So if they interviewed him by videolink and found that he should be charged, what would he do? Submit to be tried by a Swedish jury?

And in a society with an independent judiciary, politicians can and should not have any control as to how the judiciary would deal with a hypothetical extradition request. What would your proposal be so that these women have access to justice?

Nick, while I understand your desire for justice for the two women involved your comments suggest that you might be a bit blinkered by that to be honest. (IMO).

Nobody has established as yet if there is even a case to answer – but the only person who has had any restrictions on their freedom is Assange.

You cannot deny that this is being forced to change opinion on Assange, to demonise and discredit before there are even charges.

If the Swedes wanted to move this on, they could have accepted the interview by videolink and charged him. You really need to ask why they haven’t done that.

Well, I’ve read the statements of his defence team and there is clearly a case to answer. From what they themselves have admitted (and I REALLY doubt they’re American stooges), there is clearly a case to be made.

And I have asked that. To give you background, I specialise in sexual offence law and from those doing the same work in Sweden, I have been told they actually cannot charge someone until they are on Swedish territory. Swedish law requires a questioning before charging, and both should occur in Sweden. Despite what you are saying about videolink, how exactly would he plan to submit to trial if charged?

What you should be asking is “what is Assange’s motivation to mislead in this?” The government most likely has plenty of ulterior motives, but he obviously has a strong interest in presenting this as a work of pure fiction (which even his defence team has not sustained) and that he is being set up.

Again, I don’t know if he did it, but I know there is clearly an answerable case. Have you read the UK courts decision on this? I found it very illuminating. Unfortunately, I think you are being a bit naive and unwilling to accept that Assange has just as much reason to mislead as the government and so statements by both should be heavily questioned.

If he is found to have committed these crimes by Swedish prosecutors, then he can be charged and the ball starts rolling. What we have now by the Swedish authorities is smoke and mirrors. Assange wants certainty and has said on a number of occasions that he is willing to answer for these allegations.

Then why did he refuse to meet with them face to face? Are you familiar with Swedish sexual offence law which requires the interview before charging?

I don’t think I’ve said anything different to that – I don’t know about his guilt or innocence but it can’t be denied that there are bigger things happening here and IMO the international pursuit of him is disproportionate.

Well, we can agree that I would love if everyone accused of sexual offences was pursued so vigorously! As we’ve seen in Ireland, wealthy and powerful people often seem to fall through the cracks in these kinds of cases. While I would oppose extradition to the US, I don’t think it’s ever ok to just ignore rape claims. Because while I don’t know if the US would seek to immediately extradite him (there’s a decent arguement to be made that it suits the US just as well for him to be tried for rape as welll), I do know that if he doesn’t return to Sweden, these women will not have these allegations investigated.

To ask you, do you honestly believe he has any intention of returning to Sweden if charged? Because I very much doubt he would, even if he was convicted.

I have no idea – but if he didn’t then he’d be widely criticised and rightly so. If there is a case to answer then he should answer it. I don’t think this case should be used as leverage to get Assange to Sweden from where America will most likely try to extradite him.

I do get where you’re coming from (unless of course, as implied above, I am a CIA plant) and I would ABSOLUTELY oppose extradition to the US. But my problem is that at this point, that’s something which isn’t certain to be played out due to a lot variables (US might wait to seek it, Sweden might not grant it, both might prefer him to be tried for these allegations) while if he doesn’t answer questions, rape allegations will CERTAINLY be ignored. I just can’t see how possible future extradition cancels out the very real current risk of these women not being able to have their quite serious rape claims fully investigated.

I absolutely agree with you. I would actively oppose any extradition to the US. But I think all allegations of rape should be seriously investigated and answered.

Yaaaay let’s back muslim fundamentalists states, Irish politicians, African dictators, the catholic church, terrorists everywhere, south american regimes, Russian jail pop group leaders, china civil rights, north korean mad men and then vile the US and UK.

Get a grip man!

Well, it matters to me. And it seems to be putting the cart before the horse. You cannot with any certainty say that he will definitely be taken to the US. If they try to extradite him there, I too will oppose it. But you don’t seem to have any concern for the fact that as it currently stands, there is a serious violation of the women’s free trial rights.

Perhaps yoy didn’t read what I wrote Nick . It the US, Sweden and the UK that are not concerned about these womens trial rights. I am concerned hense my reason for posting.

So how would you recommend that they do get a fair trial?

Get the US secretary of state Clinton to confirm publically that they will not attempt to extradite or use extordinary rendition methods to get him to the US and will allow him to be tried in Sweden safe from those fears of extradition.

This is where we disagree. I don’t think any women’s access to a fair trial for allegations of sexual assault should depend on what the US might possibly do.

Either do I, and cant see how you would take that from what I wrote. Not sure your being 100% honest with your concernfor these women Nick, suggest you have other motives.

I’m a political supporter of Wikileaks, actually! Why on earth would I lie about my motivations in this? My concern is really and fully that frankly, I’ve been very disappointed by statements Assange’s defence team have made which have spread out and out lies about sexual offence law in Sweden, details of this “sex by surprise offence” and general victim-blaming of the type that happens too often in rape cases.

Which isn’t to say he did it. But that I believe it deserves a fair trial. And to be honest, of the two of us, I’m the one advocating for it, so it’s a bit rich for you to question my motivation!

Unless, of course, I am a CIA plant who worked in a rape crisis centre for years to further my cover so that one day, I could post on the Journal.ie and sway public opinion……

Very narrow comment. Since you know that Rafael imprisoned sone journalists for speaking out? you should also know that the media in Ecuador is owned outright by the far right and is heavily biased against the current government. If you think the fact that the media is owned outright by the business elite has no bearing on what the newspapers print then you should think twice.

Even his defence lawyers admit a version of events that is indeed rape. So the “made up out of thin air” thing is by people who can’t deal with the idea that someone whose politics they admire could do something that heinous. Funny, because it’s the same people who decry that mindset in the Catholic Church.

I don’t know enough about what happened in Sweden to even state an opinion on that but it’s pretty obvious there are some problems here with what’s been happening.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to be suspicious of US intentions.

No, you don’t, and it’s a valid concern. But then, it would seem logical to oppose extradition to the US rather than to Sweden? I myself would agree with that view. Simply because the US dislikes him doesn’t mean that serious rape allegations should not be fully investigated and saying otherwise does kind of imply that Assange should be above the law.

Handy one sided statement that Tomy. Boooooo the yanks. We know they have their faults, haven’t we all. I’d imagine the Swedes would have their own mind.

It would seem logical but then Sweden are likely to pander to US requests for extradition.
Don’t forget he hasn’t been charged for any crime.
He is wanted only for questioning but now this has turned into an international incident. One of Sweden’s chief prosecutors Eva Finne said: “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape” when the initial arrest warrant was withdrawn.
And then it was re-instated.
Offers were made to be interviewed by video link and these were refused also.

It’s just all far too large a thing to imagine that this pursuit is limited to the rape and molestation allegations.

@Paul – the statement to which you are referring is anything but one sided – in fact, all it says is that I feel there is good reason to suspect extradition to US would follow. Some media reports would back that up.
http://rt.com/news/australia-ready-assange-extradition-027/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Australia-preparing-for-Assange-extradition-to-US/articleshow/15543671.cms

Swedish law requires questioning before charging, so they are following by procedure for requesting extradition on that basis. And while he may have been willing to answer questions by video link, what exactly what he do if there was grounds for charges? It seems he’s unwilling to submit to any kind of trial by jury if the case arose, which really does put the women bringing allegations in a very difficult situation in complete violation of their right to a full and free investigation.

It’s very possible to believe that Sweden is pursuing him so vigorously because of who he is and to think that these women should still have access to justice. It’s also very possible that because the women came in with these charges, Sweden is going beyond what they would have otherwise because they dislike him. That has no bearing AT ALL as to whether he did it. If you are someone who believes that all rape allegations should be investigated seriously, then you should oppose any extradition to the US, not Sweden.

If it can be believed that Assange would actually get a fair trial in Sweden then yes I agree that he should go back and face his accusers. I don’t know if that’s possible given the amount of interest there is in the case and I would think that how vigorously it is being pursued is a bit of an indicator.

Don’t get me wrong, I feel too he has to answer these allegations – I just think there is fair reason to be suspicious of the insistence that he return to Sweden.

Assange himself, unfortunately, has responsibility for a lot of the reasons it would be an unfair trial. As someone who politically supports Wikileaks, I have been incredibly disappointed as to how his defence team has both mischaracterised the charges against him (sex by surprise, really?) and outright lies about Swedish sexual offence law. As a result, there has been a government push undoubtedly because of who he is and his team has been smearing the women involved. I don’t see how anyone involved gets a fair trial, but if he does proceed to Ecuador, he basically gets to ignore the allegations. I don’t think anyone should be rich and famous enough to get to basically ignore allegations of sexual assault.

How would you suggest he answers them?

Via videolink as previously offered but refused. They want him for interview at the moment but have insisted he come to Sweden for that.

If they interviewed him and established if he was to be charged then you have a logical next step.
At the moment, Sweden have allowed Assange “wiggle room” by refusing the videolink interview. Instead, they have insisted he return to Sweden.

Why did Assange refuse to meet face to face in Britain, however, as he was offered? He also seems to be going out of his way to be unhelpful…

@paul “we know they have their faults,haven we all?”…an understatement to put it mildly..

Read the British court case. It is a crime in the UK. You are lying about the content of the allegations. Which isn’t to say he definitely did it, but the allegation is that he didn’t stop when a woman said “no, not without a condom.” Women have the right to say no for any reason. It is for police and jury to decide what happened, not you.

I would recommend that you educate yourself with the actual court findings on the offences rather than believing any propaganda anyone tells you.

Its a legal right for a woman to say “No”.
Correct.

However DESPITE the supposed absence of a condom, the two women still continued to have willing sex with the man.
They didn’t say “No” to the sex anyway!
Only LATER did this claim of “no condom” appear many months later – for reasons that are suspicious to say the least and one of the women has been linked to the CIA!
Imagine that!

I would recommend that you educate yourself with the actual details of the females claims and their background!

>_< Biggins31, if a woman doesn’t want to have sex without a condom, and a man does it anyway – it is rape. Even if she doesn’t continue telling him that she doesn’t want it, because once should be enough. If she continues to have sex with him, it’s still rape unless she explicitly says she is okay with it. This happens often enough, actually, because the situation can be confusing and/or scary and it’s not always easy when you’re alone with someone to stand your ground. They may have been too scared to push things.

Another accusation is that Assange had sex with one of the women while she was asleep and without contraception. That is rape. Your definition of rape doesn’t matter in this case, the law clearly states that it is.

The stress and trauma of going to the police is huge, so any person filing such a complaint should be respected. It can take a while for a person to gain the courage to go to the police.

And: calling women females in this case is pretty insulting.

The women and assange have different stories, to be expected ib a rape case. All accusations about their background come from him. It’ s for the police to investigate, but naively you ignore that he too has motive to mislead here. and has misled abiut the content of offences and naively believe without question.

These are questions for investigators and you are making ita less than fair future trial!

What people don’t want to see it appears is that already one previous Swedish prosecutor DID NOT find any case against him having used intensive investigation.
Someone wasn’t happy with his findings – so he was gotten rid off and another was brought in from elsewhere!

God damm it fools – look into the full details surround the case and get your heads out of your blind backsides!
Look at how the second was suddenly brought in, also under VERY suspicious and possibly technically illegal circumstances!

Wake up sheep!

Blindly believibg assange’s view without recognising that he too has an agenda? sheeplike.

I personally suspect as much foul play as you, Biggins, it’s just that rape cases are extremely delicate so it’s important to treat them with respect. Since rape is never taken seriously (unless it’s a “stranger jumps out at you from the bushes” kind of scenario), it’s twice as important to take it seriously in this case.

And as I always say, just because America is after him, doesn’t mean the charges aren’t true – they could be using those charges in order to get him, and that’s pretty despicable in itself.