"The womens statements about being stealthed were changed to sound even more serious"
"There was no rape"
Pick one. Stealthing is rape. Completely disgusting to pretend otherwise. It'd be okay if your opinion was you didn't like how authorities handled this, but that's not what you're saying.
FTFY
That's the way it goes sometimes. Not all cases are strong enough to allow justice to be done.
That doesn't mean we can then say that he definitely did what people were accusing him.
I believe he basically hid in the Ecuadorian embassy until the statute of limitations ran out.
> Swedish prosecutors have brought cases to court in absentia before
Yes, usually against heads of state for things like war crimes. I don't think there are similar cases I want you to take a moment to imagine your own outrage if Assange was tried in absentia in Sweden and found guilty. Whether or not it is technically possible, doing so would not be a legitimate option.
He entered the embassy in 2012. He was interviewed in 2016. His asylum was withdrawn in 2019. Mentioning "first half" of his stay while avoiding to mention that means he's been there for several years at that point comes across as attempting to downplay how long they waited.
Can you explain why they didn't try in 2012? Or why she didn't try while he was in UK custody prior to his bail?
The prosecutor was criticised by at least one Swedish legal expert at that time for failing to attempt to interview, and called out because she flat out lied and claimed it wasn't possible (and she herself proved that to be a lie when she several years later arranged to interview him).
By the time he was interviewed, he'd already spent far more time in a combination of English jail and stuck in the embassy than he would've spent in a Swedish prison if convicted.
By the time the rape case was dropped, the Swedish Prosecution Authority gave as a reason that "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question", but the bulk of that delay was down to the prosecutor choosing to hold off on interviewing Assange for 6 years claiming she could not do what she eventually did anyway.
The less serious parts of the case were dropped due to the statute of limitations in 2015 before the prosecutor interviewed Assange, because the prosecutor chose not to do her job.
You see why people question her motivations?
As I've said many times, I think her own political/ideological motivations are more likely to be the reason she acted this way than US involvement, but to me it appears to be a clear failure of justice intentionally caused by the prosecutor - whether to Assange or the woman in question depends on what actually happened, and we will probably never find out because this prosecutor failed to do her duty.
> I want you to take a moment to imagine your own outrage if Assange was tried in absentia in Sweden and found guilty
If the trial was conducted fairly, I would take no issue with it. Whether they'd be able to carry a case to conclusion in a fair manner without his presence is a separate matter. The issue is that they failed to try.
I think the prosecutors own justification, which she stated quite plainly is both valid and convincing:
There was very little reason to put effort and resources in conducting an interview with Assange, since he would need to return to Sweden for a fair trial to be conducted.
She was, of course, proven correct when after the interview, Assange continued to refuse to return to Sweden for a number of additional years. Had they conducted an interview after 2 weeks, the outcome would have been the same.
> You see why people question her motivations?
Given Assange's behavior, no, not really. She seems to have made a plainly correct judgement of his actions and resources, and attempted to treat Assange like any other defendant, at least until he turned the situation into an international political incident to try and avoid trial.
> If the trial was conducted fairly, I would take no issue with it.
Note how in the very next sentence you leave the door open to object to any trial on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently fair. This is my point, Assange's defenders cannot really be placated. There's always some thing to be concerned about, some reason to believe Assange is being treated uniquely unfairly. It's reminiscent of how Trump and his supporters cry out about how unfairly he's treated by the legal system, when in fact both are treated quite normally, Assange just made things worse for himself by turning himself into an international fugitive out of conspiratorial fear.
The first excuse she gave was that it wasn't possible. She lied. You're making excuses for a liar who was called out on her lies before she tried to use that other excuse.
As to the second excuse, if that true, they wouldn't have eventually bothered, but they did, nor cited the passage of time before they could secure evidence as a reason for closing the rape investigation once they had finally conducted the interviews, but they did.
They failed to do their job, and they lied about it.
> Note how in the very next sentence you leave the door open to object to any trial on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently fair.
That would apply to any trial, in any situation, with any accused. But somehow it seems to get people who try to defend the way the Assange case was handled very worked up.
> Assange's defenders cannot really be placated.
Only being prepared to accept a fair trial is not a high standard, and not one I'm willing to dispense with whomever the accused is. That this is even an issue is very telling about the attitudes involved.
> There's always some thing to be concerned about, some reason to believe Assange is being treated uniquely unfairly.
There "always is" because he's been subjected to gross human rights abuses. The attempt at using his character to justify that is nasty. The moment human rights are made conditional, they are not rights. Nobody should be treated this way.
To me, this case is very revealing. Assange isn't likeable to me. He may well have done awful things, whether or not they can be proven. I'm not arguing this because I like or support him. I'm arguing this because he has human rights like anyone else, whether or not he was guilty of rape, and whatever else he might have done or not.
This entire discussions disgusts me.
This may be the case, but I can find no evidence of such a statement having been made.
> As to the second excuse, if that true, they wouldn't have eventually bothered, but they did,
The justification was to do the interview so that they could continue to maintain the charges, which seems reasonable. Assange (nor anyone else) should not be rewarded for making themselves a fugitive to avoid a trial.
> But somehow it seems to get people who try to defend the way the Assange case was handled very worked up.
Well yes, mostly because (at least until he was actually put in jail in the UK) he wasn't actually subject to any human rights abuses or injustice. He, in fact, was treated with extreme deference and privilege compared to most people accused of crimes, and yet because of his platform people demand his kid gloves be treated with kid gloves.
You cannot claim that someone's self-imposed exile is a human rights abuse. At that time, he was not imprisoned. He could have walked outside and faced justice and, he'd likely have been free sooner and with less detriment to himself.
It is primarily because he had (as we can now see: unjustified) conspiratorial fears about getting disappeared that he suffered so much. And the majority of that was at his own hand, or as a result of him committing additional crimes to avoid facing justice for the alleged ones.
If you actually care about human rights abuses, Assange is a terrible person to platform, both because he is eminently unlikeable and because his suffered "abuses" aren't really. Someone in Riker's likely has it worse, and less ability to improve their situation.
Do not worry about his broken condom, worry about the instrumentation of the Swedish and UK legal system, at the ends of US Political conveniences...
"UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer investigated the rape accusations against Assange and said he had never before seen a comparable case where a person was subjected to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges being filed. He said Assange's lawyers made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. over unknown charges, and described such diplomatic assurances as routine international practice." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
Anyway, I see you've drunk the koolaid and are in full defense mode, so I'll leave you to it.
Note that "I will come to your soil if and only if you make such and such promise" is not deciding how their justice system should work. It just means that if they don't get the promise, they will not come to their soil. Likewise, we could point out that Sweden has no right to force someone out of their jurisdiction to turn themselves in.
> What I don't remember was any reasoning on why he thought it more likely that he'd be extradited from Sweden to the US rather than from the UK, who are particularly close?
Sweden has a history of extradition, the treaties aren't the same… and though at the time Assange wasn't formally charged by the US, if I recall correctly he did have (founded) suspicions that a grand jury was put on his case. At the time, his chances of being extradited from Sweden rather than the UK were higher.
> you've drunk the koolaid and are in full defense mode
Someone has gone full attack, and I suspect this is not just about "striking a balance".
If you were wanting to come off as less of a kook than the person you were talking to...
TLDR; Sweden turned over two Egyptians asylum seekers to the CIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
Not long before the Assange case ended, Swedish police kidnapped two asylum seekers (and yes, kidnapped is the right term - it was not an arrest, and has since been found to violate Swedish law) and handed them over to the CIA who handed them over to the regime they fled, which subsequently tortured them. The kidnapping and rendition was both a violation of Swedish law, and a violation of international treaties, and yet nothing happened to the people responsible to my knowledge.
You might see why someone who believed - rightfully, as it turned out years later - the US wanted to file charges and get their hands on him, might worry that the Swedish government would turn a blind eye to him being handed over to the US.
Whether or not he was right to fear that, it seems reasonable to believe his fear was genuine, not least because he chose to put himself in a situation that has kept him imprisoned in inhumane conditions far longer than he would've ever served if he was convicted of what he was accused of in Sweden.
But in any case, the issue isn't whether he was right, but whether he believed he'd be safer in the UK than Sweden, and I think the Swedish prosecutor did a whole lot to make him worry that something fishy was going on. I've written more than once over the years I think she was acting out of political/ideological reasons (specifically, she had a long history of fighting for much stricter treatment of rape cases) rather than due to US pressure, but the net effect was a whole string of incidents around the case that'd easily look mighty suspicious for someone worrying about the US trying to get them.
I don't know whether or not he was right to fear it, but I'm surprised he was.
Do you just not care at all that’s it’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Swedish authorities changed and made up evidence against him? There’s official documents that say this. Meanwhile your bullshit hasn’t been proven at all.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Key points include the revelation that one of the women did not accuse Assange of rape but had her statement altered by the police. This alteration occurred under instructions from higher authorities, as evidenced by an email directing the change. The case against Assange was further complicated by the involvement of a second woman, whose testimony was also questionable and possibly influenced by external influences, including a friend in the police force.
AFAICR, they showed up and said "What he did feels wrong, surely that must be some sort of crime?". She wasn't jumped and gang-raped in an alley, so she didn't know it legally counted as rape; the police helped her put the correct name to it. Doesn't seem at all as suspect as you're trying to make it.
> This alteration occurred under instructions from higher authorities, as evidenced by an email directing the change.
Oh my, someone asking their boss what to do and the boss telling them? Wow, that must be a conspiracy!
> The case against Assange was further complicated by the involvement of a second woman, whose testimony was also questionable and possibly influenced by external influences, including a friend in the police force.
Idunno, sounds like you're trying to give the impression that having two cases in stead of one should make the allegations less plausible...? Is that how you usually think about things like that; "Oh, this guy is said to have commited several burglaries, that clearly makes him less suspect than this other guy who is supposed to have committed only one"?
There is a good chance the guy would have end up suicided. There is still a good chance he meets some questionable end. Fabricating charges of what is probably the worst crime with plausible deniability you can do is more than a possibility.
Would you say the same for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till