Swedish prosecutors request Assange detention: First step to European arrest warrant Sweden's deputy director of public prosecution Eva-Marie Persson has asked a district court for a detention order for Julian Assange on suspicion of rape. Assuming it is granted, this is the first step in issuing a European Arrest Warrant for the WikiLeaks founder. Persson said in a statement: "If the court decides to detain …
Politically speaking, it is probably easier to hand Assange to the Swedes, then let them sort out whether to send him to the US once they have finished with him (he won't come back here since I suspect his visa will be cancelled and a 10 year entry ban placed on him). Plus Assange has already indicated that he is unlikely to fight extradition to Sweden.
Saruman,
If he goes to Sweden, he remains in a sort of "joint custody" where it comes to extradition. They can't extradite him further without our permission. Given the complications of a 3 way extradition process it may be easier for them to just send him back to the UK when they're finished - and we either ship him back home to Oz or off to the US, if the courts so decide.
If he goes to Sweden, the possible outcomes are:
The Prosecutor decides there is insufficient evidence, he gets shipped back to the UK. He isn't disputing the facts of the case, he is claiming that it isn't rape. So I don't think this outcome is likely.
He is found not guilty in court, he gets shipped back to the UK.
He is found guilty in court. He serves his time, then gets shipped back to the UK.
When he gets back to the UK border, he will either be arrested on the US warrant, or shipped back to Australia.
Even if he were shipped to Sweden today I would be surprised if his time in Sweden is less than the 20 weeks left on his UK sentence.
It is possible the US extradition will be rejected as the crimes under the investigation of the Grand Jury include the death penalty. From what I've seen in the press the current US allegations are not sufficient to support extradition, although more may be presented at the next hearing.
It is highly likely that his welcome and "hospitality" in the UK will be complete by the time Sweden decides his fate (guilty or not guilty) and we'll tell Sweden he cannot re-enter the UK.
If the US really want him, they're going to need to start asking Sweden or Australia for extradition.
Plus Assange has already indicated that he is unlikely to fight extradition to Sweden.
Given he's wasted 7 years hiding from exactly that prospect, one does have to wonder why he now favours being sent there? Could it be, could it just possibly be, that he's hidden for so long that America has changed Presidency from someone with zero interest in him, to someone with a big interest?
The whole point of coming to Britain was to flee the rape charges. The whole point of hiding in the embassy was to avoid extradition back to Sweden to face the rape charges. America simply didn't come into consideration until much much later. Certainly, you couldn't pick a worse country to flee too if you were worried about America - go ask the Natwest Three.... I think they're out now.
Well, a personal connection with the Natwest 3 - I went to school with him. Admittedly a right shit (I won't say who, but I suspect it might apply to all)but the 'evidence and process' that was used to extradite them was appalling. Worthy of a banana republic with only one market - in the larger country.
Oh wait.......
The Swedes have not charged him.
aks,
Correct. About the only bit of your post bearing any relation to the truth.
They want him for questioning rather than arrest.
Nope, they want him for a pre-charge interview mandated by their legal system before charges can be laid. Whether charging after that is merely a formality, I've no idea, I don't know their system well enough. He's already been questioned several times.
He left Sweden before any accusations were made.
No. He left fled before the accusations could be turned into charges. The night before said pre-charge interview in fact. His lawyer told him the police wanted him the next morning, lied about it in a UK court and then was forced to admit it when the texts were produced. Stangely Assange buggered off to Blighty within hours of that call.
Then fled from court in the UK to hide out in an embassy when he lost his final appeal about being sent to Sweden to face said charges.
The original rape charges have expired.
And again nope. The original sexual assault allegations can not now be tried, as due to Assange hiding in an embassy for more than 5 years - they reached their statute of limitations.
The 2 rape accusations however are on a ten year timer. If only he'd cleaned out his cat litter tray, and avoided helping to get Donald Trump elected (and maybe washed more), he could have hid in that embassy for another year, and avoided facing the rape charges too...
This post has been deleted by its author
Hopefully Sweden, on the grounds that all the legal appeals have already been done, so long as they aren't changing the EAW very much (other than date and missing off the expired charges). Whereas the US process is going to run on-and-on for years...
Plus the Swedish statute of limitations hasn't got long to run, so we should be facilitating the women in question to get their due process of justice - and the US charges can wait another year or two. Which they're bound to anyway with a case this political.
A lesson for all of you folks, make a decision without the use of drugs, alcohol or excessive hubris) when it is this important. Dashing for cover to a small embassy to hide from the Swedes in the UK to avoid extradition to the US was a very very silly thing to do, as I and I suspect many other commentards suggested at the time. Quite apart from pissing off the people who put up his bail, even though I know they probably were flush enough not to notice it does not help and if he talked to a knowledgeable lawyer there is no evidence of it here. F*ckin with your hosts/cat is also a silly thing to do but it might be used as evidence of unsound mind' in any UK trial?
While I see no good reason other than US 'masters of the world' doctrine to extradite him to a dubious legal process, the b*ast*rd should appear before a Swedish court in whom I have somewhat more confidence. No lawyer but I have worked in Scandinavia and have seen their processes. Flawed but no worse than most parts of the world.
Oh and of course I have seen much Scandinoir to support my judgement :-)
If the Swedes want him, they should have him.
It was they that he was trying to avoid in the first place, (yes, because he thought they might extradite him to USA) but if he was an American who ran to Sweden to avoid trail for raping a Brit because he thought we might extradite to Oz, we'd expect the Swedes to hand him to us.
The European Arrest Warrant is designed to make the procedure as unbureaucratic as possible* but a UK court still has to to decide. There's a lot to be said for sending him to Sweden after he's done a year in a UK prison. There's also a good case to be made that he wouldn't get a fair trial in the US.
* But it's exactly this kind of unbureaucracy that we're desperate to escape. Jules only has to hang on until Honest Nigel "takes back control" and then he'll be safe as houses.
He SAID he was worried about being extradited to the US, but the only known indictment in the US was issued after Trump became president. Years after he sheltered in the embassy.
If the US had wanted him at the time, he was in London on bail for over a YEAR AND A HALF, so they could have filed an extradition notice at any time. So it seems pretty clear they didn't want him, but he was using that an excuse for not going to Sweden to face the rape charges. Even if he'd been found guilty, he'd probably have served less time than he did in self-enforced imprisonment in the embassy. I don't know anything about Swedish prisons but I'll bet they'd be nicer than his room in the embassy...at least he'd be able to go outside regularly.
We have to remember that he is presumed innocent until found otherwise of any of these crimes he has been accused of in both Sweden or the US. If he is found guilty of the sexual offence in Sweden I think he is likely to get a lesser sentence than he would do for the crimes he is accused of in the US. The most severe sentences in Sweden are usually a maximum of 10 years, unless it is for a crime such as murder. Sweden also has a much smaller prisoner population of just under 5000. Unlike in the US where people get sentences of 100 years plus and one prison can house thousands of prisoners.
Given the abuse and frequently reported assaults on prisoners awaiting trial in the US, I get the impression that guilt is most definitely assumed in the US (if you are poor or black anyway) and punishment assumed.
It still surprises me that the odd commentard still makes comments 'looking forward to such and such a criminal' to 'meet Bubba'. Very sad and a terrible reflection on humanity.
The charges on the US sheet only carry a maximum of 5 years. Unless I've missed something and that's per count, and they do one count per document leaked. In which case he should be released just in time to watch the sun explode...
The Swedes have got 2 allegations of rape to go on, in one of which he accused of using moderate amounts of violence. Mitigation would be it's a first offence of the type, aggravated by having fled justice for 8 years and being pretty vocal about it (which isn't likely to put any judge in a good mood). But I'm not up enough on the Swedish system to know what that might mean if he was found guilty.
ROFL
ROFL
The US will want to get Assange and basically put him the deepest darkest solitary confinement cell and throw away the key. No comminication with anyone even his lawyer (Should he be able to afford one that is)
So, it will be 5 years per offence. 200 offences of 5 years each to run consectively and no chance of parole. That will see him rot in a US jail which is what the current POTUS wants as part of his 2020 re-election campaign
All starts to make sense IMHO
Why should Trump care about it, let alone use him as part of his re-election campaign? Few people in the US even know who he is.
Besides, he loudly proclaimed "I love Wikileaks" on multiple occasions during the last campaign. He'd get asked why he loves Wikileaks but its founder deserves to go to prison for information published on Wikileaks. You think a guy who can't even form complete sentences could answer such a question?
The indictment against him happened while Jeff Sessions was AG, which isn't surprising if you know much about him and his views on "law and order". I very much doubt Trump had any involvement, or heard about it until it made the news (if even then, it would depend on whether Fox News reported it since I'm pretty sure he doesn't read El Reg)
There was a piece on Trump and WikiLeaks on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver quite recently. Yes, he claimed to love WikiLeaks during the campaign but is now denying that he knows what WikiLeaks is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7gF357NR8o
Though the presumption of innocence is required in a court of law, it's not something that meshes well with fleeing from the law and breaching bail conditions. This guy ran away from a UK court's custody because he didn't want the possibility of having to stand before a Swedish court.
Sorry, I probably couldn't be impartial in that case. Same as when people resist arrest without good reason, or mouth off as they are being arrested for something (or, indeed, not being arrested at all until they start mouthing off and get themselves arrested).
There are certain things that innocent people just don't do. My sympathy plummeted to zero when he did that, and further down when he decided to hide in an embassy and preach from the balcony every week.
On another note, it's been the quietest I've seen in a long while for Assange-related tweets and soapbox moments. If I start a kickstarter, can we keep him banged up for the full 50 weeks instead of letting him out half-way?
"Presumption of Innocence" is the rule in courts based on UK common law, where the jury must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sweden has a system of civil law which may or may not require the burden of proof being placed on the accuser, or at least not to the same degree as (theoretically) in the UK and US.
Edit: According to that notoriously unreliable source, Wikipedia, criminal cases in Sweden are tried without juries, the judge being charged with deciding the "facts of the case". The only time you get a jury is if you're being sued for libel....
Probably the Home Sec. will shorten JA's sentence and get him out of the country for good. Anything after that is somebody else's problem.
As it is a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
The Swedish courts have no jury, but a panel of judges.
From Wikipedia:
"In first- and second-tier Swedish courts, both in the general and the administrative hierarchy, politically appointed lay judges (nämndemän) sit alongside professional judges in district and appellate general and administrative courts, but decide virtually no civil cases.Lay judges are always in the majority in district courts, whereas the professional judges are in the majority in the appellate courts."
Quote:
Bevisbörda
En parts skyldighet att lägga fram bevis för sitt påstående. När det gäller brottmål har åklagaren hela bevisbördan, dvs. det är åklagaren som ska bevisa att den misstänkta personen har begått det brott som åklagaren påstår. Till dess betraktas personen som oskyldig.
And no. No jury.
“Once he gets to the U.S. he will spend the rest of his years in prison there. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”
Is this the same U.S that threatened military action against The International Court of Justice, if any of its alleged war criminals were called to account?
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
That is scary shit. I really hope we don't become a world where people are brainwashed into thinking that "state secrets" trump human rights abuses.
The US broke international law and committed horrible abuses. You can either deal with it or stick your fingers in your ears and blame Snowden. Who comes out worse?
No, Julian Assange didn't actually rape anyone.
In Sweden they have a definition of rape that includes that if a sexual act wasn't consensual it it defined as rape.
Now, if you don't sign a contract or similar it is pretty hard to accurately establish what was agreed upon prior to the sexual relations, so you end up with a situation where the woman can change he mind afterwards (perhaps the sex wasn't good enough, perhaps she didn't get the new car she wanted, perhaps she just regretted the entire thing) and have the man convicted of rape and be stamped as a sexual offender for life.
Here the women both claimed that they only agreed to sex WITH a condom but Assange didn't use one. He claims it was never discussed. So now the probably nice one-night-stand becomes rape. Pretty handy when you want something to arrest Assange for that doesn't require anything except the statement of the women. No evidence required. That's awfully convenient.
If he did what you say, he's a rapist.
If you think what you said was reasonable, you are a past and/or future rapist and I really hope you realise this before you inflict your bodily fluids on someone.
If I consent to sex with a condom and you take it off without explicitly asking if I've changed my mind, you are raping me. No ifs, buts or maybes. It's rape.
Consider the possible consequences of unprotected sex - disease, pregnancy, a slimy mess all over the bed, sterility, and of course death.
FFS, being pregnant is probably the second most dangerous thing a woman can do. The most dangerous being giving birth at term.
That's before even considering HIV, chlamydia and other common STIs that can steal a person's future plans - or life - from them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
