Swedish court declines to detain Belmarsh prison resident Julian Assange A Swedish court has ruled against detaining WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange or seeking his extradition over an allegation of rape. The Swedish prosecutor said she would still seek a European Investigation Order so that she could question Assange. The country's public prosecutors had gone to the Uppsala District Court to get …
If it wasn't for Wikileaks, none of us would have ever heard about some random guy hiding out in embassy for years to avoid rape charges in Sweden. Maybe the Brits would have, due to the money spent standing guard outside, but news of it would have never left your borders. It was only newsworthy because he founded Wikileaks.
True. If it were just up to the courts there's a good chance he wouldn't be extradited because of the risk of not getting a fair trial. However, the Home Secretary gets the final say. No idea who that will be by the time his sentence for skipping bail has been served: someone trying to fawn for the Donald or one of Corbyn's neomarxist cronies that can't count… there's more than just the 60,000
there’s less risk of the Swedes handing him to the Merkins than the Tories
Your ignorance astounds. Which labour prime minister was it signed the legislation that allows speedy extraditions to the USA? Oh yes, his tonyness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003
Try using facts to form a proposition rather than your rabid and morally bankrupt politics, yes?
Sweden presumably would rather not touch this hot potato. The prosecutor is doing her job in pursuing him, but the court doesn't fancy the prospect of having to deal with the US requests.
As I said here already, if Sweden doesn't ask for him, we should just deport him to Botany Bay. I have no wish to support him, but if if we send him to the US he becomes a political prisoner and I'll reluctantly have to do so.
Reg needs an icon for holding my nose!
NIck Kew,
I very much doubt courts work like that. They aren't supposed to consider future hassle.
I know the square root of bugger all about Swedish law, but we do know that their supreme court ruled a few years ago that it was disproportionate for the prosecutors to continue to puruse Assange, once he'd hidden out in the embassy. And so they had to drop the EAW.
I'd therefore guess that the local court was ruling on whether they had grounds to start up again - possibly with reference to that original ruling.
So Sweden wanted to detain a person who's currently thoroughly detained? Seems a bit of a strange request. Could it be to try and head off US extradition? Assange is property of HMG till he's served time for his bail offence. So maybe Sweden anticipated that, and wanted to extend his detention & question him, or prevent extradition to the US. Which is something I don't really understand either. I'm assuming that as Assange's demonstrated he's a flight risk, the US or Sweden could ask for him to be detained pending the outcome of the extradition request(s), appeals etc.
He left Sweden rather than facing his accusers there. Then he skipped bail and holed up in an embassy for 7 years. That demonstrated he was willing to risk the surety put up by the people who bailed him. So yes, I'd suggest he was a flight risk, and continued detention would seem appropriate.
He was allowed to leave Sweden. He was questioned initially and it was found there was no case to answer. It wasn't until AFTER he left the country that investigations were re-opened and further interviews with Assange were deemed necessary.
This is something a lot of people seem to get wrong in the timeline.
This article has a decent run-down of the timeline and events:
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-05-27/abuses-show-assange-case-was-never-about-law/
This is something a lot of people seem to get wrong in the timeline.
That's because this is often repeated and misreported by the corporate news outlets.
This are just default smear tactics. To destroy the man they first need to destroy his reputation. Otherwise he'll become a martyr. Psyops 101.
This are just default smear tactics. To destroy the man they first need to destroy his reputation. Otherwise he'll become a martyr. Psyops 101.
Actually, Psyops 101 would be to apply a few nudges*, then watch them destroy themselves. But this has always been my concern with attempts to sanctify St Julian. There was an allegation of sexual misconduct, and rather than clearing his name, Assange chose to run. Plus as others have pointed out, there have been questions around the official narrative, ie when Sweden requested an interview, and when Assange fled Sweden. Either way, 7 years later, and the allegations remain.
*Honey optional.
This is something a lot of people seem to get wrong in the timeline.
No, it's just that Assange hasn't been shy about blatantly lying about the case, and his followers online aren't willing to be critcal of him.
It was proved in one of the court cases in the UK that the Swedish prosecutors asked Assange to face a pre-charge interview (the Swedish law requires this before charges can be pressed) via his lawyer. And this was done the day he left the country for the UK. His lawyer had told him he was wanted for that interview the next morning, and then he flew to Blighty. You don't need to be all that cynical to connect these two facts. Especially as his lawyer had denied this in court, and was then forced to admit the timeline as the prosecutors obviously had the times they'd spoken to him / texted him.
If someone is genuinely wanted for questioning about a serious criminal charge, wtf would the authorities let them leave the country?!?
Sweden's fairly liberal, and detaining someone is fairly serious. Or expensive, or prone to lawyers. As I understand it, prosecutors and police forces around the world have a variety of options ranging from asking someone to attend an interview to surrendering passports, tagging, home arrest or being detained. I'm not entirely keen on the US bail system though as that seems rather unfair on people who can't post bail. I doubt many prosecutors look kindly on failing to appear and leaving the country though, and generally that results in a larger book being thrown at you.
WRONG.
It was reopened 3 days after Finne dropped it (and dropped it rather mysteriously). Assange's own lawyer testified that Ny did a first quick question after hte reopening. But are you ready for the fun part?
In the Feb2011 extradition hearing, Assange's lawyer testified that there'd been no attempt to interview Assange, and that the prosecutor said he was free to go. The expert witnesses testified on this as well.
That's what cook there talks about.
Slight problem though, as Ny's office supplied a whole bunch of communications with Hurtig, Assange's swedish lawyer, about interviews. So, who to believe? Well, Hurtig still had text messages on his phone from Ny arranging interviews and suchlike, which he had to read out in court. So, then Hurtig admitted the whole 'didn't interview' and 'said he was free to leave Sweden' was a deliberate lie. Hurtig then tried to claim that sure, he arranged on the 20th an interview with Ny for the 28th, but that he hadn't spoken to Assange since the 19th, and didn't until the 29th. It was only coincidence that Assange left Sweden suddenly for the UK (where he had no business) late on the 27th, hours after Ny's office had informed Hurtig that Assange would probably be taken into custody the following day. Oh, and then Assange and Hurtig kept promising Ny that he'd come back to Sweden for an interview in the following days, and never did.
Documentation of the communication with Ny's office was submitted to the court.
Cook's "opinion" piece is filled with the same lies that fill the defense assange site, including the claim " Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals."
Red notices are not usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals, they're just the name of a notice for someone wanted internationally by a court either to be prosecuted, or to serve their sentence. It's usually a preliminary for extradition, and there's over 50,000 of them active right now. A blue notice is similar, but is for a witness, and a yellow one is for someone considered missing. Terrorists and dangerous criminals would get either an Orange or a Green notice.
So yes, he skipped Sweden to avoid arrest. In fact Assange's own defense experts, after having told the court that wikileaks had lied to them about the facts that their testimony was based on and been given the actual facts in the case by the court, all agreed with the prosecutor, with the one they usually point to (Karl Alhem) saying that he'd have gone for a Red Notice just like Ny did in those circumstances, and that Ny had been incredibly lenient with Assange, as it was standard practice to place people accused of these crimes in custody straight away.
Seriously, read the court findings from the Feb 2011 hearing, it destroys most of the stuff in that blogpost. Here, I'll make it easy http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html
Oh, and the leak was from Hurtig's office.
If you're going to say an article has 'decent run-downs of timelines and events', hows about actually making sure it does, instead of repeating lies that Assange's own defense team admitted to being deliberate lies more than 8 years ago.
Again, they didn't 'let him'. he fled, rather quickly before they were about to stop him. At that point, his lawyer had been in constant contact with the prosecutor, which is why they didn't even do the usual step of arresting him (something even the Assange experts found unusually lenient that they wouldn't do)
And if it sounds like I'm talking down to you, maybe I am, I tend to talk down to people who repeat the same bullshit statements saying they're all about 'truth' and 'exposing corruption' years after they've been admitted as lies by the people that created them. Don't want me to talk down to you, then get a clue and stop pushing nonsense to prop up your cult figurehead.
I know they don't HAVE to to do so.
However, they didn't put a block on his passport (for example) because they weren't expecting him to flee the country, given his lawyer had been in constant contact.
Not actively detaining him isn't the same as 'letting him leave'. Now, maybe they should have done the standard practice, and placed him in custody during the FIRST interview with Ny. But given his 'reputation' and media spotlight, and that it can look bad to detain him, plus with him being a publicly known 'face' who can't exactly hide inconspicuously, they didn't detain him, which Karl Alhem did express a little surprise at when testifying on behalf of Assange, saying he'd have done that.
So, what do you think Ny should have done? Given he's a well known person, his lawyer has been in constant contact, claims he hadn't told Assange to flee, and that once it was clear he'd left hte country, that he'd be right back for another interview set up. (I believe 2 or 3 such dates when Assange would be back in Sweden for the interview were set up by Assange/Hurtig, and not kept, before Ny went to the Court to start the proceedings, and issue the Red Notice.
So come on, Mr brave-only-when-anon, what should have been done instead?
If someone really is a suspected rapist, preventing them from leaving the country would have been trivial. Criminally, WTF do you have to do to be denied exit?!?
A suspected criminal did something they didn't expect. that would be a first then. /S
The Swedish authorities screwed up royally.
And even now you still can't stop the patronising attitude. Just gotta have the one-upmanship at all costs. You prove my point without even trying.
Oh right, so what 'trivial' thing should they have done? He's in the Schengen zone, he could leave sweden to any other country in the block easily, even if they took his passport (assuming he only had the one). So how do you stop him going to Norway, Finland, or Denmark? You know, short of actually putting out an all-points warning (disproportionate) or placing him in custody.
He had recently (at the time) applied for residency, and even gave a press conference stating how honest the judiciary is, and how he felt moving there was so good because it protected him from the US requesting extradition for political crimes. And at the time, he was high publicity because of the collateral murder video and the [ultimately worthless] state department cables, so it was about erring on caution.
Also, I don't think you know what patronising means. It means acting as though you don't know basic stuff that everyone knows, and explaining it to you like you're an idiot, which you're not. It's clear you don't actually know this stuff, or you wouldn't make such silly statements. And this paragraph is patronising, but the rest is just a mixture of informative, and bruising to your inflated ego, which you're still protecting by posting as AC, so no-one but you knows you're getting schooled.
If you can't publicly stand behind your comments, you clearly don't think there's much to them. I know my stuff's right, thats why I don't have a problem putting my name to it. If I wanted to troll, then isn't that what the AC is for?
He is accused of being an accessory to a crime committed by a US citizen while on active duty in Iraq. This is not just a "the USA didn't like what he did so charged him" thing, but a charge with a clear nexus to the US. Oh, and by the way, whether you like it or not "get stuffed" is not a response to the actual extradition agreement between the US and the UK. And, yes, there are real First Amendment issues to be navigated, but you can't claim the protection of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution outside the United States legal system...
And there has been absolutely no indication that the trial will not be public. You are probably confused about Grand Jury proceedings, which are confidential for good reason -- and you may choose to think Grand Juries are a bad idea (I'd agree in many, but not all, cases), but if one has the things, the evidence presented to them _must_ be confidential unless you want a rule-by-Daily-Mail situation where accusations are leveled and no opportunity to refute them is presented.
> Oh, and by the way, whether you like it or not "get stuffed" is not a response to the actual extradition agreement
Mexico is not averse to doing this. They will only extradite a murderer to the US if the prosecutor in the US agrees to waive the death penalty. So the UK would be quite OK to refuse to extradite someone who is facing an uncertain future in a penal system that's not known to be either fair or friendly.**
>And there has been absolutely no indication that the trial will not be public.
There will be a show trial but it won't be anything to do with the administration of justice. The only thing that's likely to save him is that the news media -- that's the real stuff, not your Fox Cable News 'entertainment' shows -- have noticed and regard any prosecution of Assange as an attack on the press. They'll cite the Pentagon Papers are precedent; the government obviously would prefer to overturn this so they can rein in the press so this might end up in the Supreme Court.
(**BTW. I am an American and a) know the legal system quite well and b) have no illusions about how fair it is, especially when politics is involved.)
"And there has been absolutely no indication that the trial will not be public."
Response: "He's accused of treason. This will go through a secret court, with proceedings held behind closed doors"
He is not accused of treason. He is accused of conspiracy to break into a computer and crimes under the espionage act. Neither of which has anything to do with treason. Both of these are standard crimes which get tried in public unless there is some reason, like needing to protect the defendant from possible attack, not to. If that occurred, the request to do that would be public. Stating demonstrably untrue things doesn't help make points.
Too late. They are using the Cardassian legal system. Just replace Cardassia with America.
DUKAT: On Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins. And it’s always the same.
SISKO: In that case, why bother with a trial at all?
DUKAT: Because the people demand it. They enjoy watching justice triumph over evil every time. They find it comforting.
SISKO: Isn’t there ever a chance you might try an innocent man by mistake?
DUKAT: Cardassians don’t make mistakes.
“London's Metropolitan Police swiftly received an extradition request from the US, where he has been, separately, charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. This charge is related to his part in the 2010 release of hundreds of thousands of secret US cables, war reports and briefs after they were leaked by US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.”
The alleged computer intrusion being Manning copying files onto a writable DVD from his/her Siprnet terminal. Actually Assange is being prosecuted under the Espionage Act with a potential sentence of up to 175 years not to mention being subject to some enhanced interrogation. The deafening silence from the US and Brit media is shameful but then again we haven't been a real country since 1956 when Uncle Sam ordered us out of Suez.
I don't think he will now. If it had just been the charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion they first went for, then I think he would have gone. But now the US have added extra charges, and are going for espionage, I think it'll go through the UK courts for ages and all fall apart. And there'll be a lot of public pressure on the Home Secretary not to do it.
Ah lovely! It's all #metoo until the accusations are against someone you like or politically support.
What about justice for these 2 women? Asssange has already successfully hidden for over 5 years to avoid the lesser charges. Do they not get their day in court?
You can only call it a consipiracy if you asssume that Assange was in on the conspiracy. As otherwise, how could the Swedish prosecutors know that he'd run to the Ecuadorian embasy in order not to get extradited to Sweden under the original EAW?
It's funny that people are suggesting that Sweden is less likely to extradite Assange to the US than is the UK. The following text comes from a report found on the website of the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately it is no longer possible to provide confirmation of this, as the report in question was later removed from the website, some time between 16/12/2012 and 4/4/2013. The original link was https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115535%22]} .
"153. In short, the facts occurred in the following manner: on 18 December 2001,
Mr Agiza and Mr Alzery, Egyptian citizens seeking asylum in Sweden, were the
subject of a decision dismissing the asylum application and ordering their deportation
on grounds of security, taken in the framework of a special procedure at ministerial
level. In order to ensure that this decision could be executed that same day, the
Swedish authorities accepted an American offer to place at their disposal an aircraft
which enjoyed special over flight authorisations. Following their arrest by the
Swedish police, the two men were taken to Bromma Airport where they were
subjected, with Swedish agreement, to a 'security check' by hooded American agents.
154. The account of this 'check' is especially interesting, as it corresponds in detail
to the account given independently by other victims of 'rendition', including Mr El-
Masri. The procedure adopted by the American team, described in this case by the
Swedish police officers present at the scene, was evidently well rehearsed: the agents
communicated with each other by gestures, not words. Acting very quickly, the agents
cut Agiza's and Alzery's clothes off them using scissors, dressed them in tracksuits,
examined every bodily aperture and hair minutely, handcuffed them and shackled
their feet, and walked them to the aircraft barefoot."
Perhaps Julian Assange's concerns, and hence his behaviour, are more understandable in the light of the above?
nope, because it's a COMPLETELY different situation, scenario, setup, country, and in fact the ONLY thing linking the two, is 'sweden'.
If you want a case to compare to, try Edward Lee Howard. Now, instead of being two egyptians who wanted asylum in Sweden but had it denied because of lies they told in processing, and were sent back to the home country where that home country violated an agreement it had with Sweden...
instead howard was a CIA official who defected to the USSR (the only one to do so) and was facing espionage charges. He was detained in sweden, and an extradition request was made based on those espionage charges. Sweden said 'no', and let him go free to Finland (where he presumably went on back into Russia).
Now, for some context, while the first case has just one point of similarity - 'Sweden', Howard has a bunch, with the US wanting someone for espionage, and that person being a person of interest to the US president (who had been head of the CIA, was Vice President when the defection happened, and was facing a tough re-election campaign, which he lost) and the person was not Swedish but was visiting the country.
Agiza and Alzery's case is one often pointed to by people who don't really know the details, but had it mentioned to them, usually by people who deliberately ignore Howard, as that undermines their case. And to add another nail to the claims of the Agiza/alzery 'evilness', one of them now lives happily.... in Sweden. Who took Egypt to task over their actions, and got him back, and gave him citizenship. Funny how THAT never gets mentioned either.... Almost like someone's trying to bullshit you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
