The cat abandoned its asylum claim back in the fall of 2018. Since it was not facing any charges in Britain, it has successfully re-integrated into British society.
Swedish court rejects request to detain Julian Assange
To be honest, whatever our opinion of Assange, the Swedish charges were always bullshit.
I don’t know whether Assange is guilty of the charges in Sweden, but I am totally confident that the theories of Sweden conspiring to get Assange extradited to the United States are the most aromatic version of cow poop seen in this whole debacle.
Since the new charges have been laid by the US, it looks highly unlikely that the UK courts will ever allow him to be extradited. Or the European Court of Human Rights, if the UK is still in the EU at that time. I have no idea know how the Swedish courts would rule.
But if Assange were sent to Sweden, the UK would still have to sign off on his subsequent extradition to the US.
That means the whole concept of “getting Assange to Sweden so he can be extradited for things that the UK wouldn’t allow him to be extradited for” has always been a conspiracy theory about as plausible as the US executing a drone strike on the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Who would have to sign off on it, the British courts or only the Home Secretary?
So are you conceding that both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US, and now you’re just trying to angle in on why this is part of Trump’s evil plan?
I haven’t disputed that the UK would have to agree. Please don’t attribute imagined arguments or motives to me.
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.
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. 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.
That doesn’t mean I like Assange. It means I like the truth.
Suspects are not formally charged in Sweden until there’s been an interview. That’s applicable to all suspects:
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 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.
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.
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.
Here’s a reason the extradition process may be different: it’s two different countries with two different legal systems. You don’t exactly sound very impartial yourself.
But it doesn’t look like Sweden is going to be able to extradite him any time soon:
Julian Assange: Swedish judge rejects detention of Wikileaks founder
It’s pretty clearly a set up - for it to happen at that time. What is unclear is who stands to benefit.
I’ve said before that I don’t know if he molested the women or not. But I strongly disagree with the notion that people should be free to flee justice because they are an Internet hero to some. Further, if the case is as bad as some people assert, then why flee? (Other than conspiracy theories about the inoffensive Swedes conspiring to send him to Guantanamo or whatever.)
I also have significant reservations about the U.S. charging him with crimes that border on his activities that touch on legitimate news collection in this country. We know he took classified documents and published them – I’m very wary that he should be punished for this, as it could seriously impact the freedom of the press in this country. But if he conspired to hack passwords, or worked as a witting agent of the GRU in the whole Hillary email thing, I’m fine with him having his day in court over those kinds of activities.
Let me give some basic facts about the Swedish case.
20 Aug 2010 - two women laid a complaint.
25 Aug - Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné said there was no evidence of a crime, and dropped the case.
30 Aug - Assange was interviewed by the Stockholm police.
1 Sep - Director of Public Prosecutions Marianne Ny reopened the case.
Nothing further happened for 3½ weeks.
27 Sep - Assange notified the prosecutor’s office that he was leaving and asked if they wanted to interview him before he left. He was told they didn’t need to interview him, and he could leave.
18 Nov - An arrest warrant was issued, and they started proceedings to extradite him… in order to interview him… 
Assange was willing to return to Sweden if they would guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US. They were not prepared to give that guarantee.
They were always welcome to interview him any time in the Ecuadorian embassy, but they were not prepared to interview him in the UK.
A Swedish judge has now ruled that there is no need to extradite him, and he should be interviewed in the UK. :smack:
This seems far more diligent than how investigations are generally handled in the case of rape reports, at least in the United States –
While you’re talking about basic facts, how is it that you overlooked for so long that the lack of a formal charge at this stage of investigation is the norm for the Swedish justice system? You’ve been portraying it as evidence of a conspiracy for several years now.
But only because they don’t need to extradite him to interview him. Since he’s in British custody, they can get a European investigation order and conduct an interview while he’s held by the UK without moving him to Sweden. It doesn’t fundamentally change the process for Swedish charges, they’ll still interview him and, if they think charges are warranted, apply to extradite him when they indict him. It’s not a case where the judge said “these charges need to be dropped”, the judge just said “you don’t need to extradite him to interview him, so interview him with the process that doesn’t require extradition”.
From the cited article:
Two questions:
-
Have reliable details of the alleged “rape” action been published? I’ve seen a rumour and its basis would make a rape case pretty borderline, but I haven’t seen any substantial details from any respected news source.
-
What’s the opinion of Julian Assange in Australia? If he’s not extradited somewhere by the UK, I assume he’s going to get deported back to Australia where new extradition requests would then be filed.