[vidarh]

You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges. One of the women are now refusing to sign any past statements regarding the case. The other appears to have left Sweden. At tehe time prosecutor reviewed the statements and made it clear the full statements did not imply a crime had taken place.

Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women.

There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.

[philwelch]

Unfortunately, it's all too easy to intimidate victims of rape into not cooperating with attempts at prosecution. If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden.

Also:

> woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent

By definition that's rape.

[vidarh]

> If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden

I disagree. If the prosecutor has no case, Assange has - rightfully or not - every reason to wonder why they are pursuing him in this manner, and every reason to then worry about what the underlying motivation is. He might be more paranoid than justified in how he interprets it, but if I was in his shoes and a prosecutor acted the way the Swedish prosecutor has in this case, and I knew I hadn't done anything wrong (or thought I hadn't), I'd be worried something was up and be far more concerned about that than a potential Swedish jail sentence.

If the prosecutor actually has a case, Assange presumably knows he did what is claimed, and in that case he would have more reason to believe early on that his "worst case" scenario might be a very short stay in a low security, comfortable Swedish prison - the crimes he is wanted for questioning about have very short sentencing guidelines in Sweden.

In terms of extradition, if I was him I'd not be so concerned about legal, above board extradition. I would be concerned about the fact that Sweden has admitted to, and have been censured by the UN for, having violated their own laws as well as international treaties to participate in rendition arranged by the US of two Egyptians to Egypt where they were subsequently tortured. If they were willing to do that with some relatively low level targets, at the behest of the US, then there is every reason to worry they'd be willing to be "flexible" about giving Assange to the US.

The odds of them taking the political fallout from that in this case might be small, but then this is not just about what Assange might objectively have reason to fear - a lot of it boils down to what his actual, subjective fears are. I see little reason to doubt that Assange personally genuinely fear the US is after him and that he believes he is important enough that given its past history with rendition that Sweden might very well be easy to push into handing over him too.

He might very well make irrational choices because of that fear without there being any implication of guilt behind those choices.

Then again, he might also be guilty and just not want to face it.

Point is, this isn't nearly as clear cut as some would like to think it is.

[philwelch]

In Assange's own mind, yes, he probably is the victim of a massive international conspiracy whether or not he committed rape. It's a little disappointing to see so many people on HN take those delusions of grandeur at face value.

[rbanffy]

Don't you think it's a little bit strange that the Ecuadorian offer to have Assange interviewed by the Swedish prosecutors was refused?

What's the priority? Question him to find out what happened or bring him to Sweden?

[mkramlich]

> You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges.

This, ultimately, is why this should be seen as a "non-case" and therefore just an excuse for the US/UK/Swedish government to hassle Assange and therefore Wikileaks.

[mkramlich]

thank you for being another voice of reason in this discussion

[vidarh]

The thing is, I don't even like the guy. Wikileaks is fantastic, but we can credit him for his involvement with that without whitewashing the person.

Even if I were to only accept the parts his own lawyers have conceded, the statements do paint the picture of someone who is quite a bit of an asshole. Maybe he is a bit of a misogynist, though I think it's more likely he is "just" a bit narcissistic and didn't really take anyones feelings into account. Add in some paranoia - even if people are after him, he comes across as believing they care more than I think they do.

I just think there are a lot of things about this case that are fishy to the point where there's good reason to be extremely suspicious about the motivations of some of the people involved, even if one discounts the idea of US involvement. He might very well be guilty for what I know, but that still doesn't mean there's nothing weird going on with how the whole situation has been handled.

[philwelch]

Doesn't it seem like Assange has introduced most of the weirdness himself? Lots of people run into legal trouble overseas. Most of them don't hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.

[vidarh]

The vast majority of this weirdness preceded his decision to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. In fact, the vast majority of it took place even before the arrest warrant was issued, and by the time of the initial extradition decision the prosecutor had continued to make it worse by refusing even more offers of interviewing Assange while making excuses for why she can't that are directly contradicted by Swedish authorities behaviour in other recent cases.

[philwelch]

Evidently, they have to formally question Assange before filing charges. They'd rather have him in custody in Sweden before they do that. Isn't it pretty well established by Assange's own actions that Assange would be a massive flight risk? The Swedish aren't the ones acting irrationally.

[vidarh]

First of all, you can be charged in absentia in Sweden. If they interviewed him, and he still refused to return, then that would be a textbook case of a justification for having him charged in absentia.

Secondly, he claims that he will be extradited to the US if he is brought to Sweden. How exactly would he suddenly become more likely to try to flee if they decide to charge him? He is already claiming that going to Sweden means a risk of facing the death penalty in the US.

In that context it seems ludicrous to think that interviewing him and then charging him would somehow increase his resolve try to avoid extradition, or that this has been the case for a very long time.

It is not like he would have considered voluntarily setting foot on Swedish soil from any point over the past year or more. A charge would not have made that more or less likely.

Meanwhile, a formal charge would remove at least some reason to question the motivations of the Swedish prosecutor, and it would make it much harder for Ecuador to justify asylum given that they have publicly used this as part of their process for determining whether or not to give asylum.

As for that. At the moment he is holed up in a small embassy, while the Metropolitan police is outside, waiting for a chance to grab him.

Yet the Swedish police still refuse to interview him, while making up bogus excuses for why they don't. They could have stated the reason you suggest: That if they make the decision to charge him, they want to be able to take him into custody immediately under the circumstances. That reason is still a poor excuse, but they've not even tried to use even that.

If he is a flight risk in his current location, he is a flight risk whether or not they interview or charge him - his only realistic means of escape is if he gets asylum from Ecuador and Ecuador finds a way of getting him on a plane, whether smuggling him in an oversized diplomatic pouch or convincing the UK to give him free passage. Either way, this doesn't become any harder or easier depending on whether or not Swedish authorities interview him.

The Swedish might not be the only ones acting irrationally. But if they're not acting irrationally, it would imply they have a hidden agenda. If their agenda is what they claim it is, then yes, they are acting irrationally. Either alternative is pretty bad.