You're right about the charges, thanks for pointing that out. The Swedish judicial system is very different to that of the UK and charges are not brought until the court date is near.
You're also correct about the threat on the embassy front, I should've put that in. Thanks again.
If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
What trial was he to face? Sweden hadn't charged him with anything. They wanted to interview him as a witness, against himself essentially, so they could use what he said against him if (not when) they might have actually charged him in the future. He offered repeatedly to be interviewed, first in the UK and later in the Embassy.
This whole situation was ridiculous and kafkaesque. Charge him or do not charge him, and if you do charge him then, any only then, demand extradition.
The timing of the Swedish charge is very noteworthy. The charge and extradition request was made shortly after the release of the US diplomatic cables.
He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.
To be fair, this seems like a dishonest account of the situation. My understanding is that being "charged" in Sweden normally happens later in the process than in the USA/UK, so the fact that he wasn't "charged" isn't meaningful.
Do you know if those charges carry the same connotation in Sweden as in the United States? IIRC, there was some confusion about what he actually is being charged with when the case was originally brought, then dismissed as unsubstantiated, then reopened.
It seems you didn't read or comprehend the document you linked? What you just referred to as "one of the charges" is literally not a list of charges, it's a list of "offences" which is not the same. Glossing over these definitions is absurd, and half of this document is literally discussing/determining what these differences are and whether the legal frameworks can be upheld across borders or not.
The entire purpose of that court's review was to determine if the European arrest warrant could be considered valid in the UK.
It explains very clearly and in great detail that he has not been "charged" because that's not how the Swedish judicial system works.
That's how the Swedish court system works, he has been accused (with the higher level of confidence if I remember correctly) and won't get formally charged until it is taken up in court. The system is a bit different compared to for example USA.
He was taken into custody while the investigation was being finished up.
The nature of the charge is nonexistent. Sweden hasn't charged him with anything. Sweden is making a huge fuss over wanting to question him, and being stubborn about wanting to him to Sweden first. This implies to many of us that Sweden is not acting in good faith.
Yes and no. Yes has has not been charged, however the Swedish court system is different. In the High Court appeal to the extradition, the English judge ruled that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). So he it is the opinion of the English courts that has been the equivalent of "charged".
From Wikipedia:
"Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[35] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings, which would be equivalent to having been charged under English process.[36]"
The four other points are valid defense arguments - something which were probably brought up at the UK extradition hearing and would be brought up in a Swedish trial.
However, the allegation of the charge being 'conjured up' would require that both the UK and Swedish judicial systems be severely compromised. That would be an extraordinary conspiracy, so the claim requires extraordinary evidence. The four points mentioned simply don't meet that standard in my opinion.
It is entirely self-consistent to say both that he should’ve faced his accusers in Sweden and that the American charges look like an outrageous attempt to stifle legitime journalism.
I don’t see how it is self-consistent to say Sweden would’ve been more dangerous than the UK, when it is the conduct of the UK that led to condemnation by the UN and Amnesty International, and the UK is currently in the process of considering his extradition to the USA.
My own personal belief (which is merely at the level of “well I reckon“), is that he probably did the Sweden crimes, and also that the prosecution only even attempted because he was also a political thorn.
This belief is based partly on the surveys which show that an enormous number of women have been sexually assaulted and also that they don’t generally report this to the police, partly on his behaviour.
It is also partly based on the fact that — as is currently being demonstrated by the very extradition hearing currently occurring — the US is quite capable of extraditing him directly from the UK without going via Sweden.
You make it sound as if these courts have seriously considered the evidence and determined there's substance to it, but the findings by the courts are far more narrow than that.
Swedish courts have found the allegations as stated by the prosecutor gives reason enough to issue an arrest warrant on suspicion to allow him to be questioned again (and possibly charged), not that evidence have been presented sufficient to charge or convict him.
The barrier for arresting someone on suspicion in Scandinavian countries is extremely low, as this is a routine way of taking someone in for questioning when the person in question refuses to return willingly.
The presence of a police interview with an alleged victim that contains statements that can reasonably be interpreted to implicate Assange in a crime would most likely in itself be sufficient.
The UK courts have only agreed that the allegations as stated by the prosecutors, and as supported by the prosecutors unverified accounts of what the women have said in police interviews would also amount to crimes in the UK, and that thus the content of the allegations is not an hindrance to extradition.
Assanges lawyers have not had opportunity to challenge the content of these, as that is outside of the scope of the extradition hearings, only to challenge the interpretation.
So these courts and jurists have not said much more than that if there is evidence to support these statements, that have not faced any legal challenge, then what is contained in them as written amounts to a crime.
So, if they are not serious charges he should have his day in court and get it over with.
And, don't tell me the ridiculous story about how if he went to Sweden he'd be extradited to the US. He was in the UK, you think we aren't buddy-buddy with the US and would have handed him over?
He couldn't be formally charged under the Swedish system because he wasn't in Sweden. (And yes, I know that in principle the Swedish authorities could probably have figured out some way to try him in absentia, but they chose not to because it would have been pointless, and they are perfectly free to make that decision.)
Everyone repeating this nonsense should just take the time to read the British High Court judgment, which sets it all out very clearly.
You're also correct about the threat on the embassy front, I should've put that in. Thanks again.
reply