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, 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.