Support NeoGAF

[kazinova]

Between this and Snowden, I grow increasingly worried about the dogmatic reaction people have to "enemies of the state". You have no real reason for the enmity you carry for these men. Unless you're privileged to information the rest of the public doesn't have, I guess that could be the case.

 

[Oddish1]

Go and face charges when Sweden had the US breathing down their necks as a possible attempt to extradite Assange to America? Nah. If you know a country that wants your head has an extradition agreement with a country you have charges in (Especially with America's power and influence), you would be wise to dodge. Yes, the charge was serious, but he would be rotting away in a US military prison if he didn't do what he did.

Is there any reason to think that the US was doing that other than Assange's word? And if they were then would it even matter? Someone already commented in this thread that Sweden has protection against extradition for espionage but Assange wanted a blanket extradition protection from everything which Sweden would never give. So no, he likely would not be rotting in a US military prison if he didn't do what he did.

 

[CTLance]

So, charges not dropped, if I understand this correctly. Only the investigation is paused. What a load of crock. I had hoped to see some movement in the case, for better or worse. Not that.

Well, at least he's still stuck in his self-imposed cell.

To elaborate: I think, depending on circumstances, that his non-rape actions might have been justifiable. There is a case to be made for his version of the poor oppressed fugitive, however shaky it might be at the moment. If his story is true, it would have wideranging implications. We won't ever know whether it holds any water, though, because as long as the rape case isn't concluded we can't get to the bottom of the other stuff. And with this current situation, he will stay a maybe-rapist and the maybe-victim may have to deal with a severe trauma and continuing impact on her life just because a bunch of courts and laws ground to a deadlock. Frustrating.

Nobody is served with this, and on top of that, a possible rapist may be exploiting a maybe-possibly-probably-not-but-if-really-then-holy-shit issue. That just doesn't sit right, even for my tinfoil hat wearing self.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Here's the case in a nutshell
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

So much ew. Disgusting behaviour.

This just comes off as deflection, the Swedish authorities can't "offer guarantees against extradition to the USA" as you wrote in your post.

Bringing up the highly criticised, and fucked up separate case (which isn't exactly the same because the extradition was to Egypt, even though it was handled by the US) doesn't change the fact that, by law, guarantees regarding extradition cannot be given.

I'm just trying to see it from his point of view. There was an earlier case where the government could override the official process, so from his point of view, why shouldn't they be able to do it this time? Official policy is that you can't be extradited if you risk the death penalty, but this previous case showed that if CIA wants to, you can be extradited to a place where you will be subjected to torture From his point of view it looks like Sweden would do everything daddy USA tells them to.

But, yeah, reading the article I quoted above it really does seem like he's just trying to escape justice.

So, charges not dropped, if I understand this correctly. Only the investigation is paused. What a load of crock. I had hoped to see some movement in the case, for better or worse. Not that.

Well, at least he's still stuck in his self-imposed cell.

The European arrest warrant is cancelled, no? That should at least change his current situation

 

[Kurdel]

Between this and Snowden, I grow increasingly worried about the dogmatic reaction people have to "enemies of the state". You have no real reason for the enmity you carry for these men. Unless you're privileged to information the rest of the public doesn't have, I guess that could be the case.

Putting Snowden and Assange in the same basket goes to show how little you know about Assange.

 

[Coriolanus]

Lawyers tell their clients to run from the authorities and skip bail ? Sounds like a good way to get disbarred.

Oh, is that what i wrote?

Yes, I totally have an obligation to turn up in court or at the police station if requested to do so. I have no obligation to then answer the questions or confess, but I need to be there. Otherwise they sent people after you to make you come there.

This is not a case of keeping your mouth shut as advised by a lawyer. This is someone who doesn't even turn up for the investigation.

Yes, which is why i bolded exactly the bit i commented on. Having to show up in court is covered under "doing as little as possible", and as you said yourself, doesn't mean that they then have to cooperate with their investigation.

 

[ClosingADoor]

the accused have no obligation whatsoever to cooperate with their prosecution, fwiw.

heck, a lawyer will usually tell them explicitly to shut the fuck up and do as little as possible.

Yes, I totally have an obligation to turn up in court or at the police station if requested to do so. I have no obligation to then answer the questions or confess, but I need to be there. Otherwise they sent people after you to make you come there.

This is not a case of keeping your mouth shut as advised by a lawyer. This is someone who doesn't even turn up for the investigation.

 

[jorma]

So, charges not dropped, if I understand this correctly. Only the investigation is paused. What a load of crock. I had hoped to see some movement in the case, for better or worse. Not that.

Well, at least he's still stuck in his self-imposed cell.

No the investigation is dropped and the arrest warrant is revoked. There never were any charges so it's kinda hard to drop them.

They would never have dropped the investigation if they actually had a case, obviously. The case is done and over.

 

[Boylamite]

Fuck wikileaks.

 

[Ahasverus]

So he'll be free soon?

 

[entremet]

So he'll be free soon?

He was never under arrest.

His exile was self imposed.

 

[remist]

The statement from the swedish prosecutor doesn't jive with the facts. After delaying for 4 years and a lot of critisism from swedish legal experts she agreed that the interview to complete the formal charging process could happen outside of sweden and the interview was completed by the deputy chief prosecutor late last year at the embassy. There is nothing stopping them from following through with this investigation if they had the evidence. This is just Marianne Ny trying to save face after continued bungling of the investigation.

 

[berzeli]

No the investigation is dropped and the arrest warrant is revoked. There never were any charges so it's kinda hard to drop them.

They would never have dropped the investigation if they actually had a case, obviously. The case is done and over.

No the investigation isn't dropped outright, if he returns to Sweden before 2020 the case will be resumed.

They can't move forward with the case because they can't formally notify Assange about the suspicions of a crime. They were supposed to do so when they visited in London but Assange refused and they don't expect Ecuador to cooperate. Hence the investigation is suspended.

The statement from the swedish prosecutor doesn't jive with the facts. After delaying for 4 years and a lot of critisism from swedish legal experts she agreed that the interview to complete the formal charging process could happen outside of sweden and the interview was completed by the deputy chief prosecutor late last year at the embassy. There is nothing stopping them from following through with this investigation if they had the evidence. This is just Marianne Ny trying to save face after continued bungling of the investigation.

See above, apparently Assange refused them in London.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

It's a carrot dangle, you watch.

“If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately.”

That's pretty much how it reads. If he leaves then they'll just start it up again.

 

[RoyalFool]

Guy is a coward, he puts others lives on the line by leaking shit for Russia then hides in an embassy for years because he doesn't like using condoms.

I get that he thinks he's going to get extradited to the US, but he's such a public figure I can't see how they cannot serve anything but fair judgement on the guy without epic backlash. He also said he would leave the Embassy (so hand himself in) if Obama let Manning out, which he did.. and guess what? he didn't leave.

Hope the victim gets to take him to court before 2020 to answer for his behavior

 

[jorma]

So he'll be free soon?

As far as Sweden is concerned he is free from today onwards. The rest is up to the UK.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Cool, so I can go raping people and hide away because I might be extradited to another country, where I should also face charges brought against me. The dude is scum and his behavior is unacceptable and nothing is understandable about it, except for someone why wants to get away with a crime.

Innocent until proven guilty. The rape case against him was never particularly strong, which is why Sweden just wants him for questioning.

That would depend on the US charges against him. If there was a danger of him being executed, no EU country would be able to extradite him.

Thats not a gamble he'd want to take, I guess.

I mean, if you leak sensitive documents with the intent of destabilising a government, you would expect some retaliation too, regardless if those documents contain information relevant to the public. In the aftermath of Wikileaks I feel like he has created more of a dangerous political platform rather than a needed and politically neutral whisteblowing site. It's more a tool of propaganda instead of the objective platform it sets out to be.

I think the way people view Wikileaks is pretty much irrelevant to the entire thing.
Whistleblowers will always upset a lot of people.
If Wikileaks leaked incriminating Trump E-Mails instead of Clinton the way people viewed them would've been entirely different.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

I guess if you putin enough time you can trump anything.

 

[Kurdel]

I guess if you putin enough time you can trump anything.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Innocent until proven guilty. The rape case against him was never particularly strong, which is why Sweden just wants him for questioning.

Nothing to do with it. He should have shown up, even if he was innocent.

I also dislike this sentiment from you and others about how the case wasn't strong. This is surely a message we want to sent. Get sexually assaulted or raped? Well, if the case isn't strong, the attacker doesn't need to show up for the investigation.

 

[Effect]

He's never leaving that building though. As soon as he does the UK is going to grab him or he's going to find himself on a plane to the US. Those are the best case scenarios for him because he could also be killed once he hits the street.

 

[funkystudent]

Still think if he let the US get his years ago and didn't become Putin's bitch he would be free now just like Manning.


Wonder if he finally leave that damn Embassy

 

[Nabbis]

Nothing to do with it. He should have shown up, even if he was innocent.

I also dislike this sentiment from you and others about how the case wasn't strong. This is surely a message we want to sent. Get sexually assaulted or raped? Well, if the case isn't strong, the attacker doesn't need to show up for the investigation.

I somewhat doubt you care about the case and justice. He already spent years in a room, certainly for a longer time than what Sweden would sentence him even if proven guilty. It's okay not to like the guy, no need to hide behind hypocrisy.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I somewhat doubt you care about the case and justice. He already spent years in a room, certainly for a longer time than what Sweden would sentence him even if proven guilty. It's okay not to like the guy, no need to hide behind hypocrisy.

You are free to doubt what you want. I don't see how wanting someone who has an accusation against him to face that and complete an investigation is hypocrisy?

If I am charged with something and lock myself up in a room for 10 years, that doesn't mean the courts should go "well, he hid himself for 10 years in a room on his own, guess that was punishment enough." It doesn't work that way. You can't decide for yourself what your punishment will be. That is up to the courts. And in order to get there, there needs to be an investigation, which he refused to work with. We have justice systems for this, and he doesn't want to follow the law, which is not something we should support.

 

[berzeli]

As far as Sweden is concerned he is free from today onwards. The rest is up to the UK.

No he's not. The prosecutor has stated that if he returns to Sweden the case will be resumed.

Innocent until proven guilty. The rape case against him was never particularly strong, which is why Sweden just wants him for questioning.

This is not true and seems based on a mistranslation/misunderstanding. They wanted to question him and formally notify him about the suspicions of a crime.
Multiple courts have concluded that the "questioning" is equivalent of arrest/charging of a crime.

 

[D4Danger]

I mean, if you leak sensitive documents with the intent of destabilising a government, you would expect some retaliation too, regardless if those documents contain information relevant to the public. In the aftermath of Wikileaks I feel like he has created more of a dangerous political platform rather than a needed and politically neutral whisteblowing site. It's more a tool of propaganda instead of the objective platform it sets out to be.

I assume you apply the same criteria to the WSJ and NYT? Those recent Trump leaks must have really upset you

 

[remist]

See above, apparently Assange refused them in London.

Source? I don't think that is true.

 

[Liljagare]

Innocent until proven guilty. The rape case against him was never particularly strong, which is why Sweden just wants him for questioning.

Actually, the Swedish legal system is rather interesting, you are more a suspect on various grounds until proven innocent. It is wierd, but initially, it's your innocence that must be proven.

(we also enjoy free evidence justifications, doesn't matter how evidence has been collected, if it's available, it can be used).

 

[Dopus]

You are free to doubt what you want. I don't see how wanting someone who has an accusation against him to face that and complete an investigation is hypocrisy?

If I am charged with something and lock myself up in a room for 10 years, that doesn't mean the courts should go "well, he hid himself for 10 years in a room on his own, guess that was punishment enough." It doesn't work that way. You can't decide for yourself what your punishment will be. That is up to the courts. And in order to get there, there needs to be an investigation, which he refused to work with. We have justice systems for this, and he doesn't want to follow the law, which is not something we should support.

The Swedish courts didn't provide any assurances regarding potential US extradition.

According to the Stratfor leaks, there was a secret indictment against Assange. It's a very real threat, hence the reason he stayed in the embassy.

It's arbitrary detention according to the United Nations because of that very reason. You could say self-inflicted, but that's a stretch given the circumstances surrounding the man.

This isn't a normal case.

 

[Nabbis]

You are free to doubt what you want. I don't see how wanting someone who has an accusation against him to face that and complete an investigation is hypocrisy?

If I am charged with something and lock myself up in a room for 10 years, that doesn't mean the courts should go "well, he hid himself for 10 years in a room on his own, guess that was punishment enough." It doesn't work that way. You can't decide for yourself what your punishment will be. That is up to the courts. And in order to get there, there needs to be an investigation, which he refused to work with. We have justice systems for this, and he doesn't want to follow the law, which is not something we should support.

Yeah, sure. Now, on it's own i would be inclined to take what you say in good faith. But i don't see you particularly argumentative on the side of the judical process in Trump threads or those dealing with minority discrimination. You seem to take the side of what you consider to be justice there, something that the courts can't seem to provide due to them being seen as lacking validity. Here though, you make a case solely based on upholding the rule of law despite there clearly being mechanics that can cause the process to lose validity. Like i said, the guy is clearly bad on his own, no need for mental gymnastics.

 

[berzeli]

Source? I don't think that is true.

It's what the Swedish prosecutor stated in the press conference.
From the BBC article:

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.
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."

And regarding the bit about "the interview was completed by the deputy chief prosecutor late last year at the embassy" from your last post, the interview was actually carried out by Ecuadorian prosecutors with the Swedish one just listening in. Which is I assume is the why/how bit about the formal notification not being given at that time.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

The "response" is really creepy and smug and doesn't treat the situation with the care it deserves imo.

If the actual case is BS, then it's not creepy at all but aptly smug considering. If it's legit rape case, than that's another story.

I agree with the poster who says carrot dangle. This is likely some sort of ruse.

 

[Derwind]

Between this and Snowden, I grow increasingly worried about the dogmatic reaction people have to "enemies of the state". You have no real reason for the enmity you carry for these men. Unless you're privileged to information the rest of the public doesn't have, I guess that could be the case.

Nah, he did his part to help get Trump elected, that alone is enough for me to view this man as a vile, self-serving, piece of rancid excrement.

Assange can go fuck himself, at least than he won't be able to rape anyone.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

I don't buy it either. You don't just drop a rape charge after all this time.

Especially when someone flees after being accused.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I don't get the outrage over his twitter picture. He just looks happy in that pic. It's Julian Assange laughing because he might be able to get out of his tiny little mousehole after more than five years. It's not even a new picture, if I understand this correctly. All of my shrugs.

 

[remist]

It's what the Swedish prosecutor stated in the press conference.
From the BBC article:

And regarding the bit about "the interview was completed by the deputy chief prosecutor late last year at the embassy" from your last post, the interview was actually carried out by Ecuadorian prosecutors with the Swedish one just listening in. Which is I assume is the why/how bit about the formal notification not being given at that time.

Its simply not true. The prosecutor was present and allowed to ask for clarifications just not ask new questions outside the submitted ones.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...e-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation

 

[berzeli]

Its simply not true. The prosecutor was present and allowed to ask for clarifications just not ask new questions outside the submitted ones.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...e-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation

From that article:
"Three days have been set aside for the interview, which is being conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor."

Yes, she was allowed to ask for clarifications and not just merely listen in, my bad. But that doesn't really change the larger point which was the why/how of the formal notification not being given at that time.

 

[Dopus]

From that article:
"Three days have been set aside for the interview, which is being conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor."

Yes, she was allowed to ask for clarifications and not just merely listen in, my bad. But that doesn't really change the larger point which was the why/how of the formal notification not being given at that time.

Conducted by them, but the questions asked were ones from the Swedish prosecutors.

 

[remist]

From that article:
"Three days have been set aside for the interview, which is being conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor."

Yes, she was allowed to ask for clarifications and not just merely listen in, my bad. But that doesn't really change the larger point which was the why/how of the formal notification not being given at that time.

There is no evidence that they could not have made a formal notification or that Assange has tried to avoid one. It's a flismy and transparent excuse to save face.

 

[sturgboski]

I assume you apply the same criteria to the WSJ and NYT? Those recent Trump leaks must have really upset you

On the flip side, hasnt Wiki released personal information of people who arent their targets, such as social security numbers, credit card information, medical records, names of rape victims, etc as well as basically anything that is provided to them regardless of "public interest" like they claim. Was knowing that some execs at Sony think Adam Sandler is shit really something that matters to the public, say, compared to the documents on the war in Iraq? No. They just take what they get and go "here it is everyone" and, especially this last election cycle, feed into conspiracy theories all to prop themselves up. What the media is doing now is what wikileaks was doing at the onset, but not the wikileaks of today.

 

[berzeli]

Conducted by them, but the questions asked were ones from the Swedish prosecutors.

The origin of the questions wasn't the point.

There is no evidence that they could not have made a formal notification or that Assange has tried to avoid one. It's a flismy and transparent excuse to save face.

There is also no evidence that they could have made it or that Assange didn't avoid one. You're free to believe that it is just a "flismy and transparent excuse", and I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this one. But it is within reason that since they were in the embassy in lessened capacity they were not allowed to formally notify him.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The Swedish courts didn't provide any assurances regarding potential US extradition.

According to the Stratfor leaks, there was a secret indictment against Assange. It's a very real threat, hence the reason he stayed in the embassy.

It's arbitrary detention according to the United Nations because of that very reason. You could say self-inflicted, but that's a stretch given the circumstances surrounding the man.

This isn't a normal case.

That guarantee can't be given though. Another poster said that Sweden then needs to basically stop the treaty with the US.

Yeah, sure. Now, on it's own i would be inclined to take what you say in good faith. But i don't see you particularly argumentative on the side of the judical process in Trump threads or those dealing with minority discrimination. You seem to take the side of what you consider to be justice there, something that the courts can't seem to provide due to them being seen as lacking validity. Here though, you make a case solely based on upholding the rule of law despite there clearly being mechanics that can cause the process to lose validity. Like i said, the guy is clearly bad on his own, no need for mental gymnastics.

Yes, and I am on the side of what I find justice here also, which is to have an actual investigation into a rape accusation. On those other subjects I mostly express my disgust and disappointment that people can not be held accountable or be put on trial for things because of all kinds of reasons. And it is the same here. What are the mechanics here that leads to the courts not able to do its job, outside of that Assange just doesn't want to show up?

I assume you apply the same criteria to the WSJ and NYT? Those recent Trump leaks must have really upset you

Those are institutions that take some care with what they put out there though. They check it, they remove stuff if it can put people in danger. Wikileaks just throws stuff out there and then feels good about itself.

 

[TestOfTide]

Between this and Snowden, I grow increasingly worried about the dogmatic reaction people have to "enemies of the state". You have no real reason for the enmity you carry for these men. Unless you're privileged to information the rest of the public doesn't have, I guess that could be the case.

There is a world of difference between Assholange and Snowden.

 

[remist]

The origin of the questions wasn't the point.

There is also no evidence that they could have made it or that Assange didn't avoid one. You're free to believe that it is just a "flismy and transparent excuse", and I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this one. But it is within reason that since they were in the embassy in lessened capacity they were not allowed to formally notify him.

If you have been following the case, Assange and his team have been desperate to get the formalities completed so that swedish prosecutor's no longer have excuses to drag the process out. Even as a Swedish appeals court upheld the arrest warrant they sharply critisized the prosecutors for this. Your framing doesnt make sense given the actual context.

 

[Dopus]

That guarantee can't be given though. Another poster said that Sweden then needs to basically stop the treaty with the US.

Yes it can.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...w-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

 

[berzeli]

If you have been following the case, Assange and his team have been desperate to get the formalities completed so that swedish prosecutor's no longer have excuses to drag the process out. Even as a Swedish appeals court upheld the arrest warrant they sharply critisized the prosecutors for this. Your framing doesnt make sense given the actual context.

The same Assange and his team that lied in court about the attempts of the prosecutor to interview Assange in Sweden before he fled? The same Assange and his team that wanted assurances from Swedish authorities, which they legally cannot provide, in exchange for their cooperation?
Sorry if I don't necessarily take their word for it.

 

[Seth Enosh]

The strange thing about this case is that if Assange had just returned to Sweden to face the music and even if he had been convicted, he'd be out of jail by now and could go wherever he wanted to avoid Sessions and Trump getting ahold of him.

Instead he's essentially been in a jail of his own making in the Ecuadorian embassy.

 

[Dopus]

The same Assange and his team that lied in court about the attempts of the prosecutor to interview Assange in Sweden before he fled? The same Assange and his team that wanted assurances from Swedish authorities, which they legally cannot provide, in exchange for their cooperation?
Sorry if I don't necessarily take their word for it.

I get you don't like Assange, but you're attempting to paint a false narrative here. They could provide assurances if they wanted to.

 

[remist]

The same Assange and his team that lied in court about the attempts of the prosecutor to interview Assange in Sweden before he fled? The same Assange and his team that wanted assurances from Swedish authorities, which they legally cannot provide, in exchange for their cooperation?
Sorry if I don't necessarily take their word for it.

Apparently your claim about extradition guarantees is false. You dont have to trust Assange, independent courts and plenty of legal experts have been critical of the prosecutors failure to move forward with the case.

 

[berzeli]

I get you don't like Assange, but you're attempting to paint a false narrative here. They can provide assurances if they wanted to.

Not really, I see you linked Glenn Greenwald, and he's not exactly an impartial expert on Swedish law.
From a Swedish law docent (who happens to be quoted by Greenwald):

The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.

Also in the same post:

To summarize, if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court. Without an actual request it is difficult to legally asses the exact discretion and whether the Government can exercise such discretion.

Apparently your claim about extradition guarantees is false. You dont have to trust Assange, independent courts and plenty of legal experts have been critical of the prosecutors failure to move forward with the case.

See above.

I'm not trying to argue that the case has been extremely well handled.