And you base this on your vast experience of Swedish law? I'm from Sweden and don't have an opinion whatsoever whether the prosecutor has a case or not since the evidence will presented once (and if) this goes to court. However, Swedish law prohibits immideate extradition to US and since US has death penalty, there are even more laws making this extremely difficult to do. UK on the other hand can send him there whenever US asks for it since there is a collaboration between them regarding this, so if US would be the problem for Assange, he should run for Sweden as he is safer there.

@Mycho

>>I'm in two minds about this. I expect him to be shunted direct to America from Sweden after the sex case trial collapses, which would be an abuse to the extradition process, which would give evidence to less annoying people facing extradition who want to argue that the process was likely to be abused."

But since he was hoping to stay in Sweden anyway, why would anyone bother with the whole bloody thing in the first place, rather than just have the US build up a case against him in secret to pass to the supposedly compliant Swedes whenever they felt like it?

evidence?

>the evidence will presented

You seriously think this has anything to do with actual legal process? I'm just surprised the US didn't go for the paedophile angle.

I sincerely doubt I'm alone when I say I'm very, very disappointed in Sweden. We all know the UK is a slave to its former colony, but bloody Sweden?? We always viewed that place as a beacon of progressive ideas - not abject cowardice.

Re: "the European arrest warrant system could collapse if..."

Yeah it would. Commit a crime in london, and take the Eurostar to Paris to get off.

Re: "the European arrest warrant system could collapse if..."

Because no-one ever thought of extradition treaties before the EU came along. Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 between Britain and the US? Similar treaty agreed between Britain and France in 1843? France and Wurttemberg, 1759?

I wish I was a liberal and not have to waste time with facts and research to back up my arguments.

Re: Shocked

Now now, this is no time for sarcasm. Although..

I'm never glad that someone has to face the music for basically being an idiot, but in the case of Assange Im happy to make an exception (although I won't break out the champagne). He had 100% control over the situation, that it came to this is edge-to-edge his own fault. The irony that it took a leak of the case documents to disprove his version was just a delicious topping..

What I especially like is how it draws out the clueless and the misguided in his defence. Let the down votes begin, I ought to clock a record here today.

definition

Yeay, but Sweden defines the rape differently - they have had feminists in power for so long that "not calling the next day" is also defined as rape.

Actually, it wasn't rape until he refused to get himself tested to set the girls' mind at ease. That makes him in my eyes a weasel, and I'm actually impressed by the Swedish legal system that this escalates into a charge equivalent to rape.

As I said before - he has nobody to blame but himself. If his lawyer told him to flee the country as it has been rumoured, the lawyer must also have briefed him on possible consequences. I find his bleating about it all being a US plot actually rather tiring, but then again, I'm not exactly an Assange fan. I can with a degree of effort see the original point of Wikileaks, but that goal has since long been subverted by Assange and his buddies.

Not defending him, I can't stand the man to be honest, but:

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. He's not been. Thus you can't go bandying the word rape about. Similarly, if a teacher was arrested for sexual abuse of a child, you can't call him anything until it's been proven. Because the ACCUSATION is bigger than anything else and causing more reputational damage that anything else. You're not a child, nor a vigilante. Wait until things are proven in a court of law (ANY court of law will suffice) and then you can claim you know better about what you'd do.

He has denied the claim (notice: not a charge!). He is fighting extradition on the basis that the claim is false. If the US, say, falsely accuse you of rape, are you going to pop over and clear your name and thus surrender to their legal system or argue that you shouldn't have to be extradited there at all? Some would say that going over would be a sign that you believe there are valid charges to be faced. This is no difference, and the US is involved even if it's not as direct.

You're trying to paint him, obliquely, as a rapist. He's not. Because he's not been charged with that or had it proven and, to be honest, is in the legal system to stop those charges taking action (which he couldn't do if they had a really solid case against him) based on both UK and EU law saying there's not enough to extradite him on.

Reading anything into anything he does at the moment is actually WORSE than just assuming nothing. It's like taking "No Comment" to mean "I did it" - although the phrase is used as a mechanism by the guilty, innocent people are well-advised to use it by their lawyers because it's the SAFEST thing, legally, to say.

You're exposing your own bias. Just because you'd submit to a random foreign country trying to extradite you on false charges in order to clear your name (and, just for a minute, suppose that country was somewhere with a bit less of a reliable court system), doesn't mean that every "innocent" person should either. Hell, I'd fight extradition on the basis that I'm already in an EU country and the trial could be held in any EU country because they have the same laws (and, often, cases are tried in one country using the laws and jurisdiction of another because it aids the logistical parts of the problems involved) and / or they haven't filed charges (which they should do if they want to see me in court). I can be questioned, even under arrest, from anywhere in the world. Hell, I can appear in court in any country in the world by video-link if necessary.

But, for some strange reason, these rape ALLEGATIONS are not being backed up as they should be, not being enforced as they should be, not being taken as seriously in the country trying to extradite him as they should be (if they think he's the rapist, he could be charged, tried and even sentenced already and in his absence rather than drag it out for the victim). And people like you take the words "rape allegation" and only see "RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE". Rather than, as you should "allegation" (i.e. completely without proof as of yet).

Innocent until proven guilty; I have no opinion one way or the other because I don't have all the facts, but don't go ascribing guilty motives to his legal actions to avoid extradition. You could equally argue that if he is innocent, he is afraid of/stressed out by facing false allegations.

Not a lot of thought as to why rape was chosen here...

It is not only emotional, but also especially vulnerable to politics. The victim can show no bruises and not even PTSD symptoms, but still potentially get her way if she can convince the judge, based on her testimony that she was unwilling. Even a logically inconsistent piece of testimony may be excused on "she was traumatized..."

If we are serious about reasonable doubt, such rape cases should never be heard in court - what's the point. Unless there are horrible injuries or PTSD, any objective evidence can only show that they indeed had sex, and the rest is up to testimony, hardly the normal composition of a "reasonable doubt" conviction.

Instead, they lower the standards. Necessarily, perhaps, b/c not every rape case leaves horrible injuries or PTSD. But it leaves a lot to the discretion of the judge. Given the politics, I can see why Assange is less interested about the nebulous hope of clearing his name.

Re: Incitement to hatred

Two things:

1) Seeing how he was in Sweden at the time, what they consider to be rape is quite pertinent here.

2) He didn't make himself available for questioning, he told his lawyer to hide him from investigators whilst he fled to a different country.

Actions speak louder than words.

Re: Lee Dowling

I would argue that the 'until' is more about the timeframe, i.e. it is correct to talk about the 'alleged' crime before a guilty verdict has been delivered; calling a person a criminal before they are convicted* is wrong even if they are later convicted.

*assuming you are a bystander, not the victim or a witness etc.

What ever happened to,

Innocent until proven guilty!

Your whole post leans toward him being guilty. We know nothing!

All this talk of 'innocent until proven guilty'. You should all know better.

It's 'innocent unless proven guilty'.

It's a subtle but important distinction - the first implies that nothing has been nailed on you yet but it's just a case of holding onto you until they find something. The second states categorically that unless you have been convicted of something, you are innocent, and must be treated as such.

Which would you rather have, Cardinal Richelieu with, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", or Voltaire with, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Quote: "based on both UK and EU law saying there's not enough to extradite him on."

Yes a lack of logic, but you are confusing two different things, law and justice.

I'm not going to evoke Godwin's law, but It's an easy exercise to find laws in most countries that are neither fair, equitable or just.

@arkhangelsk

>>"The victim can show no bruises and not even PTSD symptoms, but still potentially get her way if she can convince the judge, based on her testimony that she was unwilling. Even a logically inconsistent piece of testimony may be excused on "she was traumatized...""

>>"If we are serious about reasonable doubt, such rape cases should never be heard in court - what's the point. Unless there are horrible injuries or PTSD, any objective evidence can only show that they indeed had sex, and the rest is up to testimony, hardly the normal composition of a "reasonable doubt" conviction."

Couldn't you apply similar logic to any number of other situations?

In general cases (not just sexual ones), if there is objective evidence that someone has been injured, it could be one person's word against another whether an injury was accidental or deliberate (He pushed me/He fell/He jumped") , and even where an injury is clearly not accidental or self-inflicted, in the absence of forensic evidence pointing to a particular assailant, it's often still one person's word against another who was responsible.

What is the 'objective evidence' for theft, if it can be a matter of dispute whether someone taking property was doing so with or without the owner's consent?

If someone uproots half the flowers in my garden and sticks them in my compost bin while I am on holiday, what is the 'objective evidence' for criminal damage if they claim I had asked them to do it?

Then he won't have a problem with returning to the jurisdiction he fled whence, as soon as his legal counsel found out the police wanted to interview him with a view to arresting and then charging him, he fled. As with Assange, so with Coulson.

execute people on the Reg forums

Btw, what happened to that Reg survey regarding more atrocious capital punishing?

Re: execute people on the Reg forums

Dunno, I did say I was for bringing back hanging, just not by the neck. Seems appropriate here given the sentiment :)

I do agree with some that the correct statement is is that he is wanted for questioning in relation to a possible rape. The circumstances seem to support a charge, but until a judge say he is guilty he is just a weak tosser - oh, no, that he isn't, make it jerk.

He is not actually a rapist, nor was the original charge this - it escalated into one at that level because he didn't cooperate with what I personally don't see as a wholly unreasonable request from the women involved. So, principally he is wanted for being a jerk, with questioning potentially elevating that to rapist.

Is that enough to get downvotes? It's been pretty poor so far - just as if nobody cares.. :)

Re: Stinks

The Sweedish authorities have no jurisdiction to interview in the UK, it would likely be a legal nightmare to sort this out. However, Assange fled Sweeden, the whole thing could have been sorted out far cheaper if he hadn't done so.

Re: Stinks

"As far as I am concerned Assange is a douchebag but WikiLeaks itself is a great idea if it was run with appropriate oversight."

This.

I've tried to watch his new show on RT but he is an insufferably annoying prick, his aims may be in the right place, but his smug self-promotion is nauseating.

I think he's toast now and will be cooling his heels for a long time in a US prison soon. They'll go all out to charge him with anything and everything they can think of just to get an extradition.

Re: Stinks

The Sweedish authorities have no jurisdiction to interview in the UK

<ring> <ring> "Hello Mr Assange, is it OK with you if we come to the UK and ask you a few questions?" No different from having a plod call to your front door requesting that you help them with their enquiries.

As for him fleeing Sweden, maybe the Swedes were hoping he'd go somewhere where they didn't have an extradition agreement

Re: Stinks

@FMVK - If he is interviewed by Sweedish police in the UK, he will not have any statutory protections, he will not be interviewed under caution, I daresay this would also cause conspiracy claims. The Sweedish police are, after all in a no-win situation, whatever they do will be a conspiracy in the eyes of Assange's supporters.

Re: Stinks

No different from having a plod call to your front door requesting that you help them with their enquiries.

You mean other than the fact that plod are operating within their own jurisdiction?

Also, what incentive is there for the Swedish authorities to do that? Let's imagine they come to the UK to interview JA. He breaks down and confesses (for sake of example), would that even be admissible in a Swedish Court (I don't know)? Why would they want to risk having anything ruled inadmissible?

It's also not up to the suspect/witness where they are interviewed. The authorities decide that, especially where someone may be a suspect. If the old bill ever say "Mind coming down to the station sir?" don't make the mistake of thinking they are asking, what that are actually saying is "Come down to the station with me". It's the way it works.

As for him fleeing Sweden, maybe the Swedes were hoping he'd go somewhere where they didn't have an extradition agreement

That's quite, quite possible. Unfortunately for him, and us, he came to Blighty. Had he gone to Sealand he'd probably be off scot-free for the time being (and in the future we may find no charges are filed, or even that he's acquitted. He is the one preventing either of those two happening at the moment)