I would be extremely interested to find the source of Assange's idea that the prisons in Sweden are the worst in Europe. I've tried searching http://www.ipcaworldwide.org/, but perhaps my Google-skills are failing me.
I'm probably not objective since I am from Sweden, but his description is very far from my perception of the Swedish judicial system. I don't agree with every verdict I read about, but I guess that would be the case in which ever country I lived in. In general it seems quite fair to me.
My guess is that Assange will be cleared of all charges or worst case senteced to a conditional sentence if he ever stands trial (which will not necessarily happen even). It seem to me that he is a man of dubious moral standards regarding women (trying to have sex with someone without a condom when they explicitly wanted to use a condom), but that will generally not make you go to prison (and probably rightfully so).
I'm a bit depressed that his behavior has damaged Wikileaks and their cause which is important.
edit: Would appreciate a comment from people down-voting me.
So, based on two unanswered, unsupported, and unproven allegations, you are willing to claim that "he is a man of dubious moral standards", and that this behaviour has hurt Wikileaks?
Are you not slightly more disturbed by the clear political machinations behind the case?
As I wrote; that's the way it -seem- to me. I'm convinced that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and I don't understand why it would be reasonable to think that he should not be interrogated by the Swedish police when accused of a crime (whether guilty or not). Remember that it has still not been decided if he should be tried for the crime he is accused of or not, that is why they are trying to get him extradited to Sweden.
And no, I don't see any "clear political machinations" in this case, I see a horny dude who doesn't like to use a condom. I'm sorry if this is a too simple of an explanation for your taste. I could be wrong of course.
If there were any political reasons for this I'm quite sure that they could have framed him for something more grave and produced obvious evidence.
I encourage you to read the article! I'm one pg-down click through and:
"The British Supreme Court will hear his extradition appeal on February 1st – but even if he wins, he will likely still remain a wanted man. Interpol has issued a so-called "red notice" for his arrest on behalf of Swedish authorities for questioning in "connection with a number of sexual offenses" – Qaddafi, accused of war crimes, earned only an "orange notice" – and the U.S. government has branded him a "high-tech terrorist," unleashing a massive and unprecedented investigation designed to depict Assange's journalism as a form of international espionage."
So he's more wanted than Qaddafi. If that doesn't make you think about the political motivations behind this a bit more, I'm not sure what could.
I don't know if he's a horny dude or not. Probably. But that doesn't mean his case isn't being blown far out of proportion for political cause. How many other Swedish strict-legal-definition-of-rape cases have Interpol flags out more severe than those of known repressive dictator madmen?
Assange should have turned himself over to the police in the beginning instead of leaving Sweden with such haste and refusing to be heard by the swedish police. Instead he used the political climate surrounding wikileaks as an excuse to stay away and started to paint a picture of Sweden as a third world country regarding it's legal system. It's classic stalling technique, the longer he can stay away the less the other witnesses and himself remembers.
That post is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what happened. Assange went to police and they said the case was going to be dropped and he could go. Then he left because he had other places to be.
That was before they raised the accusations to rape again, when he was only accused of sexual molestation. After the renewed rape charges he left before the police had held a new interrogation.
Also, the police never said the case was going to be dropped, he was heard for sexual molestation after the rape charges had been dropped by the procecutor, the day after they were raised in the first place. That charged (sexual molestation) have never been dropped, instead new charges have been added. But that's ok, I wont flag your post.
> I don't understand why it would be reasonable to think that he should not be interrogated by the Swedish police when accused of a crime (whether guilty or not)
He offered to talk to Swedish prosecutors in England, which they refused to do. I think the fear from his camp is that once in Sweden they can put him in solitary confinement and then start pulling out new charges on different issues, including extradition to the USA which is according to the article probably easier than from England.
The Magistrates' Court decision that originally approved the extradition seems to state that it would be strictly harder:
> If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also.
Kind of weird to see a Swede confusing sex with politics, especially since we're only talking about allegations. If he's found to be a rapist, fair, let's call him despicable, but until now he has held up to high standards even by endangering his life.
I'm probably not objective since I am from Sweden, but his description is very far from my perception of the Swedish judicial system. I don't agree with every verdict I read about, but I guess that would be the case in which ever country I lived in. In general it seems quite fair to me.
My guess is that Assange will be cleared of all charges or worst case senteced to a conditional sentence if he ever stands trial (which will not necessarily happen even). It seem to me that he is a man of dubious moral standards regarding women (trying to have sex with someone without a condom when they explicitly wanted to use a condom), but that will generally not make you go to prison (and probably rightfully so).
I'm a bit depressed that his behavior has damaged Wikileaks and their cause which is important.
edit: Would appreciate a comment from people down-voting me.