Sweden refuses Ecuador's request to interview Assange at embassy

Sweden refuses Ecuador's request to interview Assange at embassy

digitaljournal.com

London - Ecuador asked Sweden to send officials to interview Julian Assange at their embassy in London. Sweden says no, they will not travel to London. (Updated).

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ecuadorian government has sought legal guarantees from both the U.K. and Sweden that Assange will not be extradited to the United States.
A senior Ecuadorian legal adviser said, “If Ecuador could be assured that the evil it wishes to prevent: The extradition to the USA of Julian Assange, could be [avoided], then that would be a just solution.”


digitaljournal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Bloody Swedish Government, they're no better than a dog rolling over to its back for its evil master.

Looks like its a stalemate, hasn't something gotta give?

Does anyone have the power to remove him from the embassy? Or is he doomed to stay there for years, whilst releasing more docs and gaining more supporters?

ETA: Nerver mind, I just watched the lastest interview with his lawyer:

m.youtube.com...#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAHxCdMe1aiI%26sns%3Dtw&sns=tw&v=AHxCdMe1aiI&gl=GB

Equador to announce decision *after olympics*.

Still unansweres questions to the US, AUS, and Swedon.

reply to post by leosnake


they are simply puppets
and nothing more

reply to post by leosnake


Because the charges have no merit, it is a way for the nazi American .gov to try to stop him from telling everyone all the # their into. If I was a treasonous douche bag like our dictator in chief( may he die slowly of syphlis before burning in hell) I would try to hide my illegal activites also. You know ( the fed, fast and furious, cia controlling the drug trade, liscense ti kill Americans without trial..etc) there are many reasons for a .gov to hide info from the world, most of them are not good reasons.

I think if it isn't a matter of actual national security ( new military tech, troop movements, strengths, readiness.etc or part of an active investigation than we should always have a right to know.

However if you file an FOIA request about almost anything you will receive either nothing or pages that are so heavily redacted that they might as well just say no and save some trees.

I mean WTF is the point of the FOIA when they just refuse to give out any info anywyas? The fricking law might as well not exist at all there woudnt be a difference.

reply to post by leosnake


If there was no sub plot to extradite J.A to the USA,then I am sure Sweden would not have refused this offer.
Sweden saying no to the offer only makes sense if their is another agenda.
IMO.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
If there was no sub plot to extradite J.A to the USA,then I am sure Sweden would not have refused this offer.
Sweden saying no to the offer only makes sense if their is another agenda.

Not really. Assange is wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities in Sweden. Why should the Swedish legal process be bent to cater for the whims of Assange? His run to the Ecuadorian Embassy was a poor move.

There has been a transparent extradition process, along with appeals and all that palaver and now it is time for Assange to face his accusers.

www.supremecourt.gov.uk...

There is no evidence that Assange will then be onward transited to the US from Sweden. That is just his PR blowing it all up and pandering to the “conspiracy” crowd. In fact, extradition from Sweden to the US may be more complicated than from the UK, so why would the US wait. There is also no evidence that Assange will not get a fair hearing in Sweden.

The facts of this case is that a serious sex crime may have been committed and Assange needs to get this sorted, else his reputation will remain in doubt. It is convenient to paint Assange as the victim, but actually the two women who were allegedly offended against are the victims.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


This is a must read for anyone analysing the Assange case.

Birgitta Jónsdóttir herself was in a lawsuit challenging NDAA's indefinite detention with the NY Times journalist and others.

Even with ruling, Obama had the notion to ask Forrester to reverse judgement.

Forrester then had to issue another legal document upholding her decision for a 2nd time.

While this went on, the House voted to endorse NDAA's indefinite detention.

The US is not following its own projected standards anymore.

The US turned the US-UK extradition agreement one-sided. UK is getting fed up with that abuse.

---

Evidence of a US judicial vendetta against WikiLeaks activists mounts

Iceland's government warns me not to visit the US, which tried to hack my Twitter account: Julian Assange has legitimate fears

Birgitta Jónsdóttir
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 July 2012 14.45 EDT
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/evidence-us-judicial-vendetta-wikileaks-activists-mounts
---

Stratfor leak released by WikiLeaks -

In it a highly placed person within Stratfor described previously secret sealed documents to a potential future charge against him.

Originally posted by paraphi
Not really. Assange is wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities in Sweden. Why should the Swedish legal process be bent to cater for the whims of Assange? His run to the Ecuadorian Embassy was a poor move.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Swedish authorities themselves have been running around in circles ignoring the law. There's nothing to stop them from conducting their interviews. They have refused to do so untill they get JA detained incommunicato. They dont want to press charges because in the worst case scenario JA would just pay off the fine and be done with it.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Like you, I am not an expert on Swedish law.

However, the Swedes have gone through due process to extradite Assange, the results of which are a matter of public record. Why should they interview Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy? He is wanted in Sweden. If the results of the questioning result in Assange being formally arrested for the alleged sex crimes, then he’s in the right place for that to happen.

Assange needs to face his accusers. If he is guilty then he should pay for being a sex criminal scumbag. If he’s innocent then he’ll walk. Either way, it is likely that we’ll all be able to see the details of both the prosecution and the defence.

Regards

And why cant they do any of that without having him detained incommunicato in sweden? There's no excuse for not interviewing him. That's why there are international treaties and systems in place. Considering that he is wanted for questioning for something so petty it is beyond absurd that they would require him to be detained for questioning. Questioning that has already been done once in sweden.
You have it backwards, the accusers need to face JA. They are intentionally avoiding interviewing him. They only want him detained. Without charges.

reply to post by paraphi


Generally speaking, most extradition hearings contend with a particular State filing a lay of information with respect to charges of an alleged crime. Once the evidence is gathered it is submitted to the requested state for Judge to make a determination on the merits of the evidence as to whether it's sufficient enough for charges to be considered in that state. If it is, extradition is usually granted, if it fails, the application for extradition is dismissed. Also, the alleged activity has to be criminal in both jurisdictions. For instance, if one state wanted another for tax evasion, and the citizen was in a state that tax evasion is not a crime because there is no taxation, (Paraguay for instance) then generally speaking extradition would be impossible.

The unique circumstances with respect to Julian, is he is not charged with anything, it would seem that there is not enough evidence at this point to file charges.

The story in the media is that Sweden wants to have a chance to question him, but refuses to do it in any other country, or by any other medium. This does sound fairly suspicious, because if the intent and purpose of the prosecution in Sweden is to get Julian's side of the story and to pursue justice, then the means about how that is conducted should be irrelevant, that is, unless there's ulterior motives

Lastly, I'm not even sure if Swedish law will be able to compel him to answer to anything. Most first world nations have protections against testifying against oneself. I would assume that Sweden has something similar, so the questioning that they seek with respect to the alleged rape, maybe for not, if some constitutional protections are invoked. If that is the case, and charges have not been laid, then it's my opinion the prosecution would go nowhere, and thus enters stage west, the United States, and their application for extradition, and Julian subsequently drops his pants and bends over ;-)

However, it could be completely opposite, maybe Sweden doesn't have any protections with respect to self-incrimination, and maybe they could compel him to answer their questions when he's physically within Sweden. Whereas, if he was in London, we all know that they do have self-incrimination protection laws and could be the very reason why they don't want to question him there.

Further study is required on the subject, but clearly there is something stinking behind this legal charade. The idea that one can be extradited on mere suspicion to another country without charges being laid is complete bull crap, and should not see the light of day without substantial evidence backing up the allegation.

Can you imagine Iran extraditing an American citizen, because they had some reason to believe that an American may have committed a crime in Iran without laying any charges? Dangerous territory if you ask me.

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Like you, I am not an expert on Swedish law.

However, the Swedes have gone through due process to extradite Assange, the results of which are a matter of public record. Why should they interview Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy? He is wanted in Sweden. If the results of the questioning result in Assange being formally arrested for the alleged sex crimes, then he’s in the right place for that to happen.

Assange needs to face his accusers. If he is guilty then he should pay for being a sex criminal scumbag. If he’s innocent then he’ll walk. Either way, it is likely that we’ll all be able to see the details of both the prosecution and the defence.

Regards

In Sweden men are second class citizens. Heck the SCUM manifesto has already been turned into an elementary play in Sweden. It is like expecting a Jew who violated racial purity law's in nazi land by sleeping with one of Hitlers perfect Aryan gal's and ditched town earning her scorn so she cries rape, to march back to Berlin to have a "fair" trial.

Look at the crime he committed if you cut through the BS:

He slept with two different Swedish Gal's, both thinking they had a monopoly on him, and they both got ticked off at him. Swedish women wrote the law so they could accuse any guy that dumped them or they got ticked off at with rape. Surprise Surprise, one of the gal's had ties to the CIA, wow, yep he is going to get a fair trial...