Julian Assange Expected to Be Set Free Next Week

[lordsummerisle]

The Times of London is reporting that Julian Assange is expected to be set free next week as three of his sexual assault claims are set to expire. The Wikileaks founder was never charged with any of the crimes, but prosecutors have had a warrant for his arrest for questioning -- which many believed to be a precursor to formal charges.

http://www.alternet.org/media/rape-allegations-against-julian-assange-expire-next-week

[PoliticAverse]

1. So basically he got 3 years of "embassy arrest". n/t

[Cleita]

2. Better than Gitmo arrest which is what he feared if you

remember how all this evolved.

[hifiguy]

7. Unusual things DO have a way of happening, and quite often,

to those who pull back the curtains on TPTB.

[BainsBane]

3. Three years evading prosecution from rape

because he refused to submit himself for questioning. He has been on the lamb. period. The statute of limitations are expiring and once again sexual assault victims receive no justice, just as far too many people want, not only in this case but in the other billion cases of women raped across this world. Who are women compared to a great man? Just like black lives pale in comparison to the comfort of the great politician. It is an oppression that too many enforce on a daily basis because they benefit from the systemic inequality that allows rape, gender violence, racial violence, white male privilege and the hierarchy of human worth that places the few over the rest of us.

Of course he couldn't possibly be guilty. He's a great man. Great man are never guilty. Women are always liars. Not only are the men never guilty, they aren't even expected to cooperate with legal arrest warrants because they are intrinsically superior. That is how oppression triumphs, and the privileged will defend it to the end because it enables them to exert power in their own lives, a power far more pervasive and pernicious than wielded by any government.

So let's hear it for more rape victims being denied the right to confront their alleged perpetrator. Another victory for rape culture. and really what could be more important than that?

[hifiguy]

9. Oy. nt

[navarth]

102. yup.

the gnashing of teeth begins.

[GoldenEagle16]

11. The rape charge doesn't expire until 2020

there were four charges against him - only three are expiring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/world/europe/julian-assange-may-avoid-sexual-assault-claims-as-statutes-of-limitations-near.html?_r=0

[BainsBane]

13. It would appear

his legal team has calculated that the charges of which he is most likely to be convicted are expiring, and that the burden to prove rape is likely so high that he can now leave the embassy. Whatever the thought process, it is clear that this is entirely to do with the Swedish charges rather than concern he will be scooped up by the US, or he would not be leaving the embassy at the precise point the statute of limitations on two molestation charges expire.

[struggle4progress]

89. Different members of his so-called "legal team" say different things at different times

IIRC one has been saying (for a year or more) that Assange will walk out almost any day now, while another has been crying for at least as long that Julian can't possibly leave the embassy (even if all Swedish charges are dropped) until the US promises not to prosecute him

I lost count of how many different people claim to be his legal representative: the number (last I looked) might have been two dozen, and they pop up irregularly, here and there, to make this or that claim, so it's hard to know whether they actually have a coordinated strategy or whether they'll all loose cannons, rolling across the deck as Julian's strange ship bobbles in the waves

[BainsBane]

91. Can't say as I've kept on top of the lawyers involved

but I have read the publicly released legal documents in the case cover to cover.

[MADem]

132. This is ALTERNET, and they sometimes don't tell the truth.

We're not quite in "Karl Rove Indicted" territory, but I want to see something from a real paper. It could be true, and he could be leaving the embassy (which is simply a small converted flat) to have a conversation with the British legal system while getting medical treatment --or maybe Ecuador will just push him out and get their back office back.

But isn't he a British bail jumper? And doesn't he owe a LOT of people--some pissed off--a LOT of money? His troubles are not over, I don't think.

I found this article, and it's not quite so sanguine as that rosy Alternet piece:

.....The WikiLeaks publisher flummoxed the international media on Monday by telling reporters in London that he will “soon” be leaving his refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy, but not elaborating on how long “soon” might be or the circumstances in which he will end his diplomatic asylum.
“I can confirm I am leaving the Ecuadorian embassy soon,” Mr Assange said at a joint press conference with Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.
Mr Assange’s remarks were preceded by a flood of speculation by international media and on Twitter that health problems were about to force him to surrender to British police.
Mr Assange acknowledged that his health had “deteriorated” during two years of confinement in Ecuador's embassy, but said that his eventual departure would be “not for the reason you might think” - an apparent reference to media reports that he has developed a significant heart ailment.
In a subsequent interview with Fairfax Media, however, Mr Assange clarified his remarks by referring to what he described as “a range of important legal developments in the United Kingdom,” especially the British government’s decision to opt out of the European Arrest Warrant system under which Sweden sought his extradition to be questioned about sexual assault and rape allegations first raised in August 2010.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/julian-assange-plans-to-leave-ecuadorian-embassy-a-free-man-after-changes-to-uk-laws-20140818-105kqu.html#ixzz3ievbuhgN

[elias49]

32. Whatever.

I wonder where the 'buttons' went?

[Dornick]

101. Pretty much..

[homegirl]

104. Assange was

stalked by these two women. They sent him gifts, followed him to his hotel room and willingly had sex with him. Then they filed complaints against him.

My source: I read Swedish and accessed the statements they filed with the Swedish court.

PS: I am a feminist but I don't automatically assume the women is always right.

[navarth]

108. thank you. nt

[hifiguy]

110. Then you are no feminist

according to a lot of DUers on this thread.

Thanks much for this and taking time to research the original docs. It has always sounded like a classic trap used by intelligence agencies since time immemorial and clearly that is EXACTLY what it was - a sting.

[LanternWaste]

170. I imagine it's difficult to cower behind implication so often

"according to a lot of DUers on this thread. ..."

I imagine it's difficult to cower behind implication so often, rather than simply stating specifically who we are discussing. It's a common method of grade school children, but I rarely see self-identified adults doing as such.

(space provided below to insert pretense that cowering is actually a noble and honorable action)

[hack89]

112. So the arrest warrants were wrong? Nt

[hifiguy]

119. You honestly think MI6 or the CIA,

both of which want Assange in front of a firing squad, after engaging in appropriate preliminaries that even Cheney couldn't imagine, couldn't stage manage something like this crock of horseshit?

Assange has publicly embarrassed - with the truth - a lot of very powerful and vengeful people. They don't take the truth lying down. People who do that DIE. Often very unpleasantly.

[hack89]

122. So dropping the charges is irrelevant

As soon as he emerges he will be snatched up? I guess he better stay there where he is safe.

[hifiguy]

123. He's now too high profile to just be

grabbed or killed in the street.

But that's what was thought about Benigno Aquino, too. He will be hunted by TPTB for the rest if his life for daring to tell truth.

[hack89]

128. He wasn't high profile three years ago?

Just a faceless unknown that could be disappeared with impunity?

[markpkessinger]

124. They were given five months to question him in the Ecuadorian embassy . . .

In March, Swedish prosecutors asked for, and were granted, permission to question Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11675506/Swedish-prosecutors-ask-to-question-Assange-in-London-within-days.html ), although previously, they had balked at that suggestion. They later announced their intention to question him at the embassy in June or July (see http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0OV0Y320150615 ). But they didn't: they simply allowed the clock to run out. That suggests to me that they never had a case in the first place, and that the entire thing was a ruse to hand him over to U.S. authorities.

[bvar22]

177. Maybe if they had something like "evidence" or corroborated , consistent testimony under oath,

..they could have kept him longer.

[DemocraticWing]

4. What about Chelsea Manning?

She's the real hero, and America is going to keep her in torturous conditions for 35 years.

[truebluegreen]

57. And there you have the answer for why Assange has been in the Ecudorean embassy for 3 years. nt

[hifiguy]

75. Blammo.

Spot on.

[closeupready]

159. Yup.

[struggle4progress]

5. Were I in the UK, I should be most pleased to see him tried under the Bail Act

[Octafish]

6. Good.

The only thing the guy did was journalism, meaning WikiLeaks exposed the sundry treasons by officials in the government of the United States of America.

[hifiguy]

21. +!

As usual, you cut to the heart of the matter, Octafish!

And unusual things seem to happen with extraordinary frequency to people who pull the curtain back on TPTB.

[elias49]

33. True enough.

Piss off important people and you're in a world of crap.
Thats what this was/is all about.

[840high]

36. Correct.

[ozone_man]

50. Journalism and perhaps

Getting set up. I don't judge him any differently than I do JFK. Now a days, you have to be more careful than in JFK's era.

[hedda_foil]

68. Right again, Octafish.

[Dont call me Shirley]

69. All the whistleblowers convicted over the past 15 years need be pardoned. They are heroes.

[Nye Bevan]

8. If the US really wants him, they will have the British police arrest him when he leaves the embassy.

Let's see if those folks believing that theory are correct.

[truebluegreen]

63. I'm certainly agree they (we) are more interested

in having others do the dirty work...like, say, having an ally force down a SA govt's plane.

[GoldenEagle16]

10. The fourth charge, which is for rape, does not expire for another five years

Ms. Riddselius said that in practical terms, it would be impossible to proceed given the time required for normal legal procedures. However, the allegation of rape could be pursued until August 2020. Under Swedish law, Mr. Assange could face up to four years in prison if convicted of the type of rape allegation made against him, the least serious in that category of offense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/world/europe/julian-assange-may-avoid-sexual-assault-claims-as-statutes-of-limitations-near.html?_r=0

[cemaphonic]

12. Yeah, and the Brits would probably like a crack at him for bail jumping

Don't think he's going anywhere for awhile.

Weird that he can wait out the statute of limitations by fleeing jurisdiction. Pretty sure it doesn't work that way in US law.

[PoliticAverse]

16. 657. Tolling of Statute of Limitations

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-657-tolling-statute-limitations

The running of statutes of limitations is tolled during periods of fugitivity. 18 U.S.C. § 3290. Physical absence from the jurisdiction is not required to trigger this tolling provision. See United States v. Singleton, 702 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir. 1983); United States v. Wazney, 529 F.2d 1287 (9th Cir. 1976).

The running of a statute of limitations may also be tolled, on application of the United States, during the pendency of an official request to a foreign court or authority to obtain evidence located in a foreign country. See 18 U.S.C. § 3292.

[elias49]

35. Yikes! Bail jumping! Now we're talking big-leagues!

[hifiguy]

59. Dog the Bounty Hunter still around?

Maybe they need that goofball.

[struggle4progress]

96. IIRC one of his lawyers has said JA can't leave the embassy until the UK promises

not to prosecute him for the Bail Act violation

[MADem]

135. He owes a lot of money to a LOT of people--some of whom are pissed off.

It's not chump change. And bail jumping IS big leagues, do you seriously think the UK police are going to let him scamper off without rearresting him (without bail) if he emerges in a few days--and the most serious charge against him doesn't expire for five more years.

....The three allegations (two counts of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion) that are set to expire come from one of the complainants in the probe.

However, the most serious accusation of rape from the other woman, which was detailed in the European Arrest Warrant issued on 26 November 2010, carries a 10-year limitation period.

Green added that the SPA will be mulling over whether to altogether drop its investigation in light of the limitation on three of the allegations brought against Assange.

He argued that prosecutors would continue to push for an interview with the 44-year-old given the seriousness of the rape allegation.

Meanwhile, the Assange soap opera drags on, even as ratings plummet, but it's anyone's guess what will happen next. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/11/assange_sweden_law_of_limitation/

He might not be going anywhere--unless the "heart disease" rumors are true.

[bvar22]

181. LOL.

Assange does NOT have to worry about money.
Can you imagine what a Wikileaks Defense Fund would bring in....Worldwide?

It would get some money out of my pocket....
more than Hillary is going to get.

[MADem]

183. Well, get ready to write a check, then!

A European arrest warrant has been issued for Assange and British authorities have said the will arrest him as soon as he leaves the embassy. Assange, an Australian national, denies any wrongdoing.

http://www.dw.com/en/britain-to-lodge-formal-protest-with-ecuador-over-assange/a-18648229

[bvar22]

184. Writing the check is the easy part.

Finding a way to "broker" the WorldWide Assange Defense Fund so I can walk away with a few Millions in "fees" will be the hard part.

People with money don't go to jail,
or haven't you figured that one out yet?

[MADem]

185. Really? Tell that to Buddy Cianci and Rod Blagojevich!!

And Michael Milken, and Martha Stewart, and Jack Abrahmoff and Duke Cunningham! Or the nutty, creepy John du Pont!

It's way easier to avoid--or at least delay-- jail if you're rich, and get preferred treatment if you're convicted, but sometimes the boom gets lowered, no matter how much cash you have...!!!

Someone who jumps bail and defrauds his guarantors of £200,000 is not going to be allowed to wander free. The whole idea might be moot for the short term, anyway.

Given that the latest offense is apparently remaining open, he'll either have to stay put for five more years or be whisked off to jail. If the 'heart trouble' rumors are true, his body might betray him--who knows?

[bvar22]

186. Easily:

*Martha Stewart.... woman, and not THAT rich...not even close. (There is also something "else" about the Stewart incarceration that hasn't come to light yet, or she would have never served time..

*Jack Abrahmoff.. committed the sin of stealing from people richer than him. Of course he went down.

*Duke Cunnimgham... Pissed off the wrong people, may even be a scapegoat to cover even worse wrongdoings by people richer than him.

*Michael Milken... stole from people richer than him.

That was easy.
Got another one while I'm hot?

[MADem]

188. You're not hot at all. You claimed that rich people don't go to jail. I proved you wrong.

Duke Cunningham wasn't a scapegoat--he was a fucking thief, shakedown artist and grifter! If you can find anything to like about that skeevy jerk, I'd be surprised. Martha's empire was at its nadir when she was pulled down. Milken was--and is--a billionaire.

[reorg]

15. however

while this accusation can be pursued much longer, it is also the most ridiculous 'charge', given that the supposed accuser, Sofia Wilén has explicitly stated that she was never raped by Assange and only wanted for him to get an AIDS test.

[GoldenEagle16]

17. If she described a rape then it was a rape

regardless of what she felt. Victims don't usually get to pick what crimes to charge their assailants with.

[reorg]

23. she didn't n/t

[GoldenEagle16]

25. Have you actually read the charges on his arrest warrant?

it describes in graphic detail what she said Assange did to her. Go read that and then come and try to defend Assange. I dare you.

[reorg]

27. of course I did n/t

[GoldenEagle16]

29. So unwanted and forced intercourse is ok in your book? ok. nt

[reorg]

31. it was quite the opposite of 'unwanted' and wasn't 'forced' neither n/t

[GoldenEagle16]

39. Here are the four charges. Defend these if you can.

"1. Unlawful coercion

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. Sexual molestation

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. Sexual molestation

On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

[reorg]

49. expired, expired, expired,

and then someone got lucky that he already recovered his strength even while she was still 'half' asleep ...

[GoldenEagle16]

53. So none of those charges equal sexual assault in your mind?

too bad the last charge doesn't expire until 2020.

[reorg]

61. no, they were all based on lies n/t

[hifiguy]

62. Charges equal the square root of zilch

until proven in a court of law. You can indict/charge a goddam ham sandwich as a NY appeals judge once observed.

[Dont call me Shirley]

78. Couldn't have anything to do with that sleazy rove now, could it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/rove-suspected-in-swedish_b_798737.html

http://ctwatchdog.com/govt/rove-suspected-in-swedish-u-s-political-prosecution-of-wikileaks

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

[GoldenEagle16]

80. Because we can't trust women to be honest about sexual assault.

can we?

[hifiguy]

85. So why bother with a trial at all?

Why require proof?

Why bother with the rights of the accused, and adequate counsel?

Why require due process?

Why require the law at all?

Why not vigilante justice?

Why not a kangaroo court akin to that used in the witch trials?

Accusation = guilt.

Jebus wept.

[Codeine]

97. Actually, a trial would be good.

But this sleaze has managed to conflate and entangle his good (whistleblowing) actions and his bad (kinda rapey) actions to such a degree that people are willing to hide him from any possible prosecution.

[hack89]

105. I agree that the woman deserves her day in court. Nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

92. I am a woman who has been raped. I am honest.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

https://justice4assange.com/investigation.html

"According to Rudling, Assange is innocent firstly because the testimony of complainant SW, as well as her friend shows that she did not want to report Assange for ’rape’. She felt she had been ’railroaded’ by others around her. Secondly, he is innocent because, according to Rudling, AA’s accusations are false, and she has been shown to have deleted evidence that would be helpful to Assange’s defence."

The case against Julian is political. He is a whistleblower.

Your comment is a slap to all women who have been raped.

[sibelian]

141. Thank you.

[bvar22]

176. Thank You.

WOW.
A voice of reason on DU.

[Hoppy]

111. ... something, something, something...Scotsboro Boys and rape charges.

[hack89]

114. So women cannot be trusted when it comes to accusations of sexual assault

Because some woman lied decades ago? Really?

[Hoppy]

117. Use the internet tubes to find Innocense Project and look at cases of

false charges and mistaken identity in rape.

Not all women lie. Not all women tell the truth.

Carry on.

[hack89]

120. So beside Assange being all edgy and dreamy

What specific reasons do you have to think the women are lying? You just know in your gut that these particular women are lying sluts?

[mythology]

154. And the way we resolve these disputes are trials

It's not by running away and waiting out the charges.

[hifiguy]

125. The context of this case is international espionage

and that is the ONLY salient fact here. Not one thing can be understood for what it is outside of that context.

You don't graduate from spy kindergarten without being able to frame a target with bogus charges. Any spy worth the name knows how to bribe or pressure people into swearing that obvious lies are the truth to get a person of interest in hot water and discredit that person. It is elementary tradecraft for spooks and has been since before the pyramids were built.

Why does this even need to be explained? Are people here THAT dumb?

[bvar22]

194. Note:

People "lie" in court every day.
It doesn't matter very much what crime they have been charged with, or whether they are male or female.....they LIE.
Every claim must be examined for veracity.
That is one reason why the word "alleged" is always used unless or until someone has been found guilty by a court, except on DU. On DU, being held, charged, or investigated = GUILTY.
I liked it better when we were innocent until PROVEN guilty,

A jury of 12 peers in no guarantee they will "get it right". ,
and the more I find out about "memory" and some of the tricks of our "memories", the less I trust Eyewitness Testimony.

[hack89]

195. So that justifies slut shaming and calling them liars?

because Assange has not been found guilty in court? Even though he has fought for five years to avoid ever walking into a courtroom to face his accusers?

[bvar22]

196. I don't believe I have engaged in "slut shaming" or naming any specific person a "liar".

Note:

Almost every post that begins with "SO, you (followed by something no one has said)..." is a Strawman Logical Fallacy,
as you post so aptly demonstrates.



No Charge.

[hack89]

197. You just jumped into the middle of thread full of both

there is a reason I posted what I posted.

[bvar22]

198. ...and there is a reason I posted what I posted,

and I stand by my post.

[hack89]

199. So your instinct in rape cases is to trust the man over the woman

a typical response in America.

[bvar22]

200. No, but my experience in courtrooms has taught me that:

People "lie" in court every day.
It doesn't matter very much what crime they have been charged with, or whether they are male or female.....they LIE.
Every claim must be examined for veracity.
That is one reason why the word "alleged" is always used unless or until someone has been found guilty by a court, except on DU. On DU, being held, charged, or investigated = GUILTY.
I liked it better when we were innocent until PROVEN guilty,

A jury of 12 peers in no guarantee they will "get it right". ,
and the more I find out about "memory" and some of the tricks of our "memories", the less I trust Eyewitness Testimony.

---bvar22 post # 194

NOW...before you twist off in some other misguided direction,
will you please point out the inaccuracies in my statement quoted in its entirety above?

[markpkessinger]

127. Prosecutors were given ample opportunity to question him at the Ecuadorian embassy . . .

. . . Initially, they insisted he must come to Sweden. Then in March, they agreed they would question him at the embassy. (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11675506/Swedish-prosecutors-ask-to-question-Assange-in-London-within-days.html and ). They then said they would question him in June or July at the embassy (see http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0OV0Y320150615 ). They knew the deadline was coming up, but they allowed the deadline pass. Perhaps YOU should defend THAT, if you really believe they had a case against him.

[hack89]

130. Why did he flee Sweden after the prosecutor asked to interview him?

His lawyer testified to that in court. He then fought extradition for two years. Defend that.

[markpkessinger]

131. Fleeing is not necessarily an admission of guilt . . .

. . .but the bottom line here is that Swedish prosecutors WERE given an opportunity to question him at the embassy, and instead chose to let the clock run out. Why do you suppose they did that?

[hack89]

133. Because he refused to agree to surrender if arrested . Nt

[markpkessinger]

134. He actually agreed to go to Sweden IF they agreed not to extradite him to the U.S. They refused.

A statement by his defense committee:

Statement Julian Assange Legal Defence Committee

Assange has not been charged in Sweden or the UK.

The US Department of Justice is trying to prosecute him for "espionage".

This is the reason he was given asylum by Ecuador.

He has been confined to the premises of Ecuador’s embassy in London, unable to see his family, because the UK and Sweden refuse him safe passage to Ecuador.

A collapse of the Swedish preliminary investigation would in no way allow him to leave the embassy of Ecuador.
He cannot leave, because of the risk of arrest by the United Kingdom on behalf of the United States.

The UK has stated its intention to arrest Assange even if the Swedish preliminary investigation is withdrawn.

In no way has Assange or Ecuador obstructed the progression of the Swedish investigation.

Swedish authorities have for three years been offered the option of taking Assange’s statement at the embassy, and they have refused.

Assange has also offered to go to Sweden if the authorities agreed not to transfer him to the United States, and they have refused.

This failure has been rebuked by the highest court in Sweden.

It has been condemned by 59 human rights organisations in a submission to the United Nations.

While the Assange case has stagnated, 44 other people have been questioned by Swedish authorities in the UK during the same period.

By failing to take Assange’s statement at the embassy, Swedish authorities have deprived him of the right to answer false allegations against him that have been widely circulated in the media, but for which he has not been charged.

If the case expires, that deprivation will become permanent, and no formal resolution will be available.

Therefore while this particularly shambolic episode in Swedish justice may be coming to a close, the denial of Julian Assange’s liberty continues.

Gavin MacFadyen

But hey, by all means, continue to ignore the obvious.

[GoldenEagle16]

143. It is a promise they can't make - Sweden has an independent judiciary

but you (and Assange) know that. They were simply trying to play out the clock. There was a reason he fled Sweden in the first place - he doesn't want to be arrested.

[reorg]

150. OMG, this case has been political from the very beginning -

independent judiciary, my ass.

Funny, how every time this is discussed, another 'expert' on Swedish law and legal practices comes out of the woodwork, LOL!

How big is the Assange handout now, do you really have to read everything or do they mark just a few key lines for you to keep in mind and repeat? There is nothing, no law, no practice, no convention, nothing whatsoever that prevents the Swedish foreign minister to make that commitment. It's his call - and even if the actual decision can only be taken after requests have been made: when everybody, even DU posters with post counts in the single digits, is somewhat familiar with every detail of the case, a minister with a legal staff and speech writers can very well express his intentions if he is so inclined whenever he wants to.

[GoldenEagle16]

145. They couldn't arrest him

Ecuador insisted that Sweden recognize their illegal asylum. That was what they were negotiating - they wanted to arrest him and he was not going to surrender.

[reorg]

152. Quit posting false information

There is nothing 'illegal' about the asylum granted by Ecuador to Assange.

Of course, he couldn't be arrested in the embassy. Nobody was so stupid to assume that they might or could.

The last-ditch attempt to interview Assange could have prevented the statute of limitations running out, though. The Swedish thug posing as 'prosecutor' (Ny) was apparently not interested.

A long series of contradictory explanations has been provided by the Swedish Prosecution Authority throughout the proceedings.

In the early stages of the extradition process, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Marianne Ny, frequently claimed that British as well as Swedish law prevented her from interrogating Assange anywhere but in Sweden. Some examples: On 20 November 2010, Ms. Ny was quoted as saying that Swedish law prevented her from questioning Assange by video link or at an embassy in London. On 3 December the same year Ms. Ny told TIME Magazine that she could not legally interview Assange by telephone or video link. She made similar comments two days later, claiming that it was impossible to question Assange in London.

Two months later, Ms. Ny suddenly changed her story. In a witness statement submitted in the extradition proceedings in London, dated 4 February 2011, she admitted that it was possible for her to interview Assange in London within the framework of a system for legal co-operation called Mutual Legal Assistance. However, Ms. Ny claimed, that would not be an appropriate course to take, because she considered it necessary to interrogate Assange in person.

The legal basis for Ms. Ny's comments appears dubious, to say the least. The rules setting out the procedures for Mutual Legal Assistance make clear that a foreign prosecutor can question a suspect in the UK by telephone, videolink, or through British police (see Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines for the United Kingdom, 8th edition, pp. 15, 20 and 29). If the latter option is used, it is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview. In fact, Ms. Ny had a wide range of options for interrogating Assange in the UK: by telephone, video link or by interviewing him in person, together with British police.

As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery. The interview was conducted in co-operation with Serbian police. Thus, at the same time that Ms. Ny claimed it was an impossibility to interview the founder of Wikileaks in London, her colleagues were busy interrogating an infamous gangster in Serbia.

In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring responded that it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system. Professor Bring also stated that the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an interview, since "the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime".

http://www.friatider.se/swedish-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-explains-why-assange-is-not-questioned-in-london-you-do-not-dictate-the-terms-if-you-are-a-suspect-get-it

[elias49]

38. I.E. if SHE said it was rape, it was, unequivocally ?

Usually there are things like evidence, eye-witness accounts, etc

[GoldenEagle16]

41. Here are the four charges. Judge for yourself.

Regardless of whether the charges are true or not, if a woman told you that this is what happened to her, would you think she was sexually assaulted?

"1. Unlawful coercion

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. Sexual molestation

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. Sexual molestation

On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

[GoldenEagle16]

44. So if she wasn't such a slut she wouldn't have been raped?

so I guess in your book no does not mean no?

[Codeine]

48. Holy shit you did not just write that!

[elias49]

56. Grow up. nt

[Codeine]

64. Says the rape apologist.

[Codeine]

77. *mic drop* nt

[Codeine]

99. And a predictably bullshit hide by the Assange Fan Club. nt

[SidDithers]

93. +a zillion...nt

Sid

[Cha]

142. You grow up.

[etherealtruth]

51. What?

[elias49]

54. Here they come!

The misandrists.
Catch you all on a different thread. This one starts to smell bad!

[etherealtruth]

55. Yeah, that's it

[Starry Messenger]

66. Yep, anyone who doesn't want to be raped is a man-hater.

You got us.

[Codeine]

67. Maybe you won't get a hide on that thread. nt

[hifiguy]

71. LoL. This gorilla gets it

[etherealtruth]

82. You have heard this before:

CONSENT IS REQUIRED EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE!!!!!

[Codeine]

83. Even for heroic chick magnets?

These people are killing me with this rape apologist bullshit.

[etherealtruth]

87. Sadly, nothing surprises me any more

Disgusts me, yes

[reorg]

60. He was obviously a chick magnet and everybody knew it n/t

[Codeine]

70. Are you people for fucking real?

"Chick magnet"?

What the sweet motherfuck is happening around here?

[reorg]

74. huh?

Why are you using swearwords aplenty, gross.



http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Chick-Magnet

[tammywammy]

76. People are willing to dismiss rape, because he's a "hero"

Just a few months ago he was all about having an interview with Sweden, I notice that didn't happen. He's a fucking coward hiding out in the Embassy.

[reorg]

79. It wasn't 'rape', and why don't you ask the Swedes

why they didn't interview him for three years, although they could have.

And before you open your loud mouth again, think long and hard about what you are willing to risk and sacrifice for your political convictions.

[tammywammy]

81. This is what I'm willing to sacrifice...

Go fuck yourself and your "chick magnet" bullshit.

[reorg]

84. right, another swear word - almost like a grown-up

People will talk about Assange a hundred years from now and he will be remembered for his achievements, his courage and his stamina.

Your American secret slander services failed miserably in giving him a bad name. And yes, they targetted his being a chick magnet, they knew it was his Achilles heel and they did their best to hit him where it hurt.

[SidDithers]

98. + a zillion...nt

Sid

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

149. Jury results on post 81

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Go fuck yourself"? Way over the top

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 13, 2015, 08:41 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes, it's over the top, but in response to a post that's also over the top. Lotta that going on in this thread.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's your sacrifice to make.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, alerter, what was "way over the top" is the implication that somebody who is a "chick magnet" couldn't be guilty of rape. Didn't you learn anything from the Bill Cosby case? I wish I could alert on alerts, because this is truly disgusting.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm not even looking to see what this is about. Over the top to tell someone that
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yep... And the poster knew this was coming, as well
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tanuki]

151. Jury results

Whole lotta alertin' goin' on......

On Thu Aug 13, 2015, 08:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

This is what I'm willing to sacrifice...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7071823

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Go fuck yourself"? Way over the top

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 13, 2015, 08:41 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes, it's over the top, but in response to a post that's also over the top. Lotta that going on in this thread.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's your sacrifice to make.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, alerter, what was "way over the top" is the implication that somebody who is a "chick magnet" couldn't be guilty of rape. Didn't you learn anything from the Bill Cosby case? I wish I could alert on alerts, because this is truly disgusting.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm not even looking to see what this is about. Over the top to tell someone that
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yep... And the poster knew this was coming, as well
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[randome]

167. Survived the hide. I feel the same.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[cemaphonic]

139. It says "rape" on the European Arrest Warrant.

No matter how much the Assange fan club tries to pretend otherwise, that's what Sweden is attempting to charge him with. (and is the one that doesn't expire until 2020)

[reorg]

148. Sure, they will 'attempt' to charge him with

Last edited Thu Aug 13, 2015, 09:30 AM - Edit history (1)

whatever trumped up BS they can come up with - in Sweden, a woman throwing herself at you becomes 'rape', in the US, publishing classified information from whistleblowers becomes 'data theft'.

The Swedes as well as the Americans are more than happy, of course, if they don't have to make their case in court. That doesn't mean they won't find stooges willing to do the dirty work. But why go to the trouble as long as he is confined and under constant observation?

"Mr Assange, who has been living at the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over three years after being granted political asylum, said he was "extremely disappointed" that the Swedish prosecutor has managed to "avoid" hearing his side of the story entirely."

... Labour peer and human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy, a member of the Assange legal team, said: "Why in all those five years did the Swedish prosecution authorities fail to come to London to question Assange, as was repeatedly offered?

"Julian Assange has spent more time incarcerated in the small rooms of the embassy, with no access to fresh air or exercise and contrary to international law, than he could ever spend in a Swedish prison on these allegations.

"The remaining allegation is just as unlikely to lead to conviction. The question remains whether we are dealing with incompetence or bad faith or an agenda set by other considerations. I remain unconvinced that this prosecution has been about securing justice for women."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/julian-assange-hits-out-at-swedish-prosecutor-as-some-allegations-dropped-31448246.html

Human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy

[bvar22]

182. Of course, you mean the 'alleged" rape.

Lets at least try to keep things real here.

[joshcryer]

138. Sofia Wilén did not know what happened to her was rape.

In recent interviews of her she says she doesn't want to have to relive it.

Penetration without consent is rape. Consent was conditioned on a condom being used. Consent violated.

If you put Sofia Wilén on the stand, and she says she wasn't raped, but then tells about how she was penetrated without a condom with the condition of penetration being condom use, and if they can prove that (unlikely), then a jury would consider that rape.

The UK courts considered it rape in the extradition request.

Assanges' lawyers argued that it was, in fact, not rape.

If Assange leaves the embassy (which I find highly unlikely to happen) I expect we'll get a trial. But he'll probably get off.

[reorg]

14. that doesn't seem to be entirely correct

https://justice4assange.com/

[GoldenEagle16]

18. What a bunch of self serving bull shit

he was in Sweden, his lawyer was notified several times that the prosecutor wanted to interview, he runs to London the day before the interview.

[reorg]

24. the Swedes obviously didn't want to pursue these allegations

which were based on transparent lies, anyway.

Now the tales of Anna Ardin, the woman with the dubious connections to anti-Castro Cubans, won't have to stand up to scrutiny. Good for her.

[GoldenEagle16]

28. What the fuck are you talking about?

1. His attorney testified under oath that the Swedish prosecutor notified him while Assange was in Sweden that she wanted to interview Assange. Assange fled to London shortly thereafter.

2. Sweden fought for two years to get him extradited.

It sure looks like they wanted to pursue those charges.

[reorg]

30. they had three years time to interview him in the embassy n/t

[GoldenEagle16]

34. But he would not agree to surrender if arrested

because the point of the interview was to allow the prosecutor to present her case and then arrest him. The Swedes do things differently.

The Swedes were not going to waste their time if he was not willing to surrender.

In any case, I suspect the Swedes are happy with the results. The longest he could have been jailed was four years.

[elias49]

40. I think you pulled one thread too many

out of your own argument!

[GoldenEagle16]

42. That was the crux of the issue

they wanted to arrest him. The Swedish prosecutor testified to that effect in court. Assange was not going to surrender. You know that as well as I.

[reorg]

45. you don't know shit about how the Swedes do things

While the Assange case has stagnated, 44 other people have been questioned by Swedish authorities in the UK during the same period.

https://justice4assange.com/

If the Swedes 'were not going to waste their time', why attempt to interview him shortly before the statute of limitations expires? This was never about the 'allegations', it was a trap from the start and still is. Apart from that, the false allegations have been and are still being used to slander Assange. Still, he was and still is able to do a million times more for our collective countries than all those punks badmouthing him in the media combined.

[GoldenEagle16]

47. And if arrested, they would have been extradited to Sweden, correct?

the issue is not the interview, they wanted to arrest him. The prosecutor said that in court.

[reorg]

52. Yawn

yes, the issue is the interview, otherwise they could just forget about it and arrest the accused without questioning them.

[GoldenEagle16]

58. So you display your ignorance of Swedish legal procedures and defend rape.

ok. I guess we are done

[reorg]

65. I suggest you read up a little about 'Swedish procedures', bye n/t

[randome]

19. That's simply paranoiac narcissism.

The U.K. could have extradite him for more than 2 years before he skipped bail and ran to Ecuador.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[reorg]

26. coulda woulda shoulda

how often are you people going to repeat this nonsense.

[hifiguy]

90. Until the end of time.

[jeff47]

94. Nonsense like "the UK is a close ally and would love to help us"?

Tell me again why the UK would refuse to extradite to the US, but Sweden would love to extradite to the US?

[Zorra]

20. Looking forward to Wikileaks exposing more MIC dirt in a vicious decade long vendetta. nt

[hifiguy]

22. +1 nt

[seveneyes]

37. He has made it big time

[bvar22]

46. Long and tough road, but the destination (TRUTH) is worth it.

Kudos to a Hero during a time we really need heroes.

[hifiguy]

72. Amen to that bvar.

[bvar22]

178. I'm surprised he has survived this long....

...without "falling out of a window".

[hifiguy]

179. As am I.

But he's a little too well-known, unlike a Bulgarian scientist they can poison with an umbrella.

[MADem]

187. He'd only fall a few feet where he's at right now....

[bvar22]

189. Of Course, you know that the phrase...

"Falling out of a Window" means much more than falling out of a window,
.
.
.
or maybe you don't know that.

[MADem]

191. Defenestration.....did he jump, or was he pushed?

And then there's this....

http://www.britannica.com/event/Defenestration-of-Prague-1618

[SidDithers]

86. Statute on the 4th accusation, rape...

Doesn't expire with the other three.

Unless Sweden decides not to pursue that offense, he's not going anywhere.

Sid

[jeff47]

95. His lawyers are probably gambling that the Swedes won't have enough evidence to prove it. (nt)

[joshcryer]

137. Do they have evidence on the other charges?

I think it the whole thing was he-said she-said but the other charges allow them to bring in more witnesses which would help bolster the main allegation. Because the other charges are being dropped it becomes "more circumstantial."

There's DNA as far as I understand but they still have to prove it wasn't consensual which is extremely hard.

[jeff47]

155. Yes, the other charges are easier to prove. (nt)

[hack89]

153. But they can simply let him sit for another 5 years

which might make sense if in fact their case is so weak - 8 years of self imprisonment vs walking away from a trial a free man might be a good deal in their eyes.

And don't forget that having Assange in the embassy makes it that much easier to monitor his Wikilieaks activities. Have you considered that this is exactly what the US wants?

[jeff47]

156. The charge isn't dropped. So if he leaves the embassy, the UK is supposed

to send him to Sweden.

Which will kinda demonstrate that "I'm hiding from false charges" was a lie.

[hack89]

157. And he has no intention of leaving the embassy.

better hope his health holds out - one medical emergency and it is all over for him.

[jeff47]

160. Except for the story in the OP that says he does. (nt)

[hack89]

161. So he no longer fears extradition to the US via Sweden?

makes sense - that was a bullshit meme anyway. His real fear has always been facing the sexual assault charges.

[jeff47]

88. So...the claim that he would be scooped up by the US is a lie?

Or is it impossible for the US to pick up anyone unless the Swedes arrest them first?

[Betty Karlson]

140. The idea was that once under trial in Sweden, the USA would file a request for his extradition

to the USA. The Swedes would give in - and once in the USA he would be slapped with a few more axxusations that the USA had been hiding up its sleeve.

[jeff47]

158. And the big gaping hole in this idea

is that the US does not have to wait for Sweden to arrest him. He was in the UK, our closest ally, and a nearly identical legal system.

If the US filed for extradition from the UK, the UK would send him with a gift bow stuck on his head.

Waiting for Sweden to arrest him makes it harder to get him, not easier.

There's also the minor issue that Assange hasn't broken any US laws. Leaking information is only illegal if you get paid for it, or if you leak it to a specific country. Leaking it to "everyone" for free isn't actually covered by the US law. (The UCMJ does not have this hole, so Manning could be charged. But Assange is not subject to the UCMJ. Snowden has accepted "payment" in the form of shelter, food and protection from Russia. If Snowden had stayed in Hawaii, the US could fuck with him like they fucked with Ellberg, but could not convict him)

[Betty Karlson]

164. He hadn't broken any UK laws either.

And the UK would not send him over on "spy" charges, because even the UK doesn't condone that paranoid NSA fairy tale.

[jeff47]

165. He doesn't have to break any UK laws for the US to seek extradition.

And the UK would not send him over on "spy" charges, because even the UK doesn't condone that paranoid NSA fairy tale.

You might wanna try putting GCHQ into google.

[randome]

166. Except for skipping bail. He may still need to face the music for that.

But, as we all know, heroes are not obliged to be honest or brave.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[George II]

100. "Set free"? He's in the Ecuadorian Embassy by his own choice.

Sweet, commit a crime and hide out until the statute of limitations runs out.

[backscatter712]

103. And the British Crown spent something like 12 million pounds...

...paying for cops to stalk the Ecuadorian Embassy for years just in case Assange tried leaving.

Awful lot of trouble for a questionable accusation of date rape, don't you think?

[Codeine]

106. Just "rape" is fine. No need to minimize it with cutesy phraseology. nt

[backscatter712]

109. So Sweden claims.

But I guess I'm a rape-loving shitlord because I'm skeptical in this particular case.

[hifiguy]

113. TPTB want to get their hands on Assange

for only one reason: to have him mysteriously die in custody following secret torture horrifying enough to faze Dick Cheney. He can't be permitted to stay alive and talking and he knows it. But he's too high profile to be rubbed out by normal methods. Anyone who thinks otherwise is embarrassingly naive or a useful idiot. Maybe both.

[closeupready]

162. Yes. Certainly, we know black people don't appear to have a right to life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness these days. With ANY of these recent extrajudicial murders that have been committed against black Americans, if you had suggested we would reach a day when these happened here in the US with complete impunity, I think I would have thought, no those days are behind us. Turns out, not only is that not true, but it seems as if we are regressing on racial abuse/human rights violations.

So it's not all that farfetched to imagine a scenario where out-of-control, steroid-raging law enforcement officers take the law into their own hands with someone like Assange, unilaterally declaring him an 'enemy combatant' and murdering him in a painful way, and then later sweeping it all under the carpet.

[navarth]

107. Fantastic!

I can almost enjoy the gnashing of teeth.

[hack89]

115. So he was lying about being extradited to America?

Once the sex charges go away he will emerge?

[navarth]

118. I think the charges are lies

but I can't prove it, any more than you can prove he's a rapist.

I smell ratfucking in this, always have. He tweaked the PTB and they set him up. I hope he gets off.

Thank you for your input.

[hack89]

121. Isn't that why we have trials? To settle such issues? Nt

[navarth]

126. Ask the Rosenbergs

Maybe they would fence with you. Again, thanks for your input.

[markpkessinger]

129. Well, Ethel anyway . . .

Even their sons have said they believe their father was guilty of the charges.

[Codeine]

144. Julius Rosenberg was unquestionably guilty.

His co-defendant admitted it in 2008, and the opening of Soviet-era records in Moscow confirmed it.

[treestar]

147. what system do you propose, since the trial thingy does not work?

[navarth]

180. I propose we find Assange GUILTY

of whistleblowing and journalism based on shoddy evidence and gender-based prejudice. This would have the added benefit of rewarding ratfuckers for their excellent efforts.

Channeling 3rd way Manny here.

[treestar]

192. Not an answer

Not a realistic one. You appear willing to throw out the entire judicial system of every country merely because Julian cannot be above it.

[navarth]

193. It's the answer you wanted

you just don't like how it was given to you.

[treestar]

146. Good point

Even if these charges go away, they've been ranting about how the US will swoop in on him and send him to Gitmo, blah, blah. So if he feels safe leaving it proves that's all bullshit.

[Historic NY]

116. ....

[Rex]

136. These threads they go like this.

[lordsummerisle]

171. I have no idea what you mean by this n/t

[Blue_Tires]

163. "Set free"? He isn't imprisoned, he's hiding under diplomatic cover

and he's been free to leave anytime he wanted...

[backscatter712]

168. Not all of his charges are being dropped.

The rape charge, such as it is, has a much longer statute of limitations, so I suspect Assange isn't going anywhere.

[Zorra]

169. There are no charges.

Julian has not been charged with anything.

The MIC owned MSM continually perpetuates the meme that Julian has been charged with crimes for a reason.

[backscatter712]

172. Fair point. n/t

[cemaphonic]

173. Semantic games

There are no official charges because Assange has been hiding out of reach of the Swedish legal system. There is a valid EAW for his arrest with the accusation of rape, upheld by the highest UK court.

[Zorra]

174. There are no charges. nt

[randome]

175. Then why is he hiding?

Why did the U.K. appeals court decide he needed to go to Sweden and set bail for him? Why did Assange skip bail?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[SidDithers]

190. Bookmarking...nt

Sid

[FiveGoodMen]

201. And hopefully not nabbed by US agents 10 minutes later

[markpkessinger]

202. HE IS NOT BEING 'SET FREE'

Statement by GAVIN MACFADYEN and SUSAN BENN, Julian Assange Defence Committee:

"This is a severe disappointment. Assange has never been charged in Sweden or the UK. The US Department of Justice is trying to prosecute him for "espionage". This is the reason he was given asylum by Ecuador. He has been confined to the premises of Ecuador’s embassy in London, unable to see his family, because the UK and Sweden refuse him safe passage to Ecuador. This collapse of part of the Swedish preliminary investigation in no way allows him to leave the embassy of Ecuador. He cannot leave, because of the risk of arrest by the United Kingdom on behalf of the United States. The UK has stated its intention to arrest Assange even if the Swedish preliminary investigation is completely withdrawn.

Contrary to the statement of the Swedish prosecutor today, in no way has Assange or Ecuador obstructed the progression of the Swedish preliminary investigation. Swedish authorities have for three years been offered the option of taking Assange’s statement at the embassy, and they have refused. Assange has also offered to go to Sweden if the authorities agreed not to transfer him to the United States, and they have refused. This failure has been rebuked by the highest court in Sweden. It has been condemned by 59 human rights organisations in a submission to the United Nations. While the Assange case has stagnated, 44 other people have been questioned by Swedish authorities in the UK during the same period.

In recent weeks, despite Ecuador’s requests to enter talks about the legal status of the interview, the Swedish authorities have dragged their feet and refused to discuss the matter. It is an outrage that the Swedish authorities now seek to blame Ecuador or Assange for this. By failing to take Assange’s statement at the embassy, the Swedish authorities have deprived him of the right to answer false allegations against him that have been widely circulated in the media, but for which he has not been charged. As the case expires, that deprivation is now becoming permanent, and formal resolutions to the predicament are disappearing. Therefore while a particularly shambolic episode in Swedish justice may be coming to a close, the denial of Julian Assange’s liberty continues.

Gavin MacFadyen and Susan Benn

[lordsummerisle]

203. I agree with their statement

If I had known the Alternet piece was somewhat misleading and incomplete I probably wouldn't have posted it; it was just the first article I'd come across lately on the Assange issue. I'm glad, though, that it has enabled a lively and thought-provoking discussion...