View Single Post
Old 06-04-2019, 08:12 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,130
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
There must be some reason why Sweden has been pursuing this so intensely for so long. I assume you know that no charges have ever been laid against Assange in Sweden. All this is about investigating whether or not charges should be laid.
Suspects are not formally charged in Sweden until there's been an interview. That's applicable to all suspects:
It is a feature of Swedish criminal procedure that a person is formally charged – through an indictment – at a relatively late stage of the process. As pointed out above, this takes place when the preliminary investigation is to terminate. This differs quite markedly from legal systems in which a person is charged on a lower degree of suspicion and is then detained or given bail while the police or prosecution authorities continue with the investigation. It is therefore not at all unusual for the Swedish Public Prosecutor to issue an European arrest warrant or a request for extradition of a suspect, before making a decision to indict the person. This does not detract from the fact that the request nonetheless is made for the purpose of prosecution, albeit that there is no actual indictment. The distinction between the overall process of prosecution (lagföring) and the actual act of prosecuting a person through indictment may be a source of confusion for foreign lawyers who only have access to translated texts of the Swedish legislation.

And yet for years, you have asserted that something is rotten in Stockholm because the Swedes didn't change their entire system of prosecution for Assange.

I don't know what the Swedish laws on extradition or freedom of the press are, but if they are less stringent than the UK, and if only the UK Home Secretary has to sign off on extradition to a third country, then it may well be easier to extradite him from Sweden.
I see no reason why the extradition process would be any different. If you want to pursue this, bring cites. And not "a-ha the flag has GOLD FRINGE on it meaning Assange's case will be heard in a maritime court!" sort of cites.

Charges which are not actually serious, despite the continual repetition of 'rape'. There has never been any dispute that the sex was consensual, and that both women remained on good terms with him for days after the alleged incidents.
I've heard a better translation of the charges is "molestation." If you prefer, I'll use that term in the future if you will.

That doesn't mean I like Assange. It means I like the truth.
Well, your mind has been thoroughly made up that he's been framed for several years now, so let's not pretend you'd be an impartial juror.

Last edited by Ravenman; 06-04-2019 at 08:14 AM.