5 ms·

There is an article from a Swedish tabloid which could be of interest [1], unfortunately only available in Swedish AFAIK. The reason this article is of interest

by znfi 7y ago

There is an article from a Swedish tabloid which could be of interest [1], unfortunately only available in Swedish AFAIK. The reason this article is of interest is mainly that it shows that the Swedish prosecutors seem to be extremely reluctant to issue arrest warrants for people in other EU countries. In summary, and I hope I do not misrepresent the article too much, a man from Sweden went on a one-day cruise to the Åland Islands. After being out partying on the ship he goes back to his cabin. On his way there he meets two musicians (temporarily) employed by the cruise company and somehow get into a fight with them. (The article is very sparse on details on how the fight started, for the record.) Note that the fight takes place in front of a CCTV camera, and supposedly one can see on the surveillance photos one of the musicians taking charge and stomping the victim five times in the head, with full force. After briefly leaving, the musicians then returns and kicks him in the face, twice. The article then discusses the subpar response from the security guards employed by the cruise company. The musicians are later arrested by the Åland police, their identities checked, but are later released. According to the article they are released because the possible crime was committed in Swedish territory and they are not Finnish citizens [2]. The musicians then return home to Ireland. However, Swedish police or prosecutors do not seem interested in investigating this case. When pressed on why the prosecutor does not issue an arrest warrant for the men, their identities and whereabouts are supposedly known, he responds by saying that the Swedish prosecutor authority cannot go chasing people all across Europe and they only issue arrest warrants for very serious crimes, like murder. To summarize the timeline. These events took place in October 2009, if I understand correctly. The Assange case started in August 2010. The news paper article was published in late October 2010. So, according to this tabloid story, this is an open and shut case for a fairly serious crime, and still the prosecutor authority cannot even be arsed to issue an arrest warrant. At the same time they keep Assange locked in an embassy far longer than he could even be sentenced to for the crime he is accused of commiting. And the Assange case certainly seems much more flimsy, I'm not even sure what he is accused of, exactly. But it certainly seems to boil down to some he-said, she-said situation that will be completely impossible to get to the bottom of. IIRC he can at most be sentenced to 4 years in prison for the sex crimes he is accused of in Sweden. But in practice he will be released after serving two thirds of this sentence, so he would spend at most 2.6 years in prison. Note also that it seems to me EXTREMLY unlikely that he would recieve a sentence of 4 years, at the very most 2 years but 1 year seems more probable. So if he just left the embassy, went to Sweden and lost the case, then he would most likely be a free man after just 8 months. So his actions certainly seem to indicate that he fears something more than just being found guilty of "less-severe rape". (Sounds a bit weird but is the crime he is accused of IIUC.) Just to reiterate, he has spent close to 7 years in the embassy for a crime which he would quite likely serve 8 months in prison for. With the caveat that I am now a lawyer, and whatnot. Quite possibly I've screwed something up in this last part of the analysis. Edit: To further clarify the point, I guess it is that there is maybe not anything wrong with how he is being treated if one looks at this case in isolation. But when one combines this with how other cases seem to be handled, as well as considering proportionality, things are less clear. [1]: https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/ka8ndv/har-sparkar-han-pa-sitt-liggande-offer https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/ka8ndv/har-sparkar-han-... [2]: The Åland islands belong to Finland.

gamblor956 7y ago
At the same time they keep Assange locked in an embassy far longer than he could even be sentenced to for the crime he is accused of commiting. It was Assange's choice to go the embassy, to request asylum, and to remain there for 7 years. Nobody made him do that. And the Assange case certainly seems much more flimsy, I'm not even sure what he is accused of, exactly. But it certainly seems to boil down to some he-said, she-said situation that will be completely impossible to get to the bottom of. Possibly. Assange fled to the embassy when he was informed he would be extradited to Sweden to face an investigation. One of the weird things about Swedish law is that back then it might not have allowed criminal investigations in absentia. So his actions certainly seem to indicate that he fears something more than just being found guilty of "less-severe rape". (Sounds a bit weird but is the crime he is accused of IIUC.) This answer is actually known. If he had been found guilty of rape in Sweden, he would have been deported back to Australia (since he is an Australian citizen). And Australia has no restrictions on extradition to the US, such as the exception for capital charges commonly found in the EU. But when one combines this with how other cases seem to be handled, as well as considering proportionality, things are less clear. This one is easy. That was actually Swedish policy (and possibly actually Swedish law) back then not to pursue criminal cases against foreigners outside of Sweden, and they applied this same policy to Assange as well. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-interviewed-over-allegations-sexual-assault/8021186 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-...] But then the prosecutor got absolutely railed in Sweden for letting an accused rapist escape justice simply because he fled the jurisdiction. Unlike the Aland Islands case, in which the suspects were arrested but permitted by authorities to return home, Assange simply left...and that makes all the difference. It's one thing for someone to escape justice because authorities fucked up. But it's another thing to let someone escape justice simply because they decided to opt out of the process.
- znfi 7y ago
  As explained in the answer to a sibling post, the question of if he is "locked" in the embassy or not seems mostly a philosophical one. Just imagine I used a different word if you do not like it. The point I tired to make when I wrote this was that in some cases the Swedish prosecutor authority felt it was too inconvenient to even file European Arrest Warrants in the first place, and a prosecutor saying that this was only done in stuff like murder cases. Then in another case they are keeping a guy in house arrest for 7 years. I made this comment in reply to a request for how Assange was being treated differently compared to other people. The second point about criminal investigations in absentia mostly seems like a "fun fact", and I dont really see anything I can reply to. Sorry if I'm missing something here. Regarding the third point, yes, that was my whole point that Assange has shown that he seems to have genuine fear of being the victim of some form of human rights violations should he be extradited to the US. Since if he had no such fears, he could go to Sweden, and even if he loses the case he would be out walking in maybe as little as 8 months. Now he has spent 7 years in an embassy. It seems to me clear that he has demonstrated that he is not hiding in the embassy because he is afraid of the rape allegations in Sweden. If his fears are justified or not, I am not in a position to give any kind of serious answer to. I am unable to find any support in the linked article that Sweden did not pursue criminal cases against foreigners outside of Sweden. But if you have any such evidence, and that there was a policy change with regards to Assange, then this is highly relevant in that it shows that Assange is not treated the same as others. In the tabloid article I linked the prosecutor seem to claim that for example in murder cases an international arrest warrant would be issued. I'm not sure in what sense the prosecutor was railed for letting Assange go. And if so, which prosecutory? In fact, the Åland island case and Assange seem rather similar. Assange too was permitted to leave Sweden, according to the article you linked [1] [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-interviewed-over-allegations-sexual-assault/8021186 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-... Section "What happened next?", relevant paragraph "By the time a Swedish court ruled that Mr Assange should be detained for questioning, he had flown back to London (after being granted permission to do so by Swedish authorities). "

by znfi 7y ago

gamblor956 7y ago

At the same time they keep Assange locked in an embassy far longer than he could even be sentenced to for the crime he is accused of commiting. It was Assange's choice to go the embassy, to request asylum, and to remain there for 7 years. Nobody made him do that. And the Assange case certainly seems much more flimsy, I'm not even sure what he is accused of, exactly. But it certainly seems to boil down to some he-said, she-said situation that will be completely impossible to get to the bottom of. Possibly. Assange fled to the embassy when he was informed he would be extradited to Sweden to face an investigation. One of the weird things about Swedish law is that back then it might not have allowed criminal investigations in absentia. So his actions certainly seem to indicate that he fears something more than just being found guilty of "less-severe rape". (Sounds a bit weird but is the crime he is accused of IIUC.) This answer is actually known. If he had been found guilty of rape in Sweden, he would have been deported back to Australia (since he is an Australian citizen). And Australia has no restrictions on extradition to the US, such as the exception for capital charges commonly found in the EU. But when one combines this with how other cases seem to be handled, as well as considering proportionality, things are less clear. This one is easy. That was actually Swedish policy (and possibly actually Swedish law) back then not to pursue criminal cases against foreigners outside of Sweden, and they applied this same policy to Assange as well. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-interviewed-over-allegations-sexual-assault/8021186 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-...] But then the prosecutor got absolutely railed in Sweden for letting an accused rapist escape justice simply because he fled the jurisdiction. Unlike the Aland Islands case, in which the suspects were arrested but permitted by authorities to return home, Assange simply left...and that makes all the difference. It's one thing for someone to escape justice because authorities fucked up. But it's another thing to let someone escape justice simply because they decided to opt out of the process.

znfi 7y ago
As explained in the answer to a sibling post, the question of if he is "locked" in the embassy or not seems mostly a philosophical one. Just imagine I used a different word if you do not like it. The point I tired to make when I wrote this was that in some cases the Swedish prosecutor authority felt it was too inconvenient to even file European Arrest Warrants in the first place, and a prosecutor saying that this was only done in stuff like murder cases. Then in another case they are keeping a guy in house arrest for 7 years. I made this comment in reply to a request for how Assange was being treated differently compared to other people. The second point about criminal investigations in absentia mostly seems like a "fun fact", and I dont really see anything I can reply to. Sorry if I'm missing something here. Regarding the third point, yes, that was my whole point that Assange has shown that he seems to have genuine fear of being the victim of some form of human rights violations should he be extradited to the US. Since if he had no such fears, he could go to Sweden, and even if he loses the case he would be out walking in maybe as little as 8 months. Now he has spent 7 years in an embassy. It seems to me clear that he has demonstrated that he is not hiding in the embassy because he is afraid of the rape allegations in Sweden. If his fears are justified or not, I am not in a position to give any kind of serious answer to. I am unable to find any support in the linked article that Sweden did not pursue criminal cases against foreigners outside of Sweden. But if you have any such evidence, and that there was a policy change with regards to Assange, then this is highly relevant in that it shows that Assange is not treated the same as others. In the tabloid article I linked the prosecutor seem to claim that for example in murder cases an international arrest warrant would be issued. I'm not sure in what sense the prosecutor was railed for letting Assange go. And if so, which prosecutory? In fact, the Åland island case and Assange seem rather similar. Assange too was permitted to leave Sweden, according to the article you linked [1] [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-interviewed-over-allegations-sexual-assault/8021186 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-... Section "What happened next?", relevant paragraph "By the time a Swedish court ruled that Mr Assange should be detained for questioning, he had flown back to London (after being granted permission to do so by Swedish authorities). "