SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is finally being questioned by prosecutors more than six years after he was first accused of rape in Sweden.
Ingrid Isgren, Sweden's deputy chief prosecutor, arrived at the Ecuadorian Embassy this morning, according to The Guardian, ending a stalemate which began in 2012 when the South American nation offered Assange political asylum on the grounds that he faced political persecution from the United States.
Assange claims that the rape accusations, which he denies, are part of a plot to extradite him to the United States that would swing into action were he to answer prosecutors' questions in the Scandinavian country.
The interview suggests some forward movement is being made in the diplomatic deadlock between Ecuador and Sweden regarding the arrangements for Swedish prosecutors to talk to Assange in the embassy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:24AM
Huh?
He requested asylum because the Brits were going to send him to Sweden under something-european-kinda-like-extradition-but-without-filing-charges, where he feared säpo would simply put him on an unscheduled plane to some black site. If the Sweden drops their request then he should be free to depart the UK, to simply catch a flight back home.
If you don't understand how silly this is...
He's been locked in the embassy since 2012. He has pretty consistently offered from the start (~2 years before that, while he was still out bail waiting for justice from the UK court system) to answer their questions in London or wherever. They are supposedly investigating a crime, even though it's a crime they have never found enough evidence for to actually charge him for or even to express any certainty on their part that it occurred. Officially, this is all about making him answer their questions. Except the whole time he's been saying, fine, I'll answer the questions right here where I am at and they've been saying 'no we want you on our soil before we talk to you.'
Any criminal investigator will tell you it's important to follow up on leads while they are fresh. So ask yourself, why did the Swedes, supposedly investigating a crime, spend years fighting in the UK courts to extradite him without filing a charge on this wierd EU rule (BEFORE he requested asylym) but not take the time, up till now, to simply go talk to him in London?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:47AM
"he should be free to depart the UK,"
Yes, should be - but probably won't be. The UK can and will probably come up with some charges, like evading arrest, contempt of court, and maybe worse. If Sweded drops the whole thing, there will be some offended officials in the UK who will want Snowden punished. They can probably come up with a long list of charges based on obscure and obsolete laws in addition to the obvious charges we might think of. Technically speaking he did "skip bail".
Whatever silliness is going on here, I believe Assange is likely to be snatched and transported to a black site at the earliest opportunity. The US and UK are extremely unlikely to allow him his freedom. Sweden is just playing a bit part in this charade, at the behest of the US.
Everyone should note that the media has blown those original charges way out of proportion. Both of the women have been interviewed, and both women have clearly stated that THERE WAS NO RAPE. Assange may or may not be guilty of some far lesser offense than rape. And, I mean far, far lesser offense. It seems he broke some kind of societal taboo, for which he might expect to pay a small fine, make a public apology, then go his way. Nothing more than a traffic ticket, really. No rape occurred in either instance. Those are the words of the women involved in this kangaroo media trial.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:00AM
"he should be free to depart the UK,"
Yes, should be - but probably won't be.
Yeah which airspace would be safe for him to use?
If they can do this for Snowden it's not out of the question they might do similar stuff for Assange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident [wikipedia.org]
Keep in mind they don't even do this sort of thing for convicted murderers and pedophiles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:07AM
Well. that's a certain perspective on it.
Another perspective has him perfectly able to leave the embassy and surrender to the UK courts to answer about jumping his bail. The bail was imposed when he was left free during his campaign to fight an extradition which he has given reasons to fear. On the other hand "Hey I'm afraid of you, you gotta come to me, because I said so and fuck your international police cooperation treaties" has rarely been considered a valid way to deal with any judiciary, especially those investigating allegations of rape.
I'm not privy to the actual details of the investigation, probably because Europeans do respect the presumption of innocence and the victims in a different ways than in the US, meaning that the sordid details of the case (alleged, made up, or sadly true) have to stay under wraps. So they want to talk to him about what they know and what he's got to say, but he throws a tantrum because the Swedes are notoriously scary people and slaves to the US government...
Turns out that the Swedes are following the rules, as are the Brits. Ecuador is meddling, which happens to be their right.
Assange is allowed to be scared of the US, but whether he did something or just got framed, he has given no proof to dismiss the case, and abused the goodwill of the system (jumping bail to rush to the embassy), so the Europeans are wasting precious tax dollars on him.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:28AM
Absolute nonsense. Police all around the world routinely travel or use technology to interview persons of interest who are no longer in the jurisdiction, and this has been the case for centuries if not millenia. If you think a crime has been committed, the most important thing is to gather as much evidence as possible quickly. Evidence gathered in 2008 about things that occurred earlier that year is much more likely to be accurate and complete than evidence gathered from the same source using the same methods in 2016.
If they really thought a crime had happened the logical course would be to have the interview ASAP to maximize the chances of developing enough evidence to file charges. Once you can file charges, you can extradite, using perfectly normal and accepted procedures rather than this bullshit.
No matter how you slice it, waiting this many years to develop evidence that was available the whole time is a SHOCKING misstep.
"Turns out that the Swedes are following the rules, as are the Brits."
Not even the UN could be strong-armed into agreeing with that bullshit.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Demena on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:59AM
He has 'given no proof'? It is not for him to provide evidence of innocence but for the prosecutor to provide evidence of guilt. There are no charges pending it appears so why was extradition ever granted. Extradition is not for 'come here we want to talk to you' it is used when there is evidence of a crime and charges have been laid or are pending.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:32PM
True vis-a-vis presumption of innocence, but apparently the Swedish court system requires them to interview him before he can be charged. So saying "he's not even being charged with anything" is rather a non sequitur because until now they've been refusing to go to him to do the interview.
Don't ask me how this makes sense :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Demena on Wednesday November 16 2016, @03:57AM
That is the point. Even the alleged victims think this is crazy. The only explanation for the Swedish crazy is malice, personal or political. Which is why Assange has reason to be scared. This not 'law' it is 'colour of the law'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @08:02AM
That's basically what the Swedish prosecutor said about the EU treaties that would have her interview Assange in the UK.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:34PM
One part of the story you are conveniently leaving out: Assange's lawyers offered for Assange to return to Sweden in exchange for an agreement from Sweden that they would not turn him over to the US regardless of whether he was guilty of the crime he's being investigated for. Sweden refused. Which is basically an acknowledgement that that was the plan all along. The UK, for its part, has made it clear that it will violate diplomatic protocols if necessary to stop Assange from leaving the Ecuador embassy.
The US worked with several EU allies to ground and search the plane of President Evo Morales of Bolivia because they thought Edward Snowden was on board. That's about as serious a diplomatic violation as you can get (imagine if, say, Russia or China had stopped and searched Air Force One). So the idea that they will break the rules to get their hands on Assange is not far-fetched in the slightest.
A UN body investigated whether the threat to Assange from the US was real. They determined it was.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:15PM
> Which is basically an acknowledgement that that was the plan all along.
Nope. They asked the UK to extradite him. The process went through after many petitions and appeals.
Why is the Swedish prosecutor at fault for waiting out the process, rather than caving to the demands of someone who is already guilty of breaching his UK bail?
> The UK, for its part, has made it clear that it will violate diplomatic protocols if necessary to stop Assange from leaving the Ecuador embassy.
Which is why they stormed the embassy and took him, rather than spend millions having a police van parked in front waiting for him to get out.
There was that bit about not letting the ambassador drive away with an Assange-size diplomatic luggage, which is a reminder that embassy privileges are maintained by playing nice with your hosts. Ecuador didn't call that bluff, so we won't know whether the UK would have made good on the threat (diplomacy, yay!) or just uninvited any ambassadors for a few years.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:03AM
I can imagine that the prosecutor didn't want to create a precedent where they have to travel to whichever country the alleged criminal is hiding or arrested. Because that is expensive for the justice department.
However, in our modern time, I can't imagine why she didn't follow a twofold approach:
First, send a stern letter that Assange should come to Sweden to be interrogated.
If that failed (after a month or two), demand that the British police let her interrogate him via a Skype session.
Because that would be quick, practical, and cheap. Also for the Brits; I can't imagine why they would disallow that, and be forced to feed and guard him for longer (costing more money).
What I think really happened, is that Assange pissed off some important (self-important?) people in shadowy state organizations, and they just explained to their government oversight that they want his blood, because he offended them.
Who's boss? The official government, Assange, or the three-letter-agencies? Ultimately, it's all just powerful people, and the rules be damned.
I read somewhere (might have been an unreliable pro-Assange source) that the sexual misconduct crimes of which he is suspected, even though translated as "rape" in English, would carry a 50 or 75 € fine in Sweden.
Sweden is one of the more feminist friendly countries in Europe, so it could mean that his alleged crimes amount to "being a skitstövel in bed, would not recommend, trying to forget the whole sleepover event" to those two women victims.
I am only speculating here, and maybe that is inappropriate under the circumstances. Nobody should have to feel violated, it's just something men (and women) should not do to their sex partners.
The current situation has been described like this:
Assange hidden in the Ecuadorian embassy, for years, and for years the London police has held a 24/7 multiple officers armed guard around the place to catch him should he try to escape.
*They don't do that for any other rapist, do they now?*
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @01:31PM
They have travelled to other countries many times to interview both witnesses and suspects. It would be a very long way from setting a precedent. In fact, extraditing someone without filing charges would be closer to setting a precedent.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Burz on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:24AM
Sweden has a history of kidnapping people and putting them on CIA rendition (i.e. torture) flights. If they would do that to a Swedish citizen, there is a definite possibility the Swedish government may arrest Assange and eventually hand him over to the US once the latter's grand jury investigation branches into a public case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16 2016, @05:49AM
Do they? Name two such cases.