It has to be the most ironic twist ever to befall Julian Assange, crusader for a cause he calls “radical transparency.” A hundred pages of official documents in an investigation that the WikiLeaks founder sexually molested two Swedish women have been leaked onto the net. According to Wired.com, which broke the story, the …
This story again? I think it was already well covered back in December when the Guardian leaked it... Not sure on what these documents shows really, if anything. These are interviews with the complainants so they couldn't really be complementary now could they?
To me the strangest thing is how both women have kept condoms from their encounters with Assange, for over a week! Now, who does that really..
He might not a gentleman, maybe it's even true he doesn't flush and shower regularly enough, but I'm sorry can't see enough in the files for the circus surrounding his extradition and placing him in solitary confinement for days...
It seems that the commentards are out in full force defending Assange.
To address points you raise..
The Guardian did their investigations and reported on what they found. (True, these papers probably add nothing new.)
What makes this action newsworthy is that Assange ala Wikileaks' claim to fame is posting 'leaked' documents. Now the tables are turned.
What makes this action newsworthy is that it shows the evidence the Guardian found and clearly demonstrates that Assange was blowing smoke and deflecting the charges by saying that this was all a 'put on' by the US and that he was innocent of the charges.
What this shows is that there is evidence to suggest that these charges are serious and that the complainants were interviewed and that there is merit to their allegations.
I'd guess they probably go rather well together. Now as to whether they're complimentary...
unless, of course...
And i'm just thinking aloud here..
The us govt arranged for these 'statements' to be made (actually having statements makes the case look more credible than a nod and a wink between the us gov and swedish gov), so that credulous dullards like yourself would be duped into thinking this case was anything more than a load of old bollocks.
And it's no surprise at all that this has been leaked - it wouild be astonishing if it weren't.
and, i'll have to double check this, but quoting the same bollocks sourse on two different occasions dosent really make the quotes anything more than bollocks in the first case and bollocks repeated in the second.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it clearly demonstrates anything at all, how do you conclude anything from the half facts and fictions given by both sides.
seems you have a logic failure. both sides are acting a little irrationally.
the girls kept condoms from a sexual encounter for a week, you don't think thats strange? I usually put each and every condom I use in a wrapper of toilet tissue and straight in the bin after having sex with my girlfriend, I happen to think it's a normal thing to dispose of them afterwards, why was they kept?
and is is against the law to act like an asshole? cause jesus, some days I must be public enemy number one.
assange is pissed his sexual life is put into public view whereas senators are pissed their diplomatic lives are exposed in the same way, well, this is kind of understandable, sexual encounters are treated to some people as the highest private act they can do, whereas sending out emails from their office, you can't compare them, one is emotionally connected and the other is just sending an email saying how scary the chinese are. I can understand why assange would be pissed, it's ultra private and now it's exposed for the world....
it's like being called a rapist in public, then when you get angry, you are told "well, you made those senators angry, so I don't see what the big deal is" I mean WTF?????
so again, I don't see how anything was demonstrated clearly, perhaps you can clarify
@Chris Thomas Alpha
"...in a wrapper of toilet tissue and straight in the bin..."
If they have the fortnightly bin connections we have, they you could retrieve your evidence later if required
@ Repeated leaks...
Clearly denial ain't a river in Egypt.
Look, hate to burst your bubble, these aren't repeated leaks. There was a reporter who dug and got the information to show Assange was making claims in the press he knew to be false as a way to deflect from these charges and to gain the sympathy of the simple minded folk who still believe everything they see or hear on TV.
There was recently *one* *leak* of the court documents and that Wired uncovered them.
The irony? It appears that the leaks occurred in the UK as these were the documents that were meant for Assange's lawyers and his eyes only.
I find it amazing as the lengths the commentard supporters go to re-enforce their denial.
Down posting people's posts that contain the facts that are critical of Assange? C'mon get real.
>>"If Assange is lucky, these constant leaks from Swedish authorities will be enough to convince a British judge that these are classic smear tactics"
Which by classic hindsight-fuelled double-bluff conspiracy logic, must therefore mean that Assange leaked them himself, either to try and avoid a trial, or to big up his martyr status and book sales.
After all, he's supposed to be some kind of flawless fucking genius, so why would he not do something apparently to his advantage?
The Swedes are known for that
The Swedes are known for keeping stale stuff -- perhaps it's a sexual form of surströmming?
"I'm sorry, I don't see how it clearly demonstrates anything at all, how do you conclude anything from the half facts and fictions given by both sides."
I'm afraid you've misunderstood.
The post isn't a question of Assange's innocence or guilt, but of the fact that there was a police investigation in to the allegations. That these allegations are in fact real and that they are not some stunt/ploy to get Assange out of England so he can be extradited to the US. Assange had been playing the ' The Big Bad US wants to get poor widdle ol' me...' in the press. That was until the Guardian reporter outed him. Or rather he put an end to their 'If the Swedes had any evidence they would have shown it to us. So where's the evidence' spin.
This leak clearly shows that both the evidence exists and that it had been provided to Assange and his cartooney in England.
And that is what we can conclude. That there is a valid complaint against Assange in Sweden. Is this new? No. But it is definitive.
With respect to the rest of your post...
You have three things that Wikileaks have posted which have 'tweaked' Uncle Sam's nose.
1) An edited and prejudicial video of American forces following RoE yet causing collateral damage as gunmen use journalists and civilians as shields. [It has been reported in the NYT that Assange edited out the RPG toting bad guy from the vid.]
2) The leaks of Iraq/Afghanistan after action reports. (Marked classified)
3) The leaks of US consulate messages which were marked classified.
Of these things... what was the probative value of these leaks? To put it bluntly, what evidence exists that there was any illegal activity occurring by the US government?
None. So to call the actions of Wikileaks 'whistle blowing' is doing a disservice to those who actually blew the whistle on illegal government and corporate actions. I applaud the soldiers who stepped forward in the Abu Ghraib prison incident(s). I applaud those who forced the EPA to do an investigation in to the Chromium-6 leakage in to our cities water supplies. I applaud those former Sun and Oracle employees who blew the whistle on their over charging the government. That is whistle blowing.
Assange is an alleged rapist in Sweden. He escaped jurisdiction and he's fighting extradition.
Why? Its simple. He goes back to answer the questions. The worst case is that he gets charged, found guilty and loses any hope of Swedish citizenship. (NOTE: That is the worst case.) Actually the fact that he is fighting extradition and even the accusation is probably enough for the Swedish government to deny him citizenship. A criminal conviction could potentially make it impossible for him to travel to Sweden since he isn't a citizen of the EU. (He's Australian right?)
So please get your facts straight. You'll find that you're defending a person who created his own bed...
@AC Posted Thursday 3rd February 2011 15:48 GMT
First I doubt you know the meaning of eStalker...
But whe you write the following:
"Yes they are, this is but the 3rd set of documents leaked. The last batch were in December, before that it was the police reports prior to the extradition request even beibg issued."
Uhm, yeah. Now I'm confused. Is this a 3rd set of leaked documents or the third time a single set of documents have been leaked?
And since you seem to be an expert on this... what do you define as being leaked?
A reporter uncovering the documents? Or an anonymous source posting the documents on the 'net for all to see?
Heck, you stand there and accuse me of 'making up facts' as I post, yet you seem to be unclear on what you mean when you post.
To the best of my knowledge this is the first set of Assange's legal documents to be leaked anonymously to the web. If you know of other batches, please by all means share.
With respect to the leak coming from within Assange's camp in England, I refer you to the following quote:
"The documents appear to consist of pretrial discovery material that prosecutors provided to Assange’s Stockholm lawyer Björn Hurtig last year, which Hurtig subsequently faxed to the office of Assange’s British attorney Mark Stephens. The documents begin with a Nov. 23 cover letter addressed to Stephens’ co-counsel, in which Hurtig advises: “Please note that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else.”"
I don't know about you, but when I have to fax confidential documents, I don't let the faxed documents out of sight. But I can't control the receiving end of the fax machine.
So I would say it would be most likely that the leak happened in the UK.
I'd say that this is the most plausible explanation.
But since you're supporting a nut jobber who's paranoid, lets introduce some alternative theories.
Theory #1: The UK law firm uses a fax server and the admin receives the fax and then emails them to the lawyer. The lawyer's e-mail account was then hacked by unknown hacker.
Theory #2: The original docs were scanned w cover letter, sent via e-mail. See theory #1
Theory #3: Unknown government agency has a tap on the lawyer's phones (either side) and intercepted the fax. Thus they are publishing this information as a way to further discredit Assange.
I would have even added a theory that the NSA intercepted the fax, but they monitor cell and satellite calls from around the world. Land lines would require a physical tap.
It seems to me, that you not only don't have your facts straight, but you seem to attack the poster not the content.
Were there two videos?
"1) An edited and prejudicial video of American forces following RoE yet causing collateral damage as gunmen use journalists and civilians as shields. [It has been reported in the NYT that Assange edited out the RPG toting bad guy from the vid.]"
What I saw wasn't anyone using anyone as a shield, it was a bunch of guys nonchalantly standing around a street corner until suddenly they were no longer standing.
Actually yes if you consider what Assange put out on the web was an edited version of the actual footage to intentionally not show the guy carrying the RPG.
Now why do you think Assange edited out the part about the bad guy and the RPG?
This is why I asked if you know the RoE. That's rules of engagement. Its what Western Combat forces can legally do under certain circumstances. I say Western Combat forces because the bad guys running around with machine guns and RPGs, IEDs and Suicide Bombers will do whatever the fsck they want because they don't care about human life.
I also don't think you understand how people are being used as human shields. You probably have this TV/Movie image of a gunman tying a group of people up to surround him so he can't be taken out by sniper fire. The reality is a tad different. Having wives and children play outside and around a known 'safe house' where they are meeting so that there won't be a drone attack and take them out.
Note that it was the NYT that outed Assange's editing and reported the presence of the RPG toting bad guy. They reported this to show Assange's bias and willingness to twist the truth in order push his agenda...
You don't know much about lawyers, do you?
Lawyer A, Assange's Swedish legal team sends a fax to their counterparts in England.
On the sender's side, you have the lawyer and their paralegal team. They send the fax and then file the communications in Assange's case folder. (Documenting that they sent the fax and billable hours ...)
Do you think that they would jeopardize their careers just to leak something of no importance? Please remember that the material in the fax isn't what makes this newsworthy but the actual leak itself.
In terms of motive and opportunity... the likelihood of the leak happening there is highly unlikely unless you want to claim a 'Watergate' moment and someone burglarized their offices?
Lawyer B. Assange's English legal team gets the fax. So who gets the fax. A paralegal? An admin?
Do they have one copy, or do they make a copy file it and send the other copy on to Assange's lawyer who then sends a copy on to Assange himself?
The point is that if you consider that there have already been defections in Assange's camp... the most probable point of the leak was on the Brit side of the communication. For all you know it could have been someone trawling through their trash. Oh wait, Assange is a paranoid fuck because everyone is now really out to get him. So don't you think he'd shred the documents? You want to get technical there are multiple points in the path where the document could have been duplicated and 'stolen' on the Brit side.
And remember that one of the documents is the actual cover letter itself, so you can't say the leak came from the outside....
Do I really have to draw you a map?
For conspiracy nutter, you really are a tad slow.
Re: unitron...two vids?
"Note that it was the NYT that outed Assange's editing and reported the presence of the RPG toting bad guy. They reported this to show Assange's bias and willingness to twist the truth in order push his agenda..."
Hey, can you give me a link? I've been following this for quite a while and, as you know, discovered that he's not so innocent - a convicted criminal with an interesting personal history - and this would be the icing on the cake for me. As it is the reaction of woman #2 when she discovered, during police interview, another woman had been through the same experience as her (tears) was very interesting. Something that some people would prefer to avoid, I guess.
Re: unitron...two vids?
""Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area." "
Hmm. Interesting. The last flakes of credibility surrounding Julian Assange's pure and innocent image are peeling off. Pay wall, memoirs, 'my data' and other stuff... ...priceless.
I've not had much time to spare or I'd probably have seen his comments before. If the other stuff I'm reading counts for much he's as good as admitted guilt. The trouble with all of this stuff is finding the original source material and then determining if it is veridical.
As to using a RPG to defend an area, hmm. What an indiscriminately powerful weapon to use in close quarter combat. As a soldier I was trained to dread them. Assange's naiveté is quite possibly evidence that a brain is not enough to provide accurate assessments of evidence. He is, as someone else put it, combat naive.
@Ian Michael Gumby
Given the leak was of the actual fax from Sweden to the UK [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar ] it's definitely on the UK side, (unless of course we posit an echelon intercept!), so your deductive exercise is spot on. Perhaps the evul CIA have been at it again. BTW, conspiracy nutters are always slow, unless they find information which they think advances their silliness. In which case it's 'full ahead flank speed'.
>>"One would've thought the thousands of downmods you've had would give you a hint that you're in the wrong, and are being stupid,"
You seriously equate popularity with correctness and brilliance?
Surely, if someone is obviously wrong, a smart person would explain how they were wrong, rather than just reaching for the 'Do Not Want!!!' button?
In reality, it's clear that (especially regarding certain topics involving Assange, copyright infringement and Anonymous) it's very easy to get a flood of downvotes simply by stating an easily checkable fact that various people would rather pretend didn't exist, or by asking a simple question that various people can't readily answer, and hence downvotes really have little sting.
Some of the time, they suggest that someone actually touched a nerve, but that people who don't like the post know they can't really respond without looking like a dick.
Knowing that a decent number of junior hivetards have been upset by the truth can give one a fairly warm glow inside.
Though surely, *if* the web-posted fax pages are legit, IMG seems to be right about the source of the leaks, they *didn't* get leaked by the Swedish authorities, but by some source downstream of the UK lawyers' incoming fax machine?
And as I pointed out, there's a huge difference between people actually pointing out flaws in an argument and people whose greatest contribution is clicking on a 'dislike' button.
On topics such as this, votes are are pretty meaningless as an indication of correctness.
I've frequently seen it happen that when someone says something about TPB, Assange, Anonymous, etc that's a simple ( but 'desirable') untruth and someone either states the truth or dares to doubt the claim, that the first person can get showered with upvotes and the second plastered with downvotes, even when a few seconds of checking would show anyone beyond doubt what the true situation was.
When there's a cosy club of people demonstrably too thick or idle or blinkered to do any research before voting, that makes the votes themselves fairly worthless.
I'm sure if I wanted to get upvotes, I could do so pretty easily by telling certain people what they wanted to hear, even if I knew or suspected what I wrote was untrue.
>>"You only have to read up to see that your premise that I haven't explained what's wrong with his argument is false ut that's typical of people like him, and seemingly you- you work based on logical fallacies, you bend the truth, and you tell lies."
And you only have to actually read what I wrote to see that I was talking about the many people who vote but don't write replies, in response to your suggestion that downvotes supposedly counted for something.
If you *really* want to misinterpret what I wrote and take it personally to give you an excuse to jump on your high horse, I can't stop you, but at best, it does make you look a bit thick, especially when you're whining about *other* people making arguments fit.
I can't see how this "leak" tells us anything that we didn't already know and nor do I see how it inciminates Assange at all.
I've little doubt that Assange is a bit of an self important arse who has taken to living the rock'n'roll lifestyle due to his recent notoriety but being an inconsiderate bed hopping bastard does not equate to "rapist" in any sensible country in the world and the fact that a couple of wannabe groupies got their knickers in a twist after the fact should be totally irrelevant.
Come on guys, the man has an autibiography to sell. He has to keep himself in the news to help push sales!?
I seem to remember that Assange's primary claim WASN'T that the original allegations were cooked up by the US, but the strange rehashing of it by a Swedish politician long after the original charges were dropped and he was given leave to exit the country.
I don't really understand how this new supposedly new release of information impacts on that at all.
I do see the irony of the "leakage" but none of it is particular fresh or unexpected.
Perhaps if you understood the significance of the 'leaks'...
First, what you thought you knew was based on a reporter in the Guardian. Reporters don't disclose their sources. What we learned there was that the information of the accusations were credible.
Second. This leak was sensational for two facts...
1) Its a leak apparently from Assange's own legal team and is a leak that shows the hypocrisy known as Assange.
2) Its the actual complaint against Assange. While you may not call non-consensual sex 'rape', the laws in Sweden do. And that's what counts. These are the actual documents which outline the case against him. They aren't forgeries. And yes, while these are allegations... they are strong enough for the Swedish Police to issue an arrest warrant to someone who had left their jurisdiction.
As to your comment about the actual crime and being in a sensible country... I guess your idea of a sensible country is one where if a woman accuses a man of rape, she's the one guilty and should be stoned to death.
"I seem to remember"..."long after the original charges were dropped "
Then you seem to remember wrong.
For a start weren't ever *charges*, just different people with different opinions on the merits of a particular investigation, and on whether an *arrest warrant* was justified.
The investigation seems to have been on, then quickly off, and then relatively quickly back on again after the lawyer for the women protested.
When it came to Assange leaving the country, was he actually told the investigation had been terminated, or merely that it wasn't currently judged necessary to prevent him going anywhere else as long as he would return if asked?
There's a *huge* difference between those two situations.
It's a fairly big thing to prevent someone leaving a country, potentially for a long time, and unless that's common practice in similar cases, had the happened not doubt any number of people would have considered that as evidence of unfair treatment.
@Ian Michael Gumby
>>"As to your comment about the actual crime and being in a sensible country... "
Seems a bit like Julian saying (according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations)
that he's 'being victimised because Sweden has a tougher approach to prosecuting rape than other countries'.
Who made him go to Sweden?
If I can't manage without a beer, I don't go to Saudi Arabia.
Actually David, I think it is your memory that is lacking:
An arrest warrant *was* issued then dropped. I don't think it is unlikely that the Swedish police managed to obtain an arrest warrant if they didn't have charges to pursue.
What does seem to have happened (and we only have conjecture here) is that he was arrested, the women and Assange questioned, then sent on their way with a flea in their collective ears for wasting police time.
Most of the "facts" of the case can be found here:
What these leaks do seem to outline is how shaky, inconsistent and unlikely these women's case is. If I was a witness in a trial where evidence like this was put before me, my opinion of their credibility would be very low indeed. When remove all the nonsense about Assange being smelly, not flushing the toilet etc (which is totally irrelevant, although rather embarrassing I would have thought) there is very little of substance remaining.
@skelband... Slightly OT...
you see the following:
"Assange told Al Jazeera TV he had no direct evidence of spook involvement but had been warned 11 August by Australian intelligence services to expect such a slander campaign. He said he learnt of the allegations when he saw them on TV on Saturday morning. Assange is on holiday in northern Sweden."
(Riight... Australian 'intelligence service' telling Assange what to expect....)
Which made me look at the following question "Assange welcome in Australia?"
(You can google using this search parameter and come up with the following:)
and the latest:
(from Feb 2)
If Assange is not afraid of the charges in Sweden, why is he looking to bail back to Australia?
(Oh he misses his home... kinda flies in the face of his long standing 'nomad' lifestyle.)
And that's kind of the point. Assange is a mess of contradictions....
You read the reports and come to the conclusion as to how shaky the women's testimony is.
You said :" What these leaks do seem to outline is how shaky, inconsistent and unlikely these women's case is."
While its your opinion and its a valid opinion, you still need to ask yourself is it enough information for there to be charges brought forth under Swedish law? Neither you nor I know Swedish law so we can't say for sure. Evidently there is enough to risk the negative publicity and file an arrest warrant for Assange.
What do you think those investigators would find out if/when they interview Assange directly?
Now remember those links I just posted?
The Australian government is cooperating with the US. Australia has troops in Afghanistan and to quote one of the articles...
"Ms Gillard has asserted that Mr Assange's actions were illegal. A taskforce of Australian soliders, intelligence officers and officials is investigating whether he has breached any Australian laws.
Mr McClelland yesterday said Mr Assange might not be welcome back in Australia if he is convicted over the leaks. He confirmed Australia was providing ''every assistance'' to US authorities in their investigation."
When you play with fire, the odds are you are going to get burned.
Whether or not an arrest warrant had been dropped, Assange had agreed that he would return to the police and finalise his interviews. He did not. He left for England, where he now fights extradition, because the Swedish police want to finish the interview process before the Swedish CJS makes a decision about prosecution.
Details of Assange's poor hygiene are relevant, from the perspective of Scandinavian views on sexual hygiene and the non transmission of any STD. People in the UK are not very clean in this regard, so it's unsurprising that failing to use a condom (making the sex non consensual, thus rape) might be seen as unimportant.
>>"Actually David, I think it is your memory that is lacking:"
>>"An arrest warrant *was* issued then dropped. I don't think it is unlikely that the Swedish police managed to obtain an arrest warrant if they didn't have charges to pursue."
So you think people are generally charged *before* being arrested for questioning?
They may have had suspicions he may have done something wrong, but I seem to remember Assange's lawyer making a big deal about how the Interpol notice was unjustified because Assange *hadn't* been charged with anything.
And *if you'd actually read what I wrote*, I was quite aware about the initial arrest warrant which Is why I said there was disagreement over it.
Which there was.
Are you *always* this cautious and well-informed when accusing other people of ignorance?
This wouldn't be "rape"
in most of the wierld. And quite honestly it is a hideous insult
to anyone who has actually been raped.
So the question is would this normally be considered rape in Sweden ? ...
Somehow I doubt it.
Rape definition different in Sweden
There was a comment I saw previously that Sweden has various "degrees" of rape, all the way up to the "normal" definition of rape in the rest of the world. As I understand it, what Assange is accused of is at the lower end of the scale, but still comes under the heading of rape as defined in Swedish law.
As an aside, it's worth considering that Assange could be able to use all these leaks to get a mistrial declared as arguably it's going to be impossible to get a fair trial given the fact that most of the documents have been made public outwith the court.
This would be rape.
"So the question is would this normally be considered rape in Sweden ? ..."
"I consent to sex given that you use a condom" - "Ok. *proceeds without one*"
Yeah, that'd be sex without consent - aka rape. If it is proven. Which, at this point, looks unlikely. Luckily Sweden has pretty modern laws in this field.
Or do you truly believe that "Just because she didn't WANT to have sex doesn't make it rape!"?
Loads of places have laws like that. Sweden, I'm glad to say, has gotten over THAT old crap.
Yes, it is
Sex without consent is rape in any civilised country. If the consent is conditional on using a condom, and he doesn't, it's non-consensual and therefore rape. If the girl is asleep when he starts screwing her she can't have given consent, so it's rape.
Just because she agreed on another occasion is irrelevant, or maybe you're one of those dickheads who also thinks that men are entitled to force their wives to have sex, and that it can't be rape because they're married?
Assange is a self-important asshole, and the world will be better off without him and his childish antics.
Re: Yes, it is
By that argument, 9/10s of the world should be locked up.
Also, I don't understand how the condoms that they've kept (weeeeeiiiiiiiird) are proof that he didn't use a condom.
You either think 9/10 of the world have had non-consensual sex under the circumstances AC described or you forgot the 'joke alert' icon for your first sentence...
> By that argument, 9/10s of the world should be locked up
So 90% of the world (not just the men) have non-consensual sex? Twat!
The allegations are that the condoms he used in each instance broke during the sex act, and that Assange should have know it and stopped plooking right at the moment of breakage, if for nothing else than to reload with a fresh skin. He is being charged with rape because the condoms broke and he didn't stop, not because he wasn't using one, and its the broken condoms that the ladies kept as evidence.
Re: This wouldn't be "rape"
"in most of the wierld."
He failed to use a condom. Sex would have been consensual if he had used one. In Scandinavian culture sexual hygiene has for decades been a contrast to the UK, where attitudes to condom use, sexual hygiene and passing on STDs are fairly lax. In, e.g., Sweden failing to use a condom has taken on greater significance since the advent of HIV. The Germans hold similar views on sexual hygiene:
As the Swedish gov't has practically admitted they're only asking for an extradition in order to hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute him for something else entirely, at this point it doesn't matter if Assange is guilty of this particular charge. He'll most likely never be tried for it at all.
If the story was posted for its entertainment value because it's oh-so-ironic, I submit it would be far more ironic and entertaining if the leakers of this particular document got similar treatment as Bradley Manning has for similar conduct.
Wrongs and rights
"As the Swedish gov't has practically admitted they're only asking for an extradition in order to hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute him for something else entirely....."
Where has the Swedish Government admitted this? In fact they have openly stated that it would be next to impossible to do so as you can't export the subject of a European Arrest Warrant to a non-EU country; once the warrant ends for any reason, he is free to exit Sweden. Assange would have an explicit right to be returned to the "arresting country" i.e. England
Getting Assange from Sweden to the US is more difficult than getting him from the UK to the US.
Anyway thats enough pro-Sweden, any allegations of rape brought just because two women found he wasn't exclusive should've been thrown out long ago. And the fact the condoms were kept as souvenirs when they don't form any part of the circumstances of alleged sexual misconduct is just .... ewwww!!
"Getting Assange from Sweden to the US is more difficult than getting him from the UK to the US."
The US does what it wants, when it wants. They walk around in my homeland with guns drawn and threatening the populace for no other reason than they can.
Swedish Prosecution Authority says you're wrong
"Different rules apply within the EU (surrender) and outside the EU (extradition).
Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations.
Concerning surrender to another country within the European Union, the Act states that the executing country under certain circumstances must approve a further surrender.
On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA. "
Makes it perfectly plain that Sweden cannot send Assange to the US without the say-so of the UK....
@AC RE: Marcus Aurelius
I'm afraid you're reading in to the Swedish government's statements.
"He's presumably referring to the fact that Sweden stated they'd drop their rape case if the US put forward an extradition request. This suggests Sweden doesn't actually care about the rape case and is mainly interested in seeing him extradited to the US."
[This refers to the OP's comment.]
And you continue:
"If Sweden was only interested in it's own justice goals, then it would tell the US and everyone else that the rape trial is going ahead regardless of whatever extradition requests come in."
Uhm... that is not what they are saying.
What they are saying is that if the US charges Assange with a crime over the leaks, the the seriousness of that charge would in their view trump the rape allegation/charges and they would therefore waive their right to extraditing Assange to Sweden.
To infer that Sweden's charges are just a ploy is dead wrong.
Go talk to a lawyer.
Re: RE: Marcus Aurelius
"As the Swedish gov't has practically admitted they're only asking for an extradition in order to hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute him for something else entirely....." (Ed Deckard)
"Where has the Swedish Government admitted this? In fact they have openly stated that it would be next to impossible to do so" (Marcus Aurelius)"
"He's presumably referring to the fact that Sweden stated they'd drop their rape case if the US put forward an extradition request." (AC)
This is the most beautiful example of a non sequitur argument (a conclusion that does not follow from the original premiss/evidence) I have yet seen here. Saying they'll drop their extradition request if the US makes one is not the same as saying "they'll hold him until the USA is ready to prosecute". Not going ahead with extradition != going ahead with extradition in order to facilitate US extradition.
This is the logic of the nursery. I just hope that you never do jury service. To see why read the literature on juries and algorithmic vs heuristic logic in their assessment of evidence.