK pay for that when the US refuses to send people who kill back to the UK. Its about time the UK told the US that the same rules apply both ways.
It's not much of a stretch to think that Sweden may well have colluded with the US to drop the (consensual) 'rape' allegation. JA was never wanted by Sweden for rape, only for questioning. They refused to come to question him in the UK and he felt the allegations were a pretext to extradite him to he US. Hence, the Ecuadorian Embassy. JA's eviction proves (again) exactly how dirty are the whims of politicians anywhere.
One would think the earlier extradition request by Sweden would hold legal precedence. Now that Sweden has dropped its investigation, the US has open season to grab him.
Will the UK stand in the way of Yankee bullies. Highly doubtful. Show trial & 30 years in an American gulag.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
