Sitting in some embassy for years, without any possibility of having this time count towards a possible sentence.
Edit. I think that if Julian does now come to Sweden then he won't be extradited to the USA, but this is only because he has dragged it out to the point that nobody powerful in the USA cares too much anymore. My guess is he knows this too and will walk out any time now.
Yes, Swedens' intelligence community collaborates with their US counterpart.
Sweden has also in the past extradited suspected terrorists. But there's a huge caveat there; they did so in /secret/ — and most importantly — the people involved were not Swedish citizens.
Understand that if Julian were to come to Sweden, and get extradited to the US it would be a HUGE deal.
The protests would be so massive it's not even funny.
The only reason why the current situation hasn't been a bigger thing in Sweden is that it clashes with the semi-radical feministic narrative driven by the media.
Unfortunately for Julian he is not a Swedish citizen.
Since Julian has yet to be charged with anything and the Swedish authorities apparently just want to talk to him why can't they get on a Ryan Air flight and come and talk to him in London? Provide a rational answer for this question and I will believe that Julian is not looking a one way trip to the USA.
Purely political. To make a statement.
I can of course not prove this; nor have anyone else been able to as far as I know.
But, that said, I think it's a non sequitur that the current situation, which at least in my mind can only be understood by either absolute incompetence from the prosecution or being under political pressure, would also lead to extradition.
I would absolutely go so far as to say that extraditing him from Sweden would severely impact the relationship between the US and Sweden.
If police ever indicate that you're wanted on suspicion of a crime, try telling them you'll agree to help them with their enquiries so long as they agree that you set up the interview environment and they can't take you into custody afterwards. I guarantee they won't accede to your request, even if you've never leaked a diplomatic cable in your life.
Now provide us with a rational answer as to why those same Swedish authorities let him walk around freely and even leave the country after tipping him off about the allegations if their primary motivation was a one-way ticket to the USA?
So in order to dictate "how and when" one can be questioned by the police, as a fugitive you first have to get political asylum in a other nations embassy, sit there for 3 years, and then have the statue of limitation reaching into the last 3 months, and the total cost of the police operation should be around $10 millions.
The risk that this "precedent" should impact even a single fugitive interview in the next 100 years is likely to be small, or actually very small.
Regardless whether or not the motivation is a one-way ticket to the USA, the answer to why they let him walk around freely and leave the country is simple:
It was not the same people.
The current prosecutor intervened in highly unusual manner after the previous prosecutor had indicated there clearly was no crime.
Whether or not that is because of US involvement or, say, her own personal political point-scoring is another matter, but to present it as if it was the "same people" driving the decision to free him initially and the decision to pursue him afterwards is misleading at best.
People like GCHQ employees:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-...
What do you know that they don't?
The GCHQ employees were speculating. As am I, of course.
Their speculation is relevant, yours is not.
Why does nobody stop and think why has Julian self-incarcerated for longer than he would have faced if he was actually convicted of the crimes he has been accused of?
That to me indicates that at the very least his reluctance to go to Sweden is not mainly about the risk of being convicted, but that he sincerely believes in the concerns about extradition (legal or otherwise) to the US. Whether or not those concerns are justified is a separate matter.
Personally I think most of the odd things about this case can be explained by political ambitions on behalf of the prosecutor rather than US involvement - she's known to have long wanted to tighten up Swedish rape legislation even further and could very well have been looking for a case that would be high profile to try to push the envelope without having realised how Assange's fear of the US would make him react. (This doesn't imply anything about whether he's guilty or not)
It's about who want him for the Wikileaks stuff -- which is what this case is all about too, and why it can go bad.
The case was closed and re-opened if I'm not mistaken especially because it was Assange. I'm also quite sure Ecuador wouldn't wanna shelter a rapist.
So given the dynamics at play, it's safe to assume that there's more than a rape charge at stake.
Only if it plans on handing him over. So, no. If anything it's a wonderful gesture from Ecuador that puts the country in WORSE bargaining position with the US.
>Ecuador isn't some bastion of liberty
It never helped establish dictatorships in other countries, so it has that going for it.
I, like I. F. Stone, also don't start from a middle-class-apolitical assumption that the police are always good guys and governments don't lie and frame people, especially when it comes to activists.
Could I be wrong? Sure, but I don't think so.
[1]the only possible upside from a conspirator's point of view of having the allegation be so borderline the Swedish authorities showed reluctance to move forward with prosecution is that it seems to have provoked some of Assange's more outspoken supporters into endorsing embarrassingly misogynist sentiments.
But that does not mean that I can't at the same time think the prosecution is acting in bizarre manners in this case and that something does not add up, though I don't think it's necessarily down to US involvement.
My guess is that yes, there was a dispute, or at least the women had regrets, and that Ny saw an opportunity to further her own political agenda and grabbed it. No prior conspiracy required - just two badly treated women coupled with a prosecutor who saw an opportunity to score some political points.
At the same time I think Assange genuinely fears that there is US involvement, and that this fear has in part been fuelled by the way Ny has acted in this case.
Of course this is total speculation.
And of course, the lack of a conspiracy does not rule out that US authorities might take advantage if they get the opportunity, but in the meantime having Assange holed up in his embassy would seem like it'd also likely suit them just fine. They know where he is, and his reputation has taken a serious hit.
You'd be surprised. In Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America (that I know of) there are tons of examples (that were later exposed in court and press) of governments doing it (framing people or lying) in exactly a vague and convoluted manner, and with extreme crudeness and arrogance.
In the sixties/seventies Sweden had a far more radical/left wing government most of the period than it has ever had since. First under Tage Erlander (social democrat; "founder" of large parts of the Swedish welfare system) and his successor, Olof Palme, which was even more left wing.
Olof Palme's harsh criticism of the Vietnam war was indeed a watershed moment in making criticism of the US involvement in Vietnam politically acceptable in Europe and in particular in the Scandinavian countries.
But Sweden has never been as left wing again as it was up until Palme was assassinated.
One of the accusers is Anna Ardin... read up on her.
She's a Jihadi-apologising nut job and an left-wing extremist from "Tro och Solidaritet" which does propaganda for Muslim Brotherhood.
Her close friends from MMRK (Swedish CAGE) have been downplaying ISIS rape on children as "American propaganda" until founder Fathima Doubakhil deleted her tweets when Mehmet Kaplan "ISIS are freedom-fighters" got elected in the last election.
Yeah I am aware of the concept "Victim Blaming" but Wikileaks has been tough on Muslim Brotherhood which gives Ardin an angle.
She's a scumbag, regardless of Assanges alleged crime.
However, for what I remember, the rape accusations are ridiculous (though sound for the Swedish law). The alleged rape victim voluntarily hosted Assange in her house and her bed for days after the the alleged rape had happened. The Swedish law appears to be calling rape what in sane countries is just called regret and second thought.
Also keep in mind that a UK judge too agreed that assuming that the allegations are as described by the Swedish prosecutor, and that these allegations are true it would be a crime in the UK too.
So what the prosecutors allege certainly goes beyond regret and second thought. Whether or not the prosecutors can substantiate those allegations in any way, is another matter.
Second, you can have consensual sex one time and then rape the second.
However Assange is not the innocent person that some people want him to be either.
From the ruling of Judge Howard Riddle in Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority:
> If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also.
That's not really true. Sweden _isn't supposed to_ extradite him without the UK's consent. But is the UK going to go to war over it? If not, then really Sweden can do whatever it pleases.
"The most important point is that as long as it is externally marked to show its status, the "bag" has diplomatic immunity from search or seizure,[2] as codified in article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag
Now reconcile that information with this new seemingly contradictory information:
"Action required – Assange to be arrested under all circumstances," reads a handwritten briefing note photographed in the hands of one of the officers surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy. The note says Assange is to be arrested if he leaves the embassy in the company of another diplomat or if the Ecuadorians try and smuggle him out in the diplomatic bag."
And even better, they contradict themselves on this policy from the get-go:
"When it comes to its own diplomatic materials, however, the British government takes a harder line. It issued a strong protest when the sanctity of its own diplomatic bag was violated by Zimbabwean authorities in 2000."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assa...
People violate the Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations regularly it seems when it suits their purposes. The idea that Sweden is somehow prevented from doing something inside her own borders because of some toothless international "law" (what is the punishment for failing to abide by the agreement?) is laughable at best and incredibly disingenuous at worst.
Political prisoners? No, that's absolute bullshit.
Stop parroting other people without checking your facts.
The UK has extradited multiple people to the US. Your narrative is incorrect.
And what documented history?