My point is that the allegations have been found to have substance. Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England.
The English courts have twice ruled that were the complaints brought in England by English citizens, Assange would be liable to arrest and charges being laid. That is the basis of extradition to face trial.
Most countries have a multi-stage system of deciding which complaints to take to trial. In general:
1. Police must first receive and investigate a complaint.
2. Police report to prosecutors, who must decide to issue warrants or to lay charges.
3. A magistrate, prosecuting judge or grand jury must decide that there is sufficient evidence that a trial might be be successful -- ie, that's not a frivolous waste of a court's time.
4. Then and only then is there is a criminal trial.
So far the matter has gotten as far as stage 2.
So of course Assange hasn't been given opportunity to present his case. Because there's no case yet. He's not up to the case-presenting part of the procedure.
It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.
> Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England.
This is only half true. The allegations have been found to constitute a crime if they are true.
Therefore they are sufficient to justify an arrest warrant in Sweden, and I have described why that means nothing.
You can swear at a police officer in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky you'll find yourself arrested (and released before they'd need to formally charge you with anything). My dad had the misfortune of experiencing that first hand once when I was growing up.
In neither country did the court consider whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges. That was in both cases outside of the remit of the court.
The rest of your comment conveniently contract the process to make it seem like the step from an arrest warrant to a charge is short in this case. It could be. It could also be much longer. It is not unusual for Scandinavian cases to go like this:
1. Police receives a complaint, and starts investigation.
2. Police wants to talk to X, and issues an arrest warrant. Interviews X. Releases X. Continues investigation
3. Police wants to talk to Y, and issues an arrest warrant. Interviews Y. Releases Y. Continues investigation
... continue until they finally find someone they have sufficient evidence to charge...
4. Police charges someone or decides there is no case to answer.
(followed, possibly, your step 3 and 4)
So getting to stage 2 in Scandinavia does not imply that they have any evidence, nor even that they are sure that a crime has occurred, nor that the person being arrested is someone the police have any degree of certainty have done anything even objectionable.
There's been plenty of cases recently with patterns like these.
Now, in this case we know that it's either Assange or nobody. But there is no implication inherent in the arrest warrant that says that there is evidence sufficient for charges, or that any will be made.
> It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.
If that had been true, this wouldn't even have been a discussion. If normal procedure had been followed, there'd been little reason to suspect foul play, and no reason not to urge Assange to go back - in fact, if that was the case and he went back, he'd worst case risk a prison sentence that would rob him of less freedom than what this process would (~6 months in a minimum security prison most non-Scandinavians would consider holiday-camp would be a likely sentence given the allegations, if found guilty).
There's numerous ways in which Assange's case have provably been handled outside the norm:
- He was wanted for arrest. The arrest warrant was cancelled and the case closed. A new prosecutor, a friend of the lawyer who represents the alleged victims, reopened the case. This in itself is at least highly unusual.
- The prosecutor has violated procedure by interviewing witnesses over the phone, possibly invalidating their statements.
- The prosecutor refuses to interview him abroad, alleging it can't be done, despite the fact that Swedish police did this with murder suspects after the extradition request against Assange was issued, and before the decision was handed down. Somehow different rules apply to Assange than people wanted for murder.
- UK police seems fit to "honour" him with a 24/7 watch, while lots of other people that are wanted are not even actively looked for.
You can claim "everybody gets the same process" all you want, but it is provably false.
(In this category it is also worth again mentioning that Sweden has admitted to colluding in illegal CIA rendition flights, handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA for transport to the regime they were fleeing, in direct violation of Swedish law and international treaties - so much for "everbody gets the same process"; forgive me for being sceptical of a regime that not only did that once, but that were caught red-handed by a different branch of government still assisting years after insisting it had stopped)
> You can swear at a police officer in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky you'll find yourself arrested (and released before they'd need to formally charge you with anything).
We have that in English-speaking countries too. It's called "Disturbing the Peace", or sometimes "Disorderly Conduct".
And it is not as serious as rape.
> A new prosecutor, a friend of the lawyer who represents the alleged victims, reopened the case. This in itself is at least highly unusual.
Then Assange should challenge that in the Swedish courts when he gets there.
> The prosecutor has violated procedure by interviewing witnesses over the phone, possibly invalidating their statements.
Then Assange should challenge that in the Swedish courts when he gets there.
> The prosecutor refuses to interview him abroad, alleging it can't be done, despite the fact that Swedish police did this with murder suspects after the extradition request against Assange was issued, and before the decision was handed down. Somehow different rules apply to Assange than people wanted for murder.
Assange is kinda obviously a flight risk.
> You can claim "everybody gets the same process" all you want, but it is provably false.
You are confusing the process, which is identical for everyone, with the idea that it is being executed by some omnibenevolent hypercomputer.
There are fuckups in every prosecution ever. The role of the courts, and then the appeal courts, and then ultimate courts, is to sort out which fuckups fatally break a case.
Assange has totally exhausted his legal opportunities in England; if he wants to receive further legal recourse then he will have to play it the Swedish way.
And if you think the Swedes would be stupid enough to hand such a high profile person over to the CIA, then I suspect you have embraced the exciting life of a conspiratard and we have nothing more to discuss.
The English courts have twice ruled that were the complaints brought in England by English citizens, Assange would be liable to arrest and charges being laid. That is the basis of extradition to face trial.
Most countries have a multi-stage system of deciding which complaints to take to trial. In general:
1. Police must first receive and investigate a complaint.
2. Police report to prosecutors, who must decide to issue warrants or to lay charges.
3. A magistrate, prosecuting judge or grand jury must decide that there is sufficient evidence that a trial might be be successful -- ie, that's not a frivolous waste of a court's time.
4. Then and only then is there is a criminal trial.
So far the matter has gotten as far as stage 2.
So of course Assange hasn't been given opportunity to present his case. Because there's no case yet. He's not up to the case-presenting part of the procedure.
It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.