The fact is that he was questioned before, stayed in the country and left after they allowed him to leave. Later Sweden decided to change it's mind and requested an extradition - just for questioning him, which they could easily have done locally (and, by the way, other countries do this) - which is, perhaps, not very common. And _coincidently_ this happened while Wikileaks was all over the media and the US was infuriated. I can't blame him for being worried.

Worth remembering also that the reason Sweden wanted to extradite for questioning is that if they charged him first they would have been required to actually make the evidence public and Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law.

Apologists for Sweden never seem to have read the UK high court judgment or seem familiar with the actual legal reasoning behind the extradition request. To secure extradition, the Swedish prosecutor needed to insist that Assange was only wanted for questioning (else they should charge) but since questioning alone is not a sufficient basis for extradition requests they also needed to state it was extremely likely Assange would be arrested once questioned.

It is of course nonsensical for the Swedes to refuse to question Assange in London if speaking to him were at all material to the case. As such, their refusal to do so speaks plainly to the obviously political nature of the persecution.

> Assange could then have defeated the extradition request by showing his behavior was not a crime under British law.

Extradition is only allowed if it's for a crime that's illegal in both countries. Assange's legal team repeatidly challenged the extradition on the grounds that it wasn't a crime in the UK. The UK legal system consistantly said that it was.

Remember one of the charges/claims is that he had sex with someone who was asleep. That's a crime in the UK and Sweden.

Assange has never been found guilty of a crime or even charged with one. The British legal ruling was not over guilt or innocence but simply over the bureaucratic definition of a crime. If the Swedish government reprinted the exact same request with your name on it, you would also face extradition without the ability to challenge the request on the grounds that its allegations are not factual.

This is the key point that apologists for Sweden miss. The prosecution could have charged Assange and got an extradition warrant that way. They didn't because doing so would have required a court filing and granted Assange rights to a speedy trial and freedom from indefinite detention. Interviewing Assange in London was equally impossible -- once it was done the Swedish prosecutor would have been legally required to either charge Assange or close the case. And charging the case would have required a court filing, etc. etc.....

Arguing that Assange would have been found guilty of rape also shows a lack of knowledge of the case. Despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep and has in fact made statements contradicting your claims and accusing the authorities of railroading her. I do not personally know what happened that evening, but her description is striking in showing Assange complying with every request she made. The only possible breach of consent lies in the possibility that Assange broke a condom deliberately, but this is apparently contradicted by forensic evidence which shows the breakage was due to wear and tear. Add on the woman's affectionate treatment of Assange both before and after the night in question, and the way her change in behavior followed her realization that he was sleeping with someone else, and it seems rather obvious that while Assange may have been a cad the rape allegations simply don't hold water.

> Assange has never been ... charged with one

The UK legal system says he has. In the High Court judgement[1], the judge says:

> 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

> despite what you seem to believe (who told you this?) the woman in question was not asleep

Assange is/was wanted in Sweden for 4 cases, with at least 2 different women. One of which is the charge that[1]:

> 3. ... deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide.

[1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks adequately to his goals.

> The UK legal system says...

Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations may constitute parallel crimes. Objections on factual grounds (the woman was not asleep, provided consent, relationship context, etc.) "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125)

> one of which is the charge that[1]:

Note the sleight of hand. There have been no charges.

> Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide.

The Swedish courts are not involved until Assange is charged. Until he is charged he will be imprisoned and face indefinite detention. This inconvenient point is of course ignored.

If RMC was honest and believed Assange should face trial he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime. Instead, his defense of prosecution either makes him corrupt (for demanding prosecution without reasonable evidence of wrongdoing), an obvious fool (for believing Assange will incriminate himself) or an apologist for what is clearly an abuse of due process, basic human rights and the welfare of the British and Swedish taxpayers.

> "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125)

Yes, Assange hasn't been tried. The courts want to try him, but he's avoiding them. Yes, that High Court judgement is not a trial, but Assanges challenge to the Swedish extradition request. Which was upheld, and found to be valid and legal under UK law.

> he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime

He has been charged.

> He has been charged.

"Sweden has yet to formally charge Assange with any offense." - The Guardian

"Sweden has yet to formally indict Assange." - New York Times

"Mr Assange has not been formally charged with any offense." - BBC

"Sweden does not have a time limit on how long the pre-trial stage will last or how long a person can be held in pre-trial detention.... only when an indictment is brought does the suspect acquire the formal rights of the accused." - United Nations UPR http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session...

> 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

It's almost like directly translating a word from one language and one country's legal system to a different language and a different legal system can be misleading.

If only there were some sort of body of legal experts who decided this, some sort of "court" of people to "judge" meanings.

Wow, what a febrile argument.

If there was "some sort of body of legal experts" that... wait a minute... there IS and they condemned Sweden for its routine indefinite detention of people who have yet to be formally charged IN SWEDEN.

Truly baffling why you think a British ruling on the narrow validity of an extradition request translates into formal rights in a foreign criminal system where the defendant has not been charged and the prosecutor has stated there is not enough evidence to charge him.

"questioning" is misleading. He was going to be arrested in Sweden.

It's not misleading since questioning him is exactly what they wanted to do, what they had to do first according to their own laws and what they should have done. Sweden might also like to arrest him, but as we know he did not like to be arrested and it seems Ecuador did not like it either.

There was a fairly high-profile money laundering case in the conservative party in Germany at the end of the 90's. It involved a German arms trader who lived in Canada. They wanted to question him and, had he been in Germany, he would presumably have been arrested. Alas, he was in Canada. So they made the effort to travel and question him there, if I remember correctly. (But eventually he was extradited.)

Or the Swedish investigators could have come to London and questioned him.

It's conspicuous that they didn't.

And they did when the time bar was about to approach. At that point Ecuador conveniently starts causing problems, quite why the Swedes would lie about Ecuador's demands when they could have just waited for the time bar to expire doesn't get explained.

Prior to that they were dealing with an obstructive, bail jumping individual thumbing their nose at the legal systems of two countries (the UK and Sweden). Assange appealed extradition all the way to the UK Supreme Court then decided he didn't like the outcome, quite why the responsibility is on Sweden to cave to his demands has yet to be explained.

It is fairly clear that there is an ongoing US investigation into Wikileaks and Assange.

Whilst this is ongoing, there would be risk of US extradition requests were he to leave the embassy (to Sweden or elsewhere). His best strategy is therefore to stay in the embassy for now.

> His best strategy is therefore to stay in the embassy for now.

Of course his best strategy is to avoid prosecution. That should mean we condemn him as a hypocrite, instead he has actual supporters blaming the victims!

The alleged victims are claiming no rape took place and that the police completely misinterpreted what they said, and later got railroaded by them.

The initial prosecutor dropped the charges, but another prosecutor with a political background and a radical stance on what should be considered rape appealed that decision and got herself appointed to the case. She then declined multiple requests to schedule another interview with Assange (both in-person and via phone/video conference, which Swedish law allows).

I don't understand how anyone could claim, with the facts we now know, that this case has any merit at all and is more than a politically motivated smear campaign.

Except the Swedish appeal courts have had several opportunities to review the warrant, and whilst they have reduced the severity of the allegations in 2010 they upheld it. Again in 2014 Assange went to the Swedish courts to try and get the warrant overturned and failed.

So the Swedish courts certainly don't agree that this is a case without merit.

I never claimed otherwise, and while that is factually correct, it doesn't mean any of the other things mentioned are suddenly not true. I think the fact that they reduced the severity of the allegations and even went as far as criticizing the prosecutors for not moving the investigation forward in years is quite telling as well. And while the court's decision might be legally relevant, given all the other facts and seeing how the prosecutor behaves makes it quite clear this is nothing more than a smear campaign.

I'm usually the last person to fall for any kind of conspiracy theory, but this case could literally be taken straight from one of Kafka's books. Given all the things we know about this case, and things that went on during the peak of Snowden's story (presidential planes forced to land, among others), it would be naive to think this is not politically orchestrated, and arguing on technicalities plays right into their hands.

Ecuadorian embassy invited Swedish prosecutors in 2012 for the first time. Yet Sweden has not replied for nearly a year - maybe Ecuador is not playing fair,but Sweden is not exactly trying.

What you wanted to say: "Sweden claims Ecuador starts causing ... "

But wasn't he afraid of extradition?

I never understood that. People claim "Sweden has links to NATO". Well the UK co-founded NATO and has a "special relationship" with the USA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship ). Why go the UK if you're worried about extradition to the USA?

He wasn't leaving Sweden to avoid US extradition at that point. If I recall correctly, Wikileaks was particularly busy at that time working with the Guardian on several large stories. Hence, Assange would want to be in London for that reason.

Yep. But that is often left out. (No accusation intended. It's just something people forget.)

They don't forget. They leave it out on purpose because it destroys their argument.

Oh. If only he'd have done this thing that I'm telling you, without mentioning the well known reason why he is against doing that thing!

Well he became afraid of extradition conveniently at the point at which he was facing extradition. Before then he was quite happy to spend lots of time in the West apparently unconcerned by the threat. Something that is often left out...

The UK was happy to extradite him to Sweden, we extradite people to the US as long as they aren't going to be executed. So quite why the UK extraditing him to Sweden who would then extradite him to the US is a plausible conspiracy never really gets explained.

In the UK extraditions, especially ones to the US, are usually won or lost in the court of public opinion. I suspect that Assange feels he would have a better chance of resisting extradition in the UK than in Sweden.

See the case of Gary McKinnon as an example (although McKinnon had much stronger grounds to appeal on than I expect Assange would)

Particularly since he could still appeal back to the UK if Sweden tried to extradite him.

Also weird this wasn't an argument he brought up while fighting the initial extradition to Sweden.

In fairness, most people only become afraid of something when they're facing it.

As for the conspiracy theory, maybe it was the product of paranoid thinking. A more obvious conspiracy theory to me is that the US saw an opportunity to smear Assange and lent on Sweden to trump up the charges.

And yet the best they could do was 'these girls who said that he had quasi consensual ('I was sleeping') sex with them and want him to do a HIV test'?

That's a pretty low bar for a smear campaign.

He was at more risk of extradition to the US from the UK than he was from Sweden

Says who? Sweden? The UK? Assange? The US?

UK is in Five Eyes, Sweden is not. The UK is a co-founding member of NATO, Sweden is not in NATO. The USA & UK have a "special relationship", Sweden & USA don't. UK helped the USA invade Iraq, Sweden did not.

Half of which if not all of which had absolutely no bearing on whether or not Sweden were more or less likely to extradite Assange as a result of pressure to do so by the US.

The "special relationship" is not a cover-all term for the US & UK to do anything on a promise like a teen couple in love. It covers a lot of military and trade stuff, which wikileaks is a part of, but in this case Sweden clearly acted as a player in a larger game. Assange seems to have presumed an ulterior motive in the charges brought against him and proceeded accordingly.

People have claimed that "Sweden has links to NATO" as a reason why Sweden might extradite Assange to USA[1]. So, yes, the fact that the UK co-founded NATO is very definitly relevant.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988782

Is Sweden a member of "Five Eyes" ?

No, it is made up of anglophone countries (Canada, UK, US, New Zealand, Australia)

But is still a close ally of the US when it comes to intelligence.

Obviously he couldn't. He needed refuge from oppressive governments which he now has at the Ecuadorian embassy.

Ecuador isn't exactly known as a bastion of freedom.

Neither is the US.

Ignorance and arrogance make a terrible combination.

The reason he didn't travel to Sweden to just get it over with is because Sweden was planning to extradite him.

Yup they do so where is your evidence he was going to be extradited from Sweden to the US?

You need to read the UK High Court ruling. As is explained there, if Sweden had sufficient evidence to charge Assange in absentia they could do so and issue a European Arrest Warrant. The problem is that this would require the prosecution to demonstrate probable cause and proportionality to a public Swedish court:

> Under Swedish law the issue of a domestic detention order in absentia was a precondition to the issue of an EAW. That order was issued by a court which... had to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause and that domestic arrest was proportionate.

The Swedish prosecution (a political appointee) is claiming she cannot demonstrate probable cause without interviewing Assange, and yet she refuses to interview him. Leaving aside the absurdity of any reasonable person thinking that any interview will give the Swedish authorities the smoking gun they obviously lack, from a legal standpoint the only sensible explanation for their behavior is that it allows the option of extraditing without public judicial consideration of probable guilt and proportionality of prosecution. Couple that with the very obvious irregularity of the prosecution, the very real prospect of Assange facing indefinite detention in Sweden and the refusal to offer any guarantees against hand-over to the States and there is plenty of evidence that his concerns are very well founded.

That explains a possible UK -> Sweden extradition, not a Sweden -> US extradition.

As stated above, you need to read the UK Court Ruling at a minimum, since there is no point in discussion if you are not familiar with even the basic legal issues involved. And once you are done that you should read up on Swedish extradition policies.

The fact that extradition is legally possible and the Swedish prosecution is proceeding against all common reason and established judicial practice in the only way that keeps it possible is very much "probable cause" as regards the motives of the Swedish prosecution and thus constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that Assange's concerns about extradition to the United States are sensible.

Is this the ruling you're talking about? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

The paragraphs are conveniently numbered. Which one discusses extradition to the United States?

Section 142 and particularly sections 7 through 10 are all about extradition. The reveal is the defense of Assange's case as being in the "preliminary investigation" stage and the catch-22 logic used to justify the Swedish refusal to move beyond it. As any schoolboy can find out by reading up on the matter, it is critical for extradition to the US that the investigation does not pass this stage, since actually charging Assange would give him legal protections which make extradition difficult, some of which are even outlined for you in Section 144.

Of course, since your objection is disingenuous (you cannot possibly be so naive as to believe that the Swedish prosecutor will publicly state that her goal is to indefinitely detain a suspect), let us just force your actual beliefs into the open: (1) why do you believe that an interview with Assange will provide the Swedish prosecutor evidence to prosecute if she doesn't already have it? (2) why do you coonsider it reasonable to extradite someone who has never been charged with a crime to answer questions instead of asking them over the telephone, Skype or in person?

Not even the UK High Court considered the Swedish position reasonable (see Section 160), so it is hard to imagine any sentient person coming to the opposite conclusion.

It raises the question of what Sweden really wants. They admit to not having evidence of his guilt, and they don't have a real plan to get evidence. So why do they want him in their territory so badly?

A few years ago, I would have said it was pure paranoia/conspiracy theory to suspect Sweden would extradite Assange.

However, look at what happened to Snowden, stuck at the Moscow airport, because no country in the world (bar Ecuador and Cuba, I think) was brave enough to take him (fearing US wrath). The pressure from the US was immense.

At some point a plane flying from Moscow to Ecuador (via Paris) was intercepted and forced to land in Vienna, because it was suspected that Snowden was on it. An out-in-your-face violation of international law.

So, it is now completely reasonable to assume that, if "asked", Sweden would extradite Assange to the US, where he is a wanted man.

The cases aren't really comparable. No matter what you think of Snowden, he definitely broke US law in a pretty serious way. Assange is a publisher, as far as anyone can tell he's not broken any US laws.

This is all about finding a convenient law to exert political power, not legal comparability.

From The Guardian: "The US government is conducting an active, long-term criminal investigation into WikiLeaks, a federal judge has confirmed in court documents"

Feinstein (and other Congressmen/Senators) wanted Assange – who isn’t even a U.S. citizen and never served in the U.S. Government – prosecuted for espionage for exposing war crimes.

More here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/05/us-government-s...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/12/dianne-feinste...

So why stay in the UK? While appealing the extradition to Sweden, he was happy to stay in the UK. It was only when the UK legal system said that he had to go to Sweden that he went to Ecudarian embassy?