He also wasn't charged with rape, he was sought for questioning. And he consistently offered the Swedish Prosecutor to answer all questions from London, which the Swedish Prosecutor declined.
Well yes, obviously, they would question him and then determine whether or not to charge him. The point is that they couldn't charge him without first arresting him.
Yes, the prosecutor can prosecute the case as they see fit. They're not obliged to question Assange on his own terms.
From the original ruling on the EAW (p. 20):
>Here is it necessary to focus clearly on the facts of the case. Clear and specific serious allegations have been
made against Mr Assange in Sweden. Attempts have been made by the Swedish prosecutor as long ago as
September to interview him. He has not been interviewed. The Swedish system anticipates detention and early
questioning in allegations of this type, but this has not taken place. Mr Assange is not known to have returned to
Sweden since September. I have no doubt that this defendant is wanted for prosecution in Sweden. On the
information before me I cannot say when or what step was taken that can fairly be described as the
commencement of a prosecution. What I can say is that the boundary between suspicion and preliminary
enquiries on the one hand, and prosecution on the other, has been crossed. It may be that after interrogation
and further enquiries the matter will not be pursued. As Ms Ny says, a formal decision to charge is taken at a
later stage in Sweden than it is here. In this jurisdiction a person can be charged with rape or sexual assault by a
custody sergeant and may then wait many months before the case is discontinued. In Sweden the decision to
formally charge is followed very shortly by the trial itself, if the defendant is in custody.
Yes I know the prosecutor can persue the case any way they want to.
I find it odd that you don't understand this, but the point is very simple: if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. Instead they refused to.
>if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange.
I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.
> There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview.
To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed?
You surely know this - my general feeling at this point is you're simply asking questions to antagonise anyone who disagrees with you. Hacker News needs a block function.
> More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.
Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.
Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.
>To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed?
The reason that they needed to interview Assange was so that they could proceed to arrest him and charge him. That is why the EAW was issued. The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right.
>Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.
How is that any concern of the Swedish prosecutor? It's not their problem if the US tries to extradite Assange. (There is, of course, no evidence that the US is going to do this beyond Assange's paranoid fantasies.)
>Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.
It's actually pretty common for rape victims to remain on more-or-less friendly terms with the people who raped them. (You can see a similar phenomenon with domestic abuse.)
> The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right.
No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit. The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime (although in this case the victim made statements saying they didn't wish Assange to be charged).
> Assange's paranoid fantasies
By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with?
Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases.
>No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit
No, it wasn't. See e.g. the quote from the Magistrates' court judgment above.
>The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime
The Swedish prosecutor had a strong presumption in favor of arresting and charging Assange in this instance, as the court judgments make clear. That was on the basis of the evidence already available.
You may not be taking into account differences between the Swedish and US/UK justice systems. Formal charges are brought much later in the Swedish system, as the court judgments explain. The investigation into Assange had proceeded to a stage where charges would most likely already have been filed in the US or UK. The investigation was well beyond the stage where they would have wanted merely to talk to Assange.
>By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with?
Clinton has no power to extradite Assange. It doesn't matter what she says.
>Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases
As I said, it is not uncommon for people who are raped to remain on friendly terms with their rapists. The fact that they were not in a LTR doesn't change that.
