Julian Assange (remember him?) update

Really? Can you point to a few people who have said this?

I don’t think he should get a free pass for his alleged crime. But he has not been charged. He is wanted for questioning. He has not been questioned in five years. Yet it’s solely Assange’s fault these women have been denied justice?

Do Swedish police not have long distance telephone service? Can they not fly over and question him in person? Don’t give me that “sovereignty” bullshit. Charge him with a crime or leave him alone. Until then I’m going to rightly view this as a witch hunt.

Ahem.

I read the thread and it doesn’t clarify. Do Swedish police have telephones? Why can’t they use them?

The suspect interview is an integral and required part of a Swedish criminal charging document. It’s not like the US where they can charge anyone with anything whenever they feel like it. So the interview must conform to a specific set of standards, and there is likely no precedent for this sort of situation. I suspect the Swedish prosecutors are worried that if they interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy he will later seek to dismiss the charges on the grounds that he was being impermissibly detained when the interview occurred.

“Sovereignty bullshit”? There are three countries involved in this. Why? Because that asshole Assange committed crimes in Sweden, tried to hide in England, and then chose to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. Yes, it is solely Assange’s fault these women have been denied justice. It’s also solely Assange’s fault that Britain and Ecuador have to deal with Assange’s horseshit. Assange is free to leave Ecuador at any time. And he’s free to hop a flight to Sweden at any time.

And Swedish police are not free to leave Sweden or hop a flight to England? Or pick up a phone? How is a cop calling or visiting a person in the UK a sovereignty issue?

So they’d rather not question him at all and certainly lose the case than question him, charge him, and attempt to bring him to justice for his alleged crimes? Not seeing the logic there.

What if, say, some big American publisher of Anti-Russian literature is accused by Russian police of drunk driving? You think the word of a single unnamed Russian should be adequate grounds for shipping an American citizen half way across the world into the hands of Putin, who vocally thinks this guy should be in a Siberian prison camp over what he has published?

Sorry, American citizen or no, I’m going to want more evidence than that to hand a man over to a powerful regime that hates him. Charge him with something first, at the very least. Show me the evidence or try him elsewhere.

You want that Sweden should rewrite its constitution just for the sake of making it easier to question one guy wanted on a minor sex charge?

Sweden is a powerful regime that hates Assange?

Well, you know what the moose there are like.

Every government is powerful. Every government hates Assange. If they’re constitutionally required to extradite a person before they can even charge him with a crime, yes, they should change that, because that is a stupid rule. Or else just accept that the system they have chosen failed them in this particular case.

Cite?

They’re not “required” to do any such thing. It is Assange that has forced the government down this path by making himself a fugitive rather than facing justice. You may as well insist that the US government was wrong to not unilaterally abolish the death penalty because it stood in the way of Ira Einhorn’s extradition for a non-capital crime.

If they aren’t required to extradite him in order to charge him, why haven’t they charged Assange? Where is the evidence? Where is the criminal charge? It’s just an international fishing expedition.

Even some random Joe Blow shouldn’t be required to take a few thousand mile trip any time someone in another country wants to talk to him. That’s what phones are for. If they want me to take these criminal charges seriously, they can actually charge him with a crime. Until then it should be treated with no more legitimacy than it would if random unnamed people in foreign countries accused me or you of a crime. Words are easy. Put up the evidence and publicly make a criminal charge, or I’ll continue to treat it like a joke.

If a random unnamed country issues a warrant for your arrest, your continued freedom is solely a matter of what your host country chooses to do with you. Your defense against trumped up charges in tin-pot dictatorships is not changing those countries’ laws. It’s the laws of your own country that prevent extradition by pretext. The fact that you don’t think English courts - of all the places Assange could have been - will protect Assange from extradition if the charges are bogus suggests you aren’t going to accept that any prosecution is valid anyway.

They are required by law to interview him before charges can be filed.

Haven’t you gotten this yet?

Yes, which is why it baffled me that you just said they weren’t required to in your previous post.

It’s a dumb rule and it has failed them in this case. If anyone else thinks any country ought to be able to summon the citizens of another country across the world based on nothing but one person’s accusation, you’re wrong. I’m not sure what else I can say. I don’t really give a shit about the bureaucratic details or fine print here. I care about right and wrong, and what Sweden is trying to do here is wrong. Charge him with a crime or don’t.

DrCube, for one.

This reads as if “extradite” and “interview” are being used as synonyms.

I wouldn’t read too much into whether a particular poster really means “interview” or “extradite.” We just had someone suggest that Sweden revise its criminal justice system so that Assange isn’t inconvenienced in any substantial way. Particulars of the legal process is way too in the weeds for discussions like this.