SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Sweden's highest court has thrown out Julian Assange's appeal against his arrest warrant where he is wanted for questioning. Prosecutor Marianne Ny changed her mind earlier about questioning Assange in London. Assange has repeatedly requested that the questioning take place over the phone or in London as per common practice, to avoid traveling to Sweden where he fears he risks extradition to the US. Sweden has also repeatedly refused to give assurances regarding possible extradition.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Assange Appeal Rejected by Sweden's Supreme Court
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Most of our lives are about proving something, either to ourselves or to
someone else.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by moondrake on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:40PM
I am not so sure. He just needs to sit out the time until the prosecutor runs out of excuses to come and question him in London. My guess is that she knows she is going to lose if she does so, which is why they are stalling the case.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 12 2015, @05:33PM
What incentive do the prosecutors have to stall on such a high profile case?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Tuesday May 12 2015, @05:35PM
Prosecutors aren't under "house arrest" and confined to a single building. So stalling works in their favor. Always remember that your life is only a few years, but government bureaucracy is forever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:42PM
It may be that if Assange surrendered to the court a few years ago and got convicted, he'd be a free man by now or soon. They wouldn't give him too much for a debatable rape. Extradiction to the USA would mean nothing, as he was never a US citizen, and had no obligation to keep US secrets, and he hadn't broken US laws while on US territory. He'd be another Snowden, a political prisoner. He'd get no prison time.
But now... he remains in self-imposed imprisonment for years, and that term is indefinite. The US establishment is not going to retract its claws - it never does. For Assange every day in his room is torture; for his tormentors every other day is another day of joy, as they don't think about Assange. The court can and will outlive the fugitive. Assange is currently imprisoning himself, at no cost to the US government, and the term of that imprisonment is life.
Probably he made a strategic error when he decided to escape and hole up in the embassy. He'd be better off coming to Sweden, talking to the court, and letting himself be arrested if need be. He was on the peak of popularity then, and he'd have lots of supporters. Today he is largely forgotten, and that only gets worse. If he leaves the embassy in a year or two, news of his arrest won't be on front pages of major newspapers. Only the newspaper that specializes in crime will publish a single paragraph: "A foreigner, one J. Assange, was captured by the police after ten years on the run."
(Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Tuesday May 12 2015, @10:31PM
Assange is currently imprisoning himself, at no cost to the US government, and the term of that imprisonment is life.
At no cost to the US government, but as it turns out, at rather immense cost to the UK government:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/06/police-pay-20m-guard-julian-assange [sbs.com.au]
And what return on this investment has there been? How many police hours have been spent making sure Assange stays in his adopted home instead of investigating actual crimes affecting actual Brits? How many cases go unsolved because the resources were here on this fools assignment instead of on them? Why exactly isn't the UK content to have him exiled to Ecuador and out of their hair? Its just Kafkaesque at this point.
Only the newspaper that specializes in crime will publish a single paragraph: "A foreigner, one J. Assange, was captured by the police after ten years on the run."
No, his case will always be newsworthy. There is too much going on with it. Hiding in embassies, conspiracy theories, the salaciousness of sexual misdemeanors never grows old and the translation difficulties resulting it being called 'rape' in english... that's a golden goose... they can dredge this up and splash it on front pages 30 years from now...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday May 12 2015, @11:36PM
And what return on this investment has there been? How many police hours have been spent making sure Assange stays in his adopted home instead of investigating actual crimes affecting actual Brits?
Apparently you misunderstand goals of all governments. The only goal that is worth pursuing for them is their own well-being. Not the well-being of some useless John Doe. Assange is a threat to the government; but a gang of knife-wielding "youths" is not. As matter of fact, the gang is useful, as it forces the people to beg the government to send more government-controlled guards to protect them.
Why exactly isn't the UK content to have him exiled to Ecuador and out of their hair?
They don't want their enemy to merely be sent away. They want him dead. At this point he is contained, which is an acceptable intermediate step. He will be captured when he has to leave. Is the embassy going to stay in that building forever? Even if the building requires repairs? Even if there is a fire in the building? Oh, there is no fire? There will be. Also, what happens if Assange gets sick and needs to be treated at a hospital? If he refuses to go, he might just as well call the funeral home and make his final arrangements.
No, his case will always be newsworthy. There is too much going on with it.
It requires independent journalists. Not many of those remain in the USA. The MSM is told what to publish and what to discuss. Typically it's nothing but the latest escapades of some celebrities. And sports. "Who is Assange? Is he that new player that Marmosets just signed up?"
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:20AM
Apparently you misunderstand goals of all governments.
The 'government' doesn't have goals any more than 'evolution' does. Both only move according to things at the individual scale and it's only an illusion when either appears to work with concerted purpose, but the 'government' is no more interested in Assange than 'evolution' is in giving fish lungs to breath on land. If you stop anthropomorphizing you'll understand them better.
He will be captured when he has to leave.
Or he won't be. Or statutes of limitations will have run out mooting the entire thing.
Typically it's nothing but the latest escapades of some celebrities.
That sounds like Assange to alot of people.
It requires independent journalists. Not many of those remain in the USA.
More left than you think. Perhaps not among the talking heads on TV... but then the new generation isn't much listening to them anyway.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:45AM
The 'government' doesn't have goals any more than 'evolution' does. Both only move according to things at the individual scale and it's only an illusion when either appears to work with concerted purpose, but the 'government' is no more interested in Assange than 'evolution' is in giving fish lungs to breath on land. If you stop anthropomorphizing you'll understand them better.
You seem to be of opinion that government workers make their own, individual decisions without ever concerning themselves with needs, wants and actions of others. If so then yes, such a government would be in a Brownian motion.
However in practice all governments are formed from the top (the elected leader) down to some significant positions with political appointees. Everyone in such a government obeys orders of the leader - or gets fired. Workers below the appointee level have more freedom, as they are not automatically replaced with each change of the government - but they have no freedom to act independently; they act as the appointee tells them to act. If they don't, they get punished, up to and including being fired. Governments are usually quite rigid structures; they have to be, otherwise the elected official couldn't run them.
Or statutes of limitations will have run out mooting the entire thing.
Perhaps - it depends on laws of Sweden. In the USA, as an example, "34 states and Washington, DC, have statutes of limitations on filing rape or sexual-assault charges, ranging from 3 to 30 years." (link [motherjones.com]). And he doesn't even know what the prosecution is going to accuse him of. Here is an interesting tidbit [wikipedia.org]:
The statute of limitations is ten years for rape and five years for sexual molestation. However, he was häktad on November 19, 2010, which means that he can be charged even after more than ten years.Sjö (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope he has a real lawyer.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:22AM
It would be interesting to see the line items on that alleged cost. I think standing a couple bobbies in front of a building is not all that expensive - they don't earn all that much. What else is getting shoved into that "cost"? One thing is for sure, we will never know.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday May 14 2015, @10:23AM
I think standing a couple bobbies in front of a building is not all that expensive
No? Think about it... I read somewhere it was at least 3 officers. That's 3 shifts a day x 3 officers ... 9 people per day. You can't work them 7 days a week -- they still need everything from vacation to training to weekends... so you need a relief team of at least another 9 people. That's 18 people at least, and probably more. A team that size is going to have some dedicated management... there's probably surveillance equipment, with IT support etc on top of that... it adds up fast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:38AM
The thing is, he already did. Well, not to the court, because even the police said there wasn't a case. When they finished asking questions, they told him he was free to leave.
After he left, the case was reopened by completely different people having nothing to do with the rape case.
You're assuming he'd be given a fair trial, like a US citizen. If that was the case, there would be a regular extradition case. Instead there is this secret stuff masquerading as a rape case.
If he goes to Sweden, the extradition will not involve an American Airlines plane (or Lufthansa or whoever flies to Sweden), but one of the unmarked CIA planes, that have previously been used to transport people out of Sweden with help from the Swedish police.
The Swedish government will likely be officially pissed like last time, but not until the plane has left Swedish airspace. Until then, they will keep saying that there is no extradition request, while at the same time refusing to say that he will not be extradited.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:28AM
The status quo is beneficial to the powers that be : being able to continuously represent the man as a criminal, and for as far as it matters, having him locked up at the same time. A trail or not being able to officially accuse him at all would be worse.
But apart from that, it is simply human pride. Have a look at this [friatider.se]... Apart from the insights of some (ex) law prof, who may be right or not, it is clear that are at least some morons in Swedish public offices that actually think this is a pissing contest and a suspect (which he is not officially at this moment...) should not be entitled to dictate the venue. Thus, they simply stall due process to make a point. Whatever the cost.
I am not Swedish but I do not understand how Ms Ny manages to keep her job. A prosecutors job is not about ones own interest, she should be shown the door for letting emotions dictate her actions (and frankly, even if this is not the reason, she should be moved of the case for making it seem that this is so, after repeated pressure by judges to do something about the situation). Perhaps though she even realizes this herself and will attempt to keep Assange in the embassy until the statue of limitations make it impossible to still accuse him. That way, she can claim she was right, but is now unable to prosecute him. And then of course lobby for further erosion of our freedom to prevent rapist and other evildoers do such horrible things in the future. She might make a fine politician, who knows...