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: 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.