Sweden Makes Another Request To Ecuador For Permission To Question Assange (thelocal.se) 133
cold fjord writes: Thelocal.se reports that Sweden's state prosecutor's office said today that it has formally asked Ecuador in writing for permission to interrogate Julian Assange. They don't know when Ecuador will reply. The request follows the signing of an agreement in December on general legal cooperation between the two countries. Ecuador required the agreement before it would consent to an interview of Assange. The Swedish prosecutors want to question Assange regarding rape allegations that have a statute of limitations that run till 2020. The statue of limitations for other sex crimes Assange has been accused of have expired while Assange has been in hiding. Sweden had previously asked to question Assange in the embassy, but Ecuador declined permission. In another peculiar twist to the case, RTE.ie is reporting that Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino has stated that the exact procedures that will be used are not known, but that Ecuadorian prosecutors will be the ones actually questioning Assange although Swedish officials can be present. Sweden's view on this is unclear.
Exact (Score:2)
Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino has stated that the exact procedures that will be used are not known
I like the Scottish flavor of that use of the word "exact".
I wonder what would be the answer if a journalist raises the question "precisely how exact are we talking here?"
don't know/are not known/is unclear (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"We've decided that the only logical recourse is to hand him over to a neutral third-party for questioning," said Ecuador and Sweden.
"Ooh, ooh, me, me! Right here!" responded the U.S.
Non-Extradition Treaty? (Score:3)
I wonder if the legal framework between the two countries prevents third-party extradition (which could be used as a mechanism for future problem-solving). Curious that it hasn't been leaked.
Re: (Score:2)
What IS clear: (Score:1)
Ecuador is relishing its role as thorn in the side of the Americans.
Assange could still be guilty of the sexual assaults.
Re: (Score:2)
There exists some influential political motivation to extradite Assange, and any hearing he received in the US or England would be tainted by that.
The idea that Sweden is doing this just so he could be extradited to the US does NOT in any way pass the smell test--if that was the end goal, the UK (who seems to have a "Sure, America, we'll do whatever the fuck you want" attitude) would have done so before he fled to the embassy.
Re: (Score:1)
There were hints that there was some political pushback from the UK. The U.S. policies have come under a lot of public fire there and their Prime Ministers are already seen as pathetic U.S. lapdogs. It's likely that deporting him to the U.S. from the UK would be political suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
No, until he's raped someone he is not a rapist. "Rapist" is not a legal term. It is a word that means "a person who rapes".
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't. You lied about me, what is that supposed to prove?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The charges are less "rape" and more "being a shitty boyfriend". IIRC the charges are actually "molestation" and the specifics are related to condom use and him lying to get women to sleep with him, rather than him actually forcing anything against consent.
That he may have been enough of an asshat that it was actually illegal is amusing, and he probably does deserve to face the charges in court and possibly be sentenced according to the law. But ultimately it's more than a little odd to see a nation attempt
Re: (Score:1)
You don't recall correctly. He is accused of rape. He allegedly inserted his penis into a sleeping woman. A sleeping woman cannot consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape.
Besides rape he was also accused of molestation and other sex crimes.
Assange is a Leftist political activist and oddly enough a Leftist regime is shielding him from the legal process to adjudicate the sex crime allegations against him. This is easy to understand.
There is nothing odd about extradition over allegations of sexual assa
Re: (Score:1)
I must be a rapist 'cause I slipped it into my g/f last night while she was probably close to sleep. She didn't complain and it turned out to be pretty active 'cause I'd been sick for a few days. I'm still sick but I'm getting better. To be fair, some rubbing and neck and back kisses where the start - she might not have actually been asleep. However, she didn't say, "Yes David, I formally swear and will attest to my desire to have sexual intercourse with you." Well, she calls me Dave or Mr. Dave or whatnot
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden filed an extradition request for actions that would be considered rape under UK law, and the UK court system confirmed that. The whole political thing is largely generated by Assange and his supporters. The US does not have a case against him, and has made no move to get hold of him.
If he feared going to Sweden because of extraordinary rendition by the US, why did he go there in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that Sweden is doing this just so he could be extradited to the US does NOT in any way pass the smell test
They've illegally extradited people to us just because we wanted them before, so there's plenty of reason to believe they would do this again.
if that was the end goal, the UK (who seems to have a "Sure, America, we'll do whatever the fuck you want" attitude) would have done so before he fled to the embassy.
The UK has laws about how extradition works that would make it even more obvious what is really going on, and they don't want to get involved to that degree.
Re: (Score:1)
AIUI
Because publishing this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Is illegal in Sweden, but not the UK.
And he can only be extradited if it would be illegal in the country receiving the request.
Re: (Score:1)
The Supreme Court of the UK said that the allegations against Assange constituted crimes in the UK. Extradition isn't a problem. Assange being a fugitive from justice is a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Thats the almost certainly fabricated sex charges.
I'm talking about why he can be extradidited from Sweden to the US but not the UK to the US.
That is why he came to the UK in the first place. after the collateral murer story broke.
Then they fabricated the sex charges.
Or something to that effect.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, I've seen no good evidence that the charges were fabricated, or why they would be. I've seen a lot of false claims that support the idea of fabrication, and a lot of paranoia about why, but nothing that stands up to rational thought.
What I think happened is that Assange is a jerk, and went too far with the women. Being a jerk, he claimed that this was all for political reasons. I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of good, but that doesn't preclude him being a jerk and a rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful there the rape in question was not an assault but a very disingenuous attempt to enable conception when empty mutual masturbation was the only intent. Something covered in Swedish law as rape but that can not be considered as sexual assault. There are the additional considerations of increased risk of sexually transmitted disease but as neither pregnancy nor infection resulted from those two particular bouts of voluntary non reproductive mutual masturbation (not choosing to define methods, possible
This is actually the first legitimate request. (Score:5, Informative)
This is actually the first legitimate request.
Ecuador did not have an agreement in place with Sweden to act as a framework within which such a request could be allowed to go forward on Ecuadoran soil, which is what the embassy is. Until that agreement was reached, it was in fact a requirement that refuse Swedish extraterritorial interrogation requests.
Ironically, it would have been perfectly legitimate for Interpol to request on behalf of Sweden, and send Interpol investigators (some of whom could have been Swedish) to perform the questioning, since Ecuador is a signatory to treaties and agreements which require cooperation with Interpol.
The issue, however, has always been that what Sweden is asking is not for what they want, but a pretext for what they actually want, which is extradition. This has, naturally, been a sticking point for Ecuador.
Really, the request should not be big news, since it was inevitable that this would be asked. The real news is the Sweden-Ecuador agreement that allowed the question to be asked; but that type of thing rarely hits the front page, unlike anything directly dealing with Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
A treaty just to talk to a guy in a room in London? A "framework"? This is Ecuador simultaneously trolling and puffing itself up.
I do not know this to be the case, but I suspect this is more a matter of formally establishing paperwork that get signed, wherein Sweden agrees explicitly that they know and agree to obey Ecuador's laws. While in that embassy, Ecuadoran law prevails, and while it's fine to say "I agree to that fact", it's another thing to agree to the specific laws that might come into play.
"Oh, I didn't know I can't wear blue on Wednesdays."
The form and content of the questions asked etc, may have restrictions beca
Fiasco continues (Score:2, Insightful)
I will patiently wait for the sanctimonious shills to come out and shit the place up like all articles of the nature.
Assange is a serial rapist who escape prosecution!
Manning's leaks cost 'murican soldier's lives!
Snowden sold 'murica's secrets to the Russians!
Pathetic...
Re: (Score:3)
I once spoke with an NSA worker who said he "knew" Snowden was a traitor...because we "can't see what he sees."
Unfortunately we have to choose between regarding all Arguments from Secret Intelligence as fallacious, and treating all intelligence workers as omniscient gods who know truths not meant for us mere mortals.
Come on guys, stop fighting (Score:1)
There will be enough U.S. favor for BOTH of you when you hand him over.
Strange (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought Statute Of Limitation only applied to undiscovered crimes. The idea that a known suspect can hide for a certain period of time to avoid prosecution seems quite absurd to me.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem may be that he is not charged with anything yet.
Re: (Score:1)
I think they would have to file charges before time runs out which they haven't done due to lack of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't "filed charges" because of a quirk in Swedish law, it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence and everything to do with his flight from prosecution
Re: (Score:1)
I know that's the argument that Swedish prosecutors are using, but it's rather a stretch to claim that they require Assange to incriminate himself in order to charge him. Although the idea of running from charges to run out the statute of limitations timer may seem too easy, I don't think that the purpose of these limitations has been breached.
The whole point of limiting these charges from being filed at a time significantly later than the alleged crime is that evidence goes away over time. It doesn't mat
Re: (Score:2)
I know that's the argument that Swedish prosecutors are using, but it's rather a stretch to claim that they require Assange to incriminate himself in order to charge him.
True. This is why nobody claims this.
Re: (Score:2)
What's even more absurd is expecting authorities from a differing country (British authorities) outside the jurisdiction of Sweden to apprehend a suspect.
How else do you propose to apprehend suspects who flee to different jurisdictions?
Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "fleeing" if he hasn't been charged with anything.
I didn't "flee" to work this morning. I commuted.
Re: (Score:2)
In either case, he didn't "flee" as they said they didn't have any more questions for him. Then he left the country, *then* they decided that they wanted to talk to him after all. (Wouldn't you think they'd have a registry of people wanted for X that would have stopped him from leaving the country via airport if he was wanted?)
If they want to prosecute him for something he did there, I just don't see what motivation he would have to go back.
On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.[7] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,[20][21] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,[22] which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months.
Re: (Score:2)
That's bullshit. He had a follow-up interview scheduled with the police before he fled Sweden
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. In which case Wikipedia isn't really *lying* about it, just interestingly omitting it (presumably because they're infighting about the reliability of some source).
This whole case is annoyingly murky.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like animal farm double speak. He has been charged but in Sweden they don't charge you until after they interview you, which they've not done. For me the question is, was he legally allowed to leave the country at the time he did. I don't honestly know the answer to that question.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an arrest warrant issued, so that he can be "interviewed" which is a requirement for "charging". He was extradited, but skipped bail and hid in an embassy. This is a second thing he did illegal which could put him in jail.
The swedish legal system terms the prior to arrest differently, but it is the equivalent of every other legal system's charging step or the grand jury indictment if you prefer.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not "fleeing" if he hasn't been charged with anything.
I didn't "flee" to work this morning. I commuted.
Assange is fleeing extradition to Sweden,* so yes, Assange is FLEEING.
*Where he is likely to be taken into custody, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned for the crime of rape.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not fleeing anywhere--either he fled, or he didn't. He's just sitting in the embassy now.
And just stating it as a fact gets you nothing. We know that in your eyes, anyone who goes against the government is guilty, no matter what.
Re: (Score:1)
Assange remains a fugitive from justice.
And just stating it as a fact gets you nothing.
I was starting to wonder if facts mattered to you.
We know that in your eyes, anyone who goes against the government is guilty, no matter what.
And what makes you think you "know" this? I've certainly opposed various government policies, and supported people that oppose them.
This seems to be another case of you "knowing" something that isn't true. That probably feeds back into your "interest" in facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Since 19 June 2012, Assange has lived in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he asked for and was granted political asylum.[69] Assange’s lawyers invited the Swedish prosecutor four times to come and question him at the embassy, but the offer was refused.[70] In March 2015, faced with the prospect of the Swedish statute of limitations expiring for some of the allegations, the prosecutor relented and agreed to question Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy.[71]
Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,[72] to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.[73] However, the Swedish government is free to reject extradition requests from non-EU countries, independent of any court decision.[74]
This whole affair is so facepalm ridiculous, too. Why the fuck couldn't they just guarantee they won't extradite him to the U.S.? He's facing a Swedish rape charge, why in god's name would that ever involve extraditing him to the U.S.?
If the U.S. wants him for unrelated reasons they can catch him their own damn selves.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "there's no logical way that this could ever result in an extradition to the U.S. so no, that won't happen"?
Or to put it in code terms:
if(false) {
functionA();
}
"No no no, we can't guarantee that functionA() won't be called, even though this is the only place it occurs in the codebase. Because reasons."
Re: (Score:2)
Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,
Depending on how much we trust the wording, I suppose them promising not to extradite him implies that they won't extradite him ever for any reason, not just because of this court case.
In which yeah, makes sense they wouldn't promise that. But it's understandable why Assange doesn't want to go back, when they can't provide him any guarantee of not immediately stuffing him on a plane to the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Willfully obtuse tautology. Cold Fascist's partner in propaganda, Rei, has even stated (between protesting that Sweden can't promise not to extradite) that Swedish law does not allow for extradition for intelligence crimes. So, yeah, Sweden can call Assange's bluff and make such a prom
Re: (Score:2)
Who's supposed to make the assurance? The executive branch is not supposed to speak for the judicial branch in Sweden. It may be illegal for a Swedish official to do that. The Swedish courts are unlikely to make a pronouncement about a hypothetical extradition request without any details. Moreover, the US has not made any move whatsoever to try to extradite him for not breaking any US laws. Leaking confidential information is highly illegal, and Manning is imprisoned for it. Publishing what has been
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.
He cannot be charged until he is interviewed, and (if evidence supports it) arrested under Swedish law. You should proba
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.
Why? Because those pesky rules are getting in the way of us sending him to Gitmo?
This is the exact same idiotic argument used by the agencies to justify domestic spying "to catch terrorists."
Re: (Score:2)
I know better than to argue with you, cold "Argument to Authority" fjord.
The whole idea of Guantanamo Bay is to circumvent U.S. law. And you think that they're going to follow their own rules?
Re: (Score:2)
By this point, even Cold Dumbfuck Fascist must know that there are people still in Gitmo that were cleared for release by the Bush Administration. Guy's still bent out of shape that he was born at the wrong place and time to be an informer for Francisco Franco, the Shah, or Pinochet.
Re: (Score:1)
By this point, even Cold Dumbfuck Fascist must know that there are people still in Gitmo that were cleared for release by the Bush Administration.
And why were they there to begin with? For the reason I stated.
If the Bush administration cleared them then why didn't Obama release them? Hmm? Do you think there may be a problem?
By this point, even Cold Dumbfuck Fascist . . . Guy's still bent out of shape that he was born at the wrong place and time to be an informer for Francisco Franco, the Shah, or Pinochet.
The fascists are cousins to the Communists [youtube.com], and both of them are on your side of the "progressive" political spectrum. I'm on the side of democracy, free enterprise, and limited government.
Re: (Score:2)
The prisoners are there because they were at one point believed to be terrorists and unlawful combatants. Whether such beliefs were well-founded or not is not really relevant. How many cases can someone find of people moved to Gitmo who did not fit those conditions? I'm willing to learn something.
Communists and fascists have some surface resemblances, but in ideology are far different, as is much of the practice. That they are close is just a bunch of ignorant right-wing propaganda.
Re: (Score:1)
The prisoners are there because they were at one point believed to be terrorists and unlawful combatants.
Agreed.
How many cases can someone find of people moved to Gitmo who did not fit those conditions? I'm willing to learn something.
That depends on how we parse your question. If the question is, "How many people were take to Gitmo for confinement that were known at the time to have no involvement with al Qaida, its affiliates, or terrorism?" the answer is zero to the best of my recollection. If the question is, "How many people were taken to Gitmo for confinement due to suspicion of involvement with al Qaida, its affiliates, or terrorism, but were later thought to be innocent of it?", as I recall the answer is on the order of
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you know approximately nothing of either socialism or fascism. You could have just told us so without the demonstration.
Fascism is capitalistic, in every case I know of. Socialism is not capitalistic, by definition. Fascism is normally a combination of a large degree of nationalism, typically blaming social ills on a minority group, having little regard for workers while working closely with capitalists, militarism, appealing to traditional values, and opposing democracy. You may note that a
Re: (Score:1)
You are correct sir, fascism and communism (and democracy) are peoples movements, requiring popular support to exist.. Aristocracy and the monarchy are the ideals of the "right", one "god" to rule over all. All of them represent simple appeals to authority, different paths to the same goal.
Re: (Score:1)
Ohhhh, poor butt-hurt AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you showed real intelligence with this post, that will teach him.
Also, replying to an AC that didn't make any points on the subject, but only on your behavior, claiming that HE was butt-hurt. lol You just named your feelings.
Re: (Score:1)
I know better than to argue with you, cold "Argument to Authority" fjord.
Some people are uncomfortable in dealing with actual facts instead of fabricated nonsense. I find the actual facts of a matter are often unwelcome on Slashdot, especially when they bring into question political beliefs.
The whole idea of Guantanamo Bay is to circumvent U.S. law. And you think that they're going to follow their own rules?
As a military base Guantanamo Bay is under US military and federal law. There is no circumventing that. Its location has reduced the ability of parts of the US legal sys
Re: (Score:1)
You've just demonstrated multiple areas of ignorance.
Here, knock yourself out [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The only worse idea than using sarcasm online with no formal statement you're doing so,
is doing that when we're talking about legal issues most of us don't fully understand.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of stupid things being said about the Swedish case. However, they did make a formal extradition request, for something that was found by the UK courts to be a crime in the UK, and had legally determined that Assange should be extradited. At that point, Assange evaded capture by fleeing into an embassy, despite the principle that diplomatic means should not be used to shelter ordinary criminals, and so he's a fugitive from justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.
If you are already committing to ignoring the law yourself, under what pretense do you have left to claim actions by others are illegal?
You can no longer accuse or punish Assange for doing something illegal, since the government is stating doing something illegal isn't a bad thing nor is an action to be punished for doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't "discovery" imply that they're reasonably sure he did it? I'm not sure the language supports "we discovered that something may have happened."
Especially in this case. If they had DNA evidence against him, sure--discovered. But isn't it just the word of these two women against his?
If we accept that postulate then the distinction you're making evaporates.
just point to the Patrick Kane case and say BS (Score:3)
just point to the Patrick Kane case and say that the women is BS
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Discovery is a feature of civil law in the US. If Assange were charged here, it wouldn't apply. It does not involve any prejudging. For criminal matters, we have investigations. The police can, within limits, investigate anything with no particular reason. They can't do some things without a warrant, which is issued on probable cause, not certainty. Moreover, I don't know what applies in Sweden. I'm not an international lawyer, and what I do know is that Swedish and US law are very different.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure whether EzInKy was using "discovery" in the vernacular or legal sense. In any case I was using the common English definition of the word. I blame OP for trying to draw a distinction in an insufficiently clear context ;)
As you and the other guy said, it's not a question of whether they had sex, but whether it was consensual. I was trying to make a distinction between "hard evidence" and "he said/she said" and it appears my mentioning of DNA spectacularly failed to convey that :P
Captain Pedant (m
Re: (Score:2)
Statutes of Limitation, in the US, usually put a time limit starting from when the crime was committed. The recognition that some crimes against children may not be known until long after the time has run out has prompted some such laws that apply to when the crime was discovered, by some criterion or other.
The problem with allowing trials long after the crime is that it's likely to be hard to determine what happened, as witnesses will die, move away, or get forgetful, and physical evidence is unlikely
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the country. In Brazil, where I'm from, you can hide to avoid prosecution, for most crimes (exceptions are racism and armed groups acting against constitutional order). There is a table for the applicable limitation times, but for most cases it is between 1,5 to 2 times the maximum jail time you could do for the crime. E.g.: for a crime that can land you 2-4 years of jail time, the state has 8 years to charge you, then another 8 to give a final verdict, and then the time you actually got (eg 3
massive, aggravated assault & rape in your str (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell us again how you are not a lap dog for the US gevernment.
Rape is a terror tactic (Score:1)
Massive gangs of asylum seeking men
The assaults in Germany follow a pattern of the use of sexual assaults as a weapon of war in Syria and elsewhere. The fact that Germany and the worldwide press aren't speaking about these attacks as terrorism speaks to their inability to grasp the tactics of our enemies.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's put him in "pound me in the ass" federal prison, *without* reminding him not to drop the soap.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? He has not broken US law, and I believe Swedish prisons are less barbaric.
Disappointing (Score:1)
inception moment (Score:2)
In related news ... (Score:3)
Assange bad, muslim rape gangs ok? (Score:1)
hey sweden, how about you deal with the hundreds or thousands of muslim "refugee" gang rapes going on in your country rather than pretending to care about rape you FUCKING ASSHOLES?