Hacker News

Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

2017-05-199:12538375www.bbc.co.uk

The arrest warrant for the Wikileaks founder, holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London, is revoked.

The focus will now be on whether Mr Assange can leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London

Sweden has decided to drop the rape investigation into Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Top prosecutor Marianne Ny said his arrest warrant was being revoked as it was impossible to serve him notice.

Mr Assange, 45, has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since 2012. He fears extradition to Sweden would lead to extradition to the US where he is wanted over leaks.

Ecuador has called on the UK to allow him safe passage out of the country.

However, police in London said they would still be obliged to arrest him if he left.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) said Mr Assange still faced the lesser charge of failing to surrender to a court, an offence punishable by up to a year in prison or a fine.

But the UK has not commented on whether it has received an extradition request from the US, where Mr Assange could face trial over the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret US military and diplomatic documents.

Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, Per Samuelson, said the prosecutor's decision on Friday represented "a total victory" for his client.

But the Wikileaks founder responded angrily in a tweet: "Detained for 7 years without charge... while my children grew up and my name was slandered. I do not forgive or forget."

The plaintiff in the rape case was "shocked" by the decision, her lawyer said, and maintained her accusations against Mr Assange, Agence France-Presse reported.

The decision coincided with the release by Wikileaks of another tranche of documents about the CIA's technical capabilities.

At a press briefing on Friday, Ms Ny said that by remaining in the embassy in London Mr Assange had evaded the exercise of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) that would have seen him extradited to Sweden.

She said that under Swedish law a criminal investigation needed to be conducted "as quickly as possible".

Sweden did not expect Ecuador's co-operation in formally notifying Mr Assange of the allegations against him, a necessary step in proceeding with the case, she added.

Marianne Ny said the case could resume if Mr Assange visited Sweden before August 2020

But she said: "If he were to return to Sweden before the statute of limitation on this case expires in August 2020, the preliminary investigation could be resumed."

She said it was "regrettable we have not been able to carry out the investigation", and added: "We are not making any pronouncement about guilt."

A source at the Ecuadorean foreign ministry told the Press Association that Ecuador had "fully co-operated with the Swedish justice system".

The source criticised the Swedish prosecutor for "unnecessary delays" in the case but welcomed the latest decision.

The source added: "Ecuador will now be intensifying its diplomatic efforts with the UK so that Julian Assange can gain safe passage in order to enjoy his asylum in Ecuador."

The rape allegation followed a Wikileaks conference in Stockholm in 2010. Mr Assange always denied the allegations against him, saying sex was consensual.

He also said the case was politically motivated, as it followed massive Wikileaks dumps of secret US military reports that year.

Julian Assange: "It is a difficult situation"

Later that year he was arrested in London after Sweden issued an international arrest warrant against him.

Then, in June 2012, after exhausting legal avenues to prevent his extradition, Mr Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy, where he remains to this day.

After the news was announced on Friday, Wikileaks tweeted that the "focus now moves to the UK", but Mr Assange's fate still seems unclear.

The MPS issued a statement saying that its actions had been based on a response to a "European Arrest Warrant for an extremely serious offence".

It went on: "Now that the situation has changed and the Swedish authorities have discontinued their investigation into that matter, Mr Assange remains wanted for a much less serious offence. The MPS will provide a level of resourcing which is proportionate to that offence."

The MPS said it would "not comment further on the operational plan".

Last month, Mr Samuelson filed a new motion calling for his client's arrest warrant to be lifted.

He cited a comment by new US Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the arrest of Mr Assange would be "a priority".

Mr Samuelson told Agence France-Presse: "This implies that we can now demonstrate that the US has a will to take action... this is why we ask for the arrest warrant to be cancelled."


Read the original article

choult

Karma: 7351
...
 @Hacker__News
@hacker._news

Comments

  • By baldajan 2017-05-1913:388 reply

    Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1]. And before that, for years, Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they reluctantly accepted) [2].

    As @belorn noted [3], the prosecutors had 3 options, and given it seems like they didn't have enough to make a case or a plan to continue the investigation, it had to be dropped.

    Also note, that the UN has sided with Assange. As the confinement in the Embassy is confinement. And he's been unjustly confined for a longer period than the maximum penalty for rape in Sweden [4].

    [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idU...

    [2] "He has offered to be questioned inside the embassy but the Swedish prosecutors only recently agreed." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/ecuador-to-let-sw...

    [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14374161

    [4] https://www.rt.com/news/368746-un-ruling-free-assange/

    • By burkaman 2017-05-1914:461 reply

      No he wasn't, he was interviewed by Ecuadorians. Swedish officers were just "present".

      > The Swedish assistant prosecutor, Chief Prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, and a Swedish police investigator have been allowed to be present at the interview. They will report the findings to Sweden.

      Edit: For people wondering what the problem is, Ecuador asked the questions and "[the Swedish prosecutor] is allowed to ask Assange to clarify his answers, but not to put additional questions, and will receive a written transcript of the exchanges from Ecuador after the interview has concluded." - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange...

      • By k1m 2017-05-1915:031 reply

        Are you suggesting the Swedish prosecution agreed to fly over to London just to sit and watch Ecuador interview Assange? I think we'd have heard more from Sweden about that if that were the case. :p

        • By burkaman 2017-05-1915:081 reply

          Yes, because that's what happened. "The questions were prepared by prosecutors in Sweden, where an arrest warrant for Mr. Assange was issued in 2010, but were posed by a prosecutor from Ecuador under an agreement the two countries made in August." - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/world/europe/assange-wiki...

          I think a key part of a police interview is asking new questions based on responses and having an actual conversation, which the Swedish prosecutors couldn't do.

          • By k1m 2017-05-1915:201 reply

            Your original comment made it sound like they had no input in the questions being put to Assange. Merely "present" to observe Ecuador. This article suggests Sweden was involved and I don't see anything suggesting the procedure (under "an agreement the two countries made") was problematic. Who asks the questions seems to just be a technicality here.

            • By burkaman 2017-05-1915:312 reply

              "Isgren is allowed to ask Assange to clarify his answers, but not to put additional questions, and will receive a written transcript of the exchanges from Ecuador after the interview has concluded." - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange...

              This is problematic.

              • By k1m 2017-05-1915:55

                Problematic for whom? You seem more concerned about this than the Swedish prosecutors. It seems this was the procedure they agreed to. Whether it's normal or not I don't know. But they haven't made a fuss about it. And I think they would have if it was a big concern.

              • By belorn 2017-05-1917:30

                They could ask for a second interview and present follow up questions.

                But this raise a primary question. Is the distinction of being able to instantly make follow up questions of such importance that it will swing the binary choice of charging Assange of a crime or dropping the case?

                The primary cause for a guilty and not guilty verdict should not be the quality of the environment for a police interview. Not for a such serious allegation like this.

    • By staffanj 2017-05-1914:404 reply

      >Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1].

      This is simply not true. The questions was asked by Ecuadorians and had to be approved beforehand. Swedish prosecutors where allowed in the room but could not talk to Assange. IE no follow up questions etc

      • By kpil 2017-05-1918:13

        To be fair, he was interviewed by the police in Stockholm, whereupon the investigation was terminated and he was told he could go home.

        After a while, a senior prosecutor reopened the case for unexplained reasons, and asked him to fly back to Sweden on his own expenses so he could be interviewed a second time. When he offered to meat in London, but rejected coming to Sweden, she issued an European arrest warrant. I believe he was then interviewed by the British police and was held under custody, until he made the not so brilliant decision to seek asylum in the Embassy.

        I've read the police investigation and while I don't want to diminish the alleged victims, I can understand why the (female) police told him to go home in the first place.

        Simply put, and I'm basing this not on Assange's statement which was anyway consistent with everyone else's stories - behaving like a total wanker is not a crime, even if you happen to do that towards a politically active left wing feminist.

        Everything else than the ass-hat bit in this story is a failure of the legal system in Sweden and it's a consequence of the government's self-image as infallible and that it's relatively unprotected from civil servants with personal agendas.

      • By k1m 2017-05-1915:101 reply

        Do you have any sources for how the interview took place? And any indication that it was unfair? (I'm pretty sure Sweden would have refused to do it if they were unhappy with the process.)

        I don't know who asked the questions, or what the procedure was, but I read the Swedish prosecutor's statement issued today and they do not mention the London interview being an issue.

        • By staffanj 2017-05-1917:211 reply

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

          >It was established that the interview would be conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor, with Isgren and a police officer present.

          https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/14/date-set-quest...

          >According to Assange's lawyer, the "shape" of the questions was still being discussed a week before the scheduled interview.

          https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/07/julian-assange...

          • By k1m 2017-05-2010:19

            Thanks. Your original comment took issue with the statement that Assange was indeed interviewed in London by Swedish prosecutors. You said "This is simply not true." The issue for you seems to be that that the questions being put to Assange weren't actually put to him by Swedish prosecutors directly. Even though they were the Swedish prosecutors' questions being put to him. That doesn't sound like a huge issue to me, and I don't see why it should discount the interview. Especially as the Swedish prosecutors themselves have not taken issue with this aspect of the interview. It seems this was procedure they agreed to.

      • By RobertoG 2017-05-1917:04

        It seems to me that the real question is: is that the normal procedure for this kind of questioning in Ecuador territory?

        I suspect that this is the case.

      • By martin_bech 2017-05-1915:51

        Source?

    • By _fizz_buzz_ 2017-05-1914:072 reply

      Lol. Pretty standard to tell courts and investigators: "Hey, how about we meet at my place instead?" (on top of that at a place where the investigators don't have jurisdiction)

      • By k1m 2017-05-1914:102 reply

        It actually is pretty standard. Sweden has done it in many other cases. As Wikileaks highlighted when this was made into an issue.

        • By leogiertz 2017-05-1915:49

          IANAL but it seems that Sweden has agreements with certain countries to enable questioning of someone who's not in the country. When it comes to EU states it's pretty straight forward.

          One thing that would complicate this matter is that there doesn't seem to be an agreement between Ecuador and Sweden regarding this. Given that JA was under Ecuadorian jurisdiction it's entirely possible that this was one of the reasons why the prosecutor didn't go down that route initially.

          Sources (sorry, can only find them in Swedish):

          http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-regering/justitiedeparteme...

          http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-regering/justitiedeparteme...

        • By valuearb 2017-05-1914:48

          It's pretty standard to go to the police for questioning when they can't/won't come to you. In the US you can assert your 5th amendment rights not to answer questions, but as far as I know Assange hasn't said he won't answer questions.

      • By point78 2017-05-1914:17

        For America Yes, for Europe no

    • By easilyBored 2017-05-1915:13

      As the confinement in the Embassy is confinement. And he's been unjustly confined for a longer period than the maximum penalty for rape in Sweden.

      That's valid if Sweden locked him in the Ecuador Embassy. He went there to shield himself.

      Personally I think (my opinion, anyway) that the rape charges were work of the CIA, but that's another story.

    • By efraim 2017-05-1913:591 reply

      It's nice of him to offer to answer their questions where he chooses, everyone should have that choice. It wasn't Assange that refused to go back to Sweden, it was Sweden to refused to come to Assange.

      • By cptskippy 2017-05-1914:393 reply

        I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

        His refusal to cooperate with the investigation on Sweden's terms wasn't about the alleged crime itself. His concern was that because he was involved in a criminal investigation, he could be taken into custody by either British or Swedish authorities at which point he could be extradited to the US.

        • By seppin 2017-05-1916:481 reply

          Actually, his 'conditions' for meeting with the Swedish government were absurd. Basically guaranteeing his freedom no matter what. That's not how criminal investigates are done.

          • By allover 2017-05-1920:451 reply

            He is supposedly in fear of being extradited to the US and then stuck in a hole to rot. On paper Guantanamo is 'not how criminal investigations are done' either.

            • By dragonwriter 2017-05-2023:291 reply

              > He is supposedly in fear of being extradited to the US and then stuck in a hole to rot.

              If the US wanted him from Britain for national security reasons (or political reasons masquerading as national security reasons), they wouldn't try to get him extradited to Sweden to do it; the US has closer security cooperation with the UK than Sweden.

              • By allover 2017-05-219:40

                You're overthinking it. Assange only has to be afraid of being arrested, for fear of being extradited somehow. The specifics of the UK/Sweden situation really don't matter.

        • By bjourne 2017-05-1917:331 reply

          That was his stated concern. I don't think it makes any sense because he could have been arrested by Swedish or British authorities long before the alleged rapes occurred.

          • By allover 2017-05-1920:401 reply

            Well let's assume he was scared of a random arrest before the allegations. He'd be extra scared when they emerged.

            Not sure what's to doubt.

            • By Avalyst 2017-05-2011:181 reply

              The fact that he was in Sweden already? And the fact that he fled to the UK, the closest ally of the US in Europe as well as a NATO country, unlike Sweden? And perhaps the fact that he now plans to seek asylum in France, another NATO country?

              It's very convenient how this conspiracy theory of the US snatching Assange from Sweden cropped up just as he was accused of a crime in Sweden I would say.

              • By allover 2017-05-219:551 reply

                None of this requires a conspiracy theory or 'snatching'. Assange is scared of being arrested, and once he is in custody, being extradited to the US somehow. The Sweden/UK details are irrelevant.

        • By seppin 2017-05-1916:48

          Actually, his 'conditions' for meeting with the Swedish government were absurd. Basically guaranteeing his freedom no matter what. That's not how criminal investigates are done.

    • By megamindbrian 2017-05-1916:501 reply

      Plus prison in Sweden is like staying at a Best Western.

      • By quakeguy 2017-05-1917:10

        "You can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners". F. Dostoyevsky

    • By perseusprime11 2017-05-1914:581 reply

      Weren't the charges politically motivated? The story was too hard to believe. Does anybody have more details?

      • By panglott 2017-05-1916:432 reply

        That was Assange's claim, but there are two women in Sweden who say that he sexually victimized them. The details of their claims have been out for a while: IIRC they had consensual sex with him, and later that night he had nonconsensual sex with them. It seems Sweden (rightly) takes sexual assault much more seriously than some other jurisdictions.

        • By Sone7 2017-05-1916:582 reply

          The two women say they were not raped, and were railroaded by Swedish police.

          > "On a point of law, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided Ny can continue to obstruct on the vital issue of the SMS messages. This will now go to the European Court of Human Rights. What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". (In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her".)

          > Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both have denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped."

          -from http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-a...

          • By panglott 2017-05-1917:01

            I linked the NY Times story above, but at least one of the women remains adamant that she was raped, and is shocked by the decision to drop the case. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/world/europe/julian-assan...

            'Elisabeth Massi Fritz, who represents the woman who accused Mr. Assange of rape, issued a scathing response after the prosecutors abandoned the case. “A legal examination is very important for someone who has been raped, as is the possibility for redress,” she said. “In this case, there have been many turns and the wait has been very long. My client is shocked and no decision to shut the case down can get her to change her position that Assange raped her.”'

          • By bjourne 2017-05-1917:40

            After you have brought charges it becomes up to the prosecutor. You can't take them back. If it was possible for someone to take back charges, it would be trivial for the suspect to have the charges dropped by threatening the victim.

        • By Sunset 2017-05-1916:564 reply

          He had consensual sex with them. The sex only became nonconsensual retroactively when they learned about one another. Which is frankly, bullshit.

          • By panglott 2017-05-1917:041 reply

            My understanding is that he had consensual sex with them, they went to sleep, then he had nonconsensual sex with them while they were sleeping. They were individually disturbed by these events, but did not decide to file charges until they compared stories.

            That's very different from "the sex became nonconsensual retroactively". And I don't think it's uncommon for women brave the consequences of speaking out about sexual assault when they believe there's a pattern of behavior they can protect other women from.

          • By Kiro 2017-05-1918:30

            You're just speculating. But sure, in case the accusations are fabricated that's a much more plausible explanation than that there's a big conspiracy going on.

          • By rmc 2017-05-227:39

            No, one of the charges is that he started having sex with someone who was asleep.

          • By jameswatson_iii 2017-05-1922:57

            In the west, whether a sex act is consentual or not depends on the whims of the prosecutor and the courts.

            It is the go-to method of imprisoning problematic males, because the burden of proof is so negligible.

            If the female at any point decides that she felt like she was raped, then the male will go to prison. Very convenient, as it allows a sword of Damocles to be held over the head of any man who dares have sexual relations in a western country. Of course, this is just the beginning [1], and the law is working tirelessly to incarcerate males for the impudent act of heterosexual intercourse.

            Of course, these matters are well outside the scope of discussion on HN, so I will leave it at that. We wouldn't want our young entrepreneurs asking the wrong sort of questions now would we?

            1. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-e...

    • By valuearb 2017-05-1914:29

      I was unjustly confined in my bedroom this morning because I also refused to leave. In my case, it was fear of making my brats breakfast, not prosecution, but same thing.

  • By r721 2017-05-199:586 reply

    David Allen Green‏, Law and policy commentator at @FT:

    >It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever) wanted it.

    >Now only UK's consent required, not UK and Sweden.

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/86550564980685619...

    • By vidarh 2017-05-1910:374 reply

      That assessment, though, is based on an assumption that Swedish authorities would have complied with Swedish law. Part of Assanges fear of going to Sweden, whether justified or not, is presumably that Sweden had a history of letting Swedish police get away with blatantly violating Swedish law in support of US rendition. One could argue that this risk is not real in his case, but that is/was not relevant to whether or not it affected Assange's concern about which country seemed safer.

      Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that "something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions.

      In any case, UK courts have a history of taking extradition hearings very seriously, and there are ample opportunities to appeal both to UK courts, the ECHR, and (for the time being) to the ECJ, so it'd by no means be easy to get him from the UK direct.

      • By notahacker 2017-05-1911:073 reply

        If Assange truly feared the police blatantly violating Swedish law in support of rendition, then it would seem strange for him to base himself in Sweden, remain in the country whilst being well aware of the investigation under way against him and leave only on the day they notified him they'd received legal authorisation to detain him. And then repeat the whole thing in the UK...

        • By vidarh 2017-05-1911:382 reply

          They had closed the case, and notified him of that. Then a new prosecutor reopens the case and goes after him.

          The point is that Sweden might very well have seemed perfectly safe despite those past actions until a prosecutor took those steps which still seems exceedingly odd.

          To have one prosecutor say there was no case to answer, only to have another prosecutor specifically go after the case and reopen it, is uncommon to say the least.

          • By notahacker 2017-05-1911:543 reply

            (i)The case was very publicly reopened the week after it had been announced it was being dropped. I mean, it's not like headlines like this would have escaped Assange's notice http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investig...

            Assange spent 26 more days in the country and then flew out hours after his arrest warrant was signed.

            (ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor following an appeal from the alleged victims' lawyer and an interview with the accused. Especially when it's a one-party's word against another's case and the accusing party had initially seemed reluctant to pursue a prosecution.

            • By gribbly 2017-05-1916:48

              >Assange spent 26 more days in the country and then flew out hours after his arrest warrant was signed.

              You are spreading many falsehoods here, first of all, it was NOT a junior prosecutor who dropped the case, chief prosectutor Eva Finné was the one who first handled it and immediately dropped it due to there not being any grounds for a case.

              It was a junior prosector Karin Rosander who then suddenly brought the case up again, at this point (20/10 2010) Assange WAS questioned by the police.

              The day after this, senior prosecutor Marianne Ny decided to restart the preliminary investigation.

              At this point Assange left the country, three weeks later, Marianne Ny filed an arrest warrant on Assange for further questioning.

              Assange agreed to be interviewed by video link, something Swedish prosecutors have done many times before, by Marianne Ny refused and demanded that he'd return to sweden for further questioning.

              This for accusations which even well known feminists working daily against rape say are laughable:

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds...

              https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape...

            • By draugadrotten 2017-05-1912:053 reply

              > ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor

              The prosecutor who dismissed the case was senior, and not junior in any sense of the word, rank or age.

              You say it's not unusual (in Sweden). I've never seen a single example of another rape case which was dismissed and reopened in this manner. Can you give a few examples of other re-opened Swedish rape cases, seeing that it's "not unusual" from your point of view.

            • By vidarh 2017-05-1912:19

              The point being that initially it seemed safe to stay - that this case would go away and was genuinely just about those allegations. Then the longer it went on, the more unusual the case seemed.

              Whether or not it was unusual enough to justify Assanges fears is irrelevant. The question is whether or not they were enough to cause him to start fearing something else was going on.

          • By Avalyst 2017-05-2011:21

            But if he's worried about the Swedish police violating Swedish law, why would he care about whether or not the case is closed? If the CIA/Swedish police were to snatch him, in blatant violation of a number of laws, it's not like they would hold back just because some rape charges were dropped?

        • By rmc 2017-05-1912:122 reply

          It's also very strange that, if he was really afraid of the US & NATO, he'd flee to the UK. Sweden is not in NATO, and the UK co-founded it. The UK and the US have a long standing "special relationship", with the UK being the main other country involved in invading Iraq. If you're afraid of the US, why you'd go to the UK is beyond me.

          • By vidarh 2017-05-1912:381 reply

            First of all where does NATO come from here? Why would he fear NATO? It sounds to me like you just added that in because it's something that puts the UK in the same group as the US.

            Where would you suggest he should go?

            UK courts have a long history of letting extradition cases take years and/or denying extradition, and UK courts have a history of reacting to political pressure by standing firm rather than yielding. There are few places where I'd trust the legal system more.

            Which other countries do you think have courts willing to stand up to political pressure, and where the US can't or won't just pick him off the streets without causing a major diplomatic crisis, and that would be somewhere you'd be able to get visas and where you'd want to live?

            I can't think of many countries that'd fit those criterias. Most of the places I can think of where I'd believe the US would be unlikely to be able to get at someone are places I'd rather not want to live.

            But the UK would be high on my list of places where I'd feel the risk would be low.

            • By rmc 2017-05-227:44

              > where does NATO come from here?

              I have heard people say things like "Sweden has co-operated with NATO in [....]". Maybe Sweden does co-operate with NATO, but it's not a member and the UK is.

              The UK courts might seem wonderful in merry old England, but just look at what happened in Northern Ireland, and you'll see a different face of the British legal system. Interment without trial, torture, extrajudicial killing, all of UK citizens on UK soil.

          • By lenkite 2017-05-1917:231 reply

            It's actually tough to extradite from the UK. Lots of corrupt Indian businessmen go to the UK when they wish to flee our taxmen. And then mock us in the British papers and TV.

            • By praneshp 2017-05-1921:101 reply

              India != US. My bet is that UK would fall over themselves if the US demanded a corrupt businessman or a "high value target" like Assange.

              • By vidarh 2017-05-2019:44

                Here is Theresa May, current UK PM, denying extradition of Gary McKinnon, after years of hearings, wanted for one of the largest hacks of US military networks of all time:

                http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/16/world/europe/uk-us-mckinnon-ex...

                The UK has a history of both courts and the Home Office denying extraditions. Theresa May is a "law and order" authoritarian to boot, but even she is not prepared to fall over herself to satisfy US extradition requests.

        • By PJDK 2017-05-1911:30

          And not to mention that fear when arguing against his extradition in a UK court.

      • By kristianc 2017-05-1911:531 reply

        > Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that "something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions.

        The law is the law, and Assange stood accused of a serious crime in Sweden. The idea that Sweden would simply forget about it because Assange had holed himself up in an embassy for five years seems misplaced.

        • By vidarh 2017-05-1912:401 reply

          With the "unusual persistence" I was not referring to keeping the case open, but with e.g. continuing to refuse not to interview him for four years for no good reason, while giving reasons that she eventually proved were false by finally agreeing to do it anyway.

          • By ptaipale 2017-05-1913:082 reply

            You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. The law is a perfectly "good reason" for authorities to act the way they did.

            It is a rather common meme to accuse Swedes of not conforming to concepts of British/U.S. law (common law system) when Swedish has another system, not any worse but somewhat different in the usage of terms like "charge".

            • By vidarh 2017-05-1915:08

              Which procedural limitations? The ones Ny proved doesn't exist when she finally after four years interviewed him in London after all?

              I'm not expected Sweden to be like the UK/US - I'm Norwegian, and our system is much closer to the Swedish and to the UK/US systems.

              I am expecting a prosecutor to not stubbornly refuse to take actions for fours years while claiming it to be impossible, while being contradicted by legal experts, just to suddenly decide it's possible after all.

              If that's too much to ask of Swedish prosectors, you have a big problem with your legal justice system.

            • By Bartweiss 2017-05-1913:481 reply

              > You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law.

              Can you clarify this? I'm honestly confused - the topic seems to be the refusal and then acceptance of an in-embassy interview. I could understand if the refusal was a procedural issue, but in that case why was it eventually accepted?

              • By k1m 2017-05-1914:43

                Exactly. Sweden was clearly trying to say the in-embassy interview was out of the question, against Swedish law. Then completely backtracked and went ahead with it anyway. Doesn't inspire much confidence. Perhaps the UN ruling against Sweden was the what pushed them to do it.

      • By matt4077 2017-05-1910:491 reply

        It doesn't have to be "the prosecutor's ambition"–it's just an unwillingness to let someone skip a trial just by fleeing, and the precedent it would set.

        • By vidarh 2017-05-1911:41

          That does not explain the highly unusual step of overruling another prosecutors decision that there was no case to answer, the illegal release of information to the press, nor the insistence not to interview him in the UK - something she kept up for four years before finally accepting that there is no legal basis preventing her from doing so (one of the excuses used), and finally interviewing him last year.

      • By rmc 2017-05-1912:101 reply

        Whereas the UK has a history of colluding with terrorists to murder politically annoying human rights lawyers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane ) and oppressing an ethnic minority (the whole of The Troubles in Nothern Ireland). There's a reason "People in NI should have direct access to the ECHR" (as opposed to going through UK courts) was a part of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement when brought peace to NI.

        UK is hardly a bastion of freedom and liberty.

        • By vidarh 2017-05-1912:44

          I did not imply anywhere that the UK is a bastion of freedom and liberty. For starters I don't personally consider the UK a democracy at all because of the electoral system, and I do agree with you there were certainly plenty of abuses related to Northern Ireland.

          But the question here is where Assange would have reason to feel safer in the UK than in Sweden, and just like many other places through history, a place can both be incredibly safe for one group of people and unsafe for other groups of people at the same time.

    • By cmdkeen 2017-05-1910:111 reply

      Other legal commentators in the thread pointing out that he is still wanted for "failing to surrender" to his bail which can face up to 12 months in prison. This is what the arrest warrant will be for, not some secret US extradition request.

      Prosecution guidance on the offence: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a32

      • By toyg 2017-05-1910:471 reply

        But now the UK government can surrender that right to prosecute him if they want to. The political responsibility is pretty clear at this point.

        • By cmdkeen 2017-05-1910:554 reply

          Why? He had the opportunity to appeal all the way to the UK Supreme Court who ruled that the extradition request was valid. Those who pledged surety over his bail were ordered to pay £93,500 back in 2012. This absolutely should not be about politics but about the rule of law.

          There is a serious point as well that bail needs to be enforced otherwise its effectiveness is reduced, which in turn makes it easier for the arguments limiting the right to bail to be made. Assange has made it more likely that future defendants will be denied bail.

          • By belorn 2017-05-1911:34

            Is the risk that an accused on bail can be granted political asylum a reason to deny bail for future defendants?

            In the history of UK, how many times have this set of circumstances happed?

          • By k1m 2017-05-1913:44

            Applying for asylum is also part of the rule of law. It was granted based on real concerns. Since backed up by UN legal experts who found in his favour.

          • By toyg 2017-05-1911:032 reply

            > This absolutely should not be about politics but about the rule of law.

            But it is about politics. No other bail-skipper in recent memory was ever granted the attention and resources that the UK police granted to the Assange case. It's also pretty clear by now that the Swedish charges were overblown, with very strong suggestions that it was done for political reasons. Hiding behind procedures will not change that.

            A "strong and stable" government, relishing its independence from foreign states, would drop this in a second and reconsider its procedures for future cases, so that other countries cannot abuse UK law to enforce bogus prosecutions. In the context of Brexit and the noise about "security cooperation", this would also be a strong message.

            • By efraim 2017-05-1911:18

              >It's also pretty clear by now that the Swedish charges were overblown, with very strong suggestions that it was done for political reasons.

              That's not clear at all and there are no such strong suggestions from any reputable source. Assange has not been charged with anything in Sweden, he was merely wanted for questioning before any such charges could be made. People suggesting Sweden wanted him back just to hand him over to the US don't know what they are talking about, no matter how strong they are suggesting it.

            • By PJDK 2017-05-1911:272 reply

              Has there been any kind of comparable instance though? Had he skipped bail by just not showing up we could compare the manhunt that happened with any other bail skipper. But his location was very publicly known - what would a reasonable government do in that situation in your view?

              • By Bartweiss 2017-05-1913:59

                But isn't the lack of comparable cases exactly the point?

                It was claimed upthread that "Assange has made it more likely that future defendants will be denied bail." That sounds good, except that Assange skipped bail by getting political asylum. It's not exactly a generalizable argument against bail, and even within the context of leakers it appears unprecedented. The case is exceptional, which is what makes it politicized and irrelevant to 'normal' bail skip situations.

                Regardless of why Assange was wanted, we can still say it's political when Britain threatened to storm a foreign embassy to recover an asylum-seeker. That's an inherently political decision, in the sense that no domestic police force in the Western world would do it without political guidance.

                None of which is to say what's true in Assange's case. But I'm not impressed by the arguments "now everyone can beat rape charges by receiving asylum and spending 5 years trapped in a foreign embassy" and "threatening to raid an embassy to capture an asylum grantee is apolitical".

                http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-...

              • By toyg 2017-05-1911:571 reply

                As you say, this is not a simple criminal case - criminals don't broadcast their location when skipping bail. So you have to deal with it politically. A reasonable government would have done that a long time ago, getting Sweden to change its stance sooner (as it eventually happened anyway, like most people asked for and predicted, since it had been done before). Once that is sorted, you can liquidate it all as "a big misunderstanding" without losing face.

                Unfortunately now it's very late, and I find it hard to believe the person responsible for this stupid position in the first place, currently leading the country, will do anything smart to resolve this for good.

                • By PJDK 2017-05-1912:351 reply

                  So a politically significant person should be able to leverage their celebrity and status to avoid a rape charge?

          • By krisAU 2017-05-1911:23

            Naive

    • By k1m 2017-05-1913:55

      It's worth noting that David Allen Green is not a neutral commentator here. He was very clearly against Assange early on. See this piece where Glenn Greenwald debunks some of his falsehoods. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-st...

    • By forvelin 2017-05-1910:151 reply

      Also he is still not free, UK made it clear that they would arrest him in first opportunity.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-bri...

      • By jmkni 2017-05-1910:251 reply

        Because he skipped bail, which is against the law.

        They would arrest anybody who did the same thing.

        • By Trill-I-Am 2017-05-1912:332 reply

          Do you think they spend as much money on less politically noteworthy bail skippers?

          • By whyenot 2017-05-1912:52

            On a bail skipper "hiding" in plain sight in the middle of London? Absolutely. Why is how much money "they" spend even relevant? He skipped bail. He should be arrested and face the consequences just like anyone else in the same situation.

          • By jmkni 2017-05-1912:39

            Less politically noteworthy bail skippers generally wouldn't have the connections/money to avoid bail by hiding in an embassy for years, but I would say yes.

    • By harry8 2017-05-1913:341 reply

      It's always a good thing to bring cases like this into some kind of context to see the extent to which it's the rule of law or something else. Julian Assange may be a rapist but a prosecutor thought there wasn't enough to even say maybe don't leave the country. Roman Polanski may not be a child rapist but I'm not even sure he arguing that. [1]

      How would you characterise the difference in the treatment of these gentlemen and I use the word gentlemen quite wrongly.

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

      • By samastur 2017-05-1914:25

        Personally I find it appalling how freely Polanski moves around (for what is worth I like many of his films).

    • By mediaserf 2017-05-1914:111 reply

      Why is Ecuador's consent not required if he is inside their embassy?

      • By Ntrails 2017-05-1914:25

        It is, obviously, it's just assumed that he'd rather like to leave at some point..

  • By Sephr 2017-05-199:345 reply

    What about the secret US charges?

    I honestly don't understand how in our democracy there is even such a concept as "secret charges". It just sounds mind-bogglingly corrupt and out of place.

    • By sschueller 2017-05-199:424 reply

      There is a "kill list" [1] which is unbelievable on its own so I don't see this as much of a stretch.

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix

      • By badosu 2017-05-1914:47

        > Disposition Matrix, informally known as a kill list

        God, I wish this terrible term didn't remind me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc

        I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protest themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. [0]

        [0]: https://www.iceboxman.com/carlin/pael.php#track15

      • By nebabyte 2017-05-1913:16

        > U.S. officials speaking to The Washington Post seemed "confident that they have devised an approach that is so bureaucratically, legally and morally sound that future administrations will follow suit"

        Wonder how much sleep Obama's been getting these days.

      • By skrebbel 2017-05-1910:592 reply

        Oh my god. If Trump would introduce something like that the entire internet would explode.

        • By ekianjo 2017-05-1911:43

          already exists for a long time.

        • By joshschreuder 2017-05-1911:151 reply

          "If"?

          • By arethuza 2017-05-1911:211 reply

            I think the relevant part of the page being "Developed by the Obama administration beginning in 2010"

            • By dahart 2017-05-1913:20

              I'm not sure why that's the relevant part, but the part of the Obama administration responsible was CIA director Brennan, who was doing similar stuff during the G.W. Bush administration and just happened to give it an official name while Obama was around.

              It's nowhere near the first kill list the US has had, it's just the first one called "Disposition Matrix". Previous administrations had other names. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_actions_of_the_CIA

      • By gadders 2017-05-1910:09

        He'll probably be on Hillary's kill list, at least.

    • By matt4077 2017-05-1910:162 reply

      Don't you need to charge someone with a crime for an arrest warrant (except for "material witness" and other shenanigans)?

      Because, in that case, wouldn't you want to keep that information under wraps in quite a few cases, and completely legitimately? Preparing to arrest a foreign drug dealer when he's expected to come to the US comes to mind.

      Just because it's "secret" doesn't make an evil conspiracy against democracy. The accused's rights are protected at trial, where the public cannot be excluded except in extreme circumstances. But they don't get to watch the investigations on C-SPAN.

      • By jacquesm 2017-05-1910:53

        Except that's not how it is used. For instance one person who was arrested, tried and convicted like this operated a UK based betting company that US nationals used to bet.

        Instead of going after the betters a secret indictment was passed which was then used to arrest an exec of the company because of course American laws apply to any business done over the internet...

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers

        The general view of people in that industry was that it is A-Ok for Americans to gamble, but not ok for them to gamble abroad.

      • By Bartweiss 2017-05-1914:08

        I agree with all of this, but I'd note that there have still been some exceptional rumblings about Assange in the States.

        Specifically, the suggestion was made that by several political figures that he shouldn't be charged until after extradition. Since treason charges can carry the death penalty, and would thereby block extradition from no-death-penalty Sweden, it was proposed that he should be extradited to answer a subpoena (no legal issue), and then immediately charged when delivered to the United States.

        To my knowledge, this is pretty bizarre. It blatantly circumvents the intent of most extradition agreements, which is to only extradite where the crime and penalty are acceptable in the host company. Not exactly 'secret charges', since it made the news, but at least an open secret where a subpoena would be issued specifically to avoid normal procedures.

        (Of course, nothing ever came of it that I saw. I don't mean to claim there are secret charges, only that this idea might be what people meant.)

    • By idlewords 2017-05-1910:251 reply

      The closest thing to 'secret charges' is a secret indictment. This is a normal grand jury indictment, except its existence is not made public.

      "Prosecutors may request a secret indictment if they are concerned that someone may flee if he or she becomes aware that trial proceedings are being set in motion. It is also possible to ask for one to protect witnesses and other people involved with the case. "

      http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-secret-indictment.htm

      • By CypressXM 2017-05-1915:18

        An indictment itself means nothing. A Grand Jury either returns "True Bill" or "No Bill". In this case it would be a sealed "True Bill".

    • By _fizz_buzz_ 2017-05-199:422 reply

      Do they really exist though? Assange travelled to the US on several occasions before the Swedish charges came up ...

      • By ttctciyf 2017-05-1911:111 reply

        I think the best indication that's emerged is in Comey's recent testimony[1]

        > before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey was asked why the United States had not charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with a crime. Comey said he had to be careful with his answer, because he did not want to confirm whether there were charges pending against Assange, but then responded: “He hasn't been apprehended because he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.”

        1: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/james-comey-wikilea...

        • By abritinthebay 2017-05-1915:021 reply

          Which, as evidence to that goes, isn't any.

          Comey can't comment on classified or open cases (which Assange would be because, duh, WikiLeaks) just procedural things. Which that was.

          It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that.

          • By ttctciyf 2017-05-1916:161 reply

            > It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that.

            To me, the words “he hasn't been apprehended because he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London" strongly imply, in context, that the US has an intention to "apprehend" Assange.

            • By abritinthebay 2017-05-1916:211 reply

              Well yes. We knew that already too.

              The US already wanted to apprehend him while he was walking around London before his Embassy period so it's clearly not a snatch & grab situation.

              He's not been officially charged with a crime in the US yet either so extradition isn't an issue.

              • By ttctciyf 2017-05-1916:451 reply

                > > > > > do secret charges exist?

                > > > > The best info we have is from Comey's testimony which says 'maybe' and they want to arrest him

                > > > It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that.

                > > and they want to arrest him

                > Well yes. We knew that already too.

                Anything else that we already know you would like to add?

      • By k-mcgrady 2017-05-199:493 reply

        Not sure about 'secret charges' but there are these recent charges. [1]

        [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wi...

        • By ginko 2017-05-199:536 reply

          What base do these have? Assange isn't a US citizen, so he can't be charged for treason like Snowden and Manning. He just gained information and published it.

          • By k-mcgrady 2017-05-199:581 reply

            AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. I think there are one or two other possible charges but both are also unlikely to succeed. As long as they can make his life a living hell though (long trial, loss of freedoms until found innocent) that would hopefully (from the USG perspective) discourage other leakers.

            • By josteink 2017-05-1912:003 reply

              > AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed.

              So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do?

              Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply?

              If we should comply with this for the US, surely we should do so too for Iran, China and Russia, just to mention a few. Is that a direction which anyone have any illusions about ever ending well?

          • By codedokode 2017-05-1910:151 reply

            There were many cases when USA kidnapped citizens of other countries and put them to jail.

            • By dghughes 2017-05-1912:401 reply

              If other countries did that to US citizens we all know the uproar it would cause in the US. Incredible hypocrisy.

          • By idlewords 2017-05-1910:29

            Neither Snowden nor Manning was charged with treason.

          • By ekianjo 2017-05-1911:46

            opponents to the US In many countries around the world were captured and sent to Guantanamo. Do you need any rules when you are the one with the largest power In the world?

          • By tptacek 2017-05-2017:04

            It would be extraordinarily difficult to charge him with treason even if he was an American citizen.

          • By Sir_Substance 2017-05-1910:131 reply

            I believe the US traditionally sidesteps this legal thorn by detaining people without charge at gitmo for as long as they like. Non-US citizens have minimal to no rights under US law, so it's all just peachy

            • By pbhjpbhj 2017-05-1910:453 reply

              Doesn't the US Bill of Rights talk in several places about "any person":

              Fifth Amendment to USA Constitution:

              >nor shall any person [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

              Sounds like quite a strong right.

              FWIW this contrasts with the pages referring to "the people" which are limited and not universal, "any person" means any person.

        • By Sephr 2017-05-199:551 reply

          They don't specifically state what they are charging him with in that article, just that they "seek to put him in jail".

          • By k-mcgrady 2017-05-1910:271 reply

            That's even worse imo. They can't find something he has done wrong but still want to imprison him.

            • By tunap 2017-05-1911:32

              I cannot help but suspect the recent "stealthing" headlines following Comey's(?) 180° turn against Wikileaks is part of the campaign. Sure, it is an abhorrent act and justifiably prosecutable, and just so happens to be what Sweden was wanting to question Assange about, but when WSJ, WaPo, Fox, USA Today, CNN & Fox run the same headlines for two weeks on a prior low-priority subject(for them & their advertisers), I cannot help but wonder at the genesis for this particular MSM meme of late.

        • By _fizz_buzz_ 2017-05-1910:13

          Interesting. So, they are not trying to charge him for publishing documents, but for helping Snowden.

    • By easilyBored 2017-05-1910:33

      They are not secret in that sense. Assange will know them when they are filed with the court.

      I have a feeling that there's enough material to put him on trial in USA and he has gone tit-tat with many three-letter agencies. They have a long memory and don't like challengers. Whether he gets convicted or not that's another thing.

HackerNews

About