Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-and-the-next-eight-days/

by AndrewDucker • 11 years ago

63 65 11 years ago

belorn2• 11 years ago

This is now a prime example in what happens when politics gets involved with justice. The police interviewed everyone involved, including Assange. The district chief prosecutor looked at it and concluded to drop it. Almost a month later, even through there had been no new information available, the political assigned director of Public Prosecution decided to reopen the case and immediately issues a international arrest warrant for Assange who by then had left the country. Assange then later goes into political refugee, while prosecutor refuses to continue with the case for political reasons, which then created a deadlock. A Swedish judge then order the prosecutor to continue with the case, but by then its too late to start diplomatic negotiations to get into the embassy and the case falls through to the statue of limitations.

If the choice had been between the possibility of incompetent police and prosecutor that might cause a criminal go free, or the political mess above, I rather go with the first option. The accused, the potential victims, and the tax payers has all been suffering from this case and the only beneficiary aspect has been the diplomatic relation between Sweden and US. That outcome should be a clear sign that justice and politics do not belong together.

deanCommie2• 11 years ago

I completely agree with your point in the specific case, but completely disagree in general.

Justice IS political. Justices either run for office as political public figures or are appointed by political public figures. The justice system is an attempt to apply a subset of morality for the betterment of society, which is ultimately a subjective political exercise.

seren• 11 years ago

I don't disagree with your premise, but I can't think of any place outside of the US were judges are running for office and elected. In most places, they are more akin to some sort of civil servant, from an administration independent of the executive and legislative branch.

toyg• 11 years ago

Justices either run for office as political public figures or are appointed by political public figures

Mon dieu, Baron de Montesquieu must be spinning in his grave! :)

One of the key principles of modern government is (or rather, should be) total independence of the judicial system from political pressure. In practice this is hard to achieve. In the US it turned into a "parallel democracy" with elected judges, who might not answer to regular politicians but are politicians themselves; in Europe it's usually a fundamentally-administrative career path, however in various countries it's more or less influenced by political winds (after all, an efficient Government or Parliament will want someone to actually enforce laws that get passed). Still, there is a clear ideal of purity and independence that original constituents were striving for (usually as a reaction to the arbitrary power of kings and popes), and our failings in reaching it now does not mean we will never reach it.

On your more general point, rather than "justice" I'd rather refer to "law enforcement". Yes, law enforcement is political: it enforces laws written by ruling interests to perpetuate such interests (be those moral, economic, of class or whatever). The degree and intensity of enforcement for any given rule is eminently political. However, "justice" itself is not necessarily the same thing.

At the end of the day, man is not perfect; a system will always be required to address this problem and its consequences. The existence of such a system is not just political but essential to society itself. Pre-political forms of society, where the tribe leader ruled uncontested by virtue of pure physical strength, likely still involved the administration of justice to a certain degree. In a way, the emergence of political structures themselves is an answer to the problem of obtaining justice (who defines what is just? How does he define it? How does he enforce it? and so on).

JoachimS• 11 years ago

As long as you mean judges, prescutors in Sweden then NO, they are not elected to their positions like politicians.

deanCommie2• 11 years ago

Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)...

Regardless of what you think of the charges against him (personal take: No way to know for sure, but gut feel is he made poor choices and wound up in the grey area of undesired sexual experiences that our society is currently struggling with how to properly define. In our natural humane desire to protect potential victims we are defaulting to deeming it "sexual assault", but the reality is more complex as the assaulter is not even fully aware of their state)...

You have to admit it's super fucked up that Sweden is unable to charge someone with a crime if they can't interview them first? What if the suspect is a non-communitative deaf mute?

Seems like some law should be changed somewhere.

hahainternet4• 11 years ago

Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)...

Probably a rapist?

gadders3• 11 years ago

Worth reposting the link from the article which explains what Assange actually did (or was alleged to have done): http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...

alkonaut2• 11 years ago

I don't think hearings are strictly necessary, but in order to charge someone the prosecutor must believe there is a case. In situations with little other evidence (technical, witnesses,...) the prosecutor needs more.

panglott2• 11 years ago

What's fucked up? Sweden's justice system seems to be far superior to the US's—both in taking very seriously charges of sexual assault that would probably be ignored in the US, and in taking very seriously the rights of the accused.

Assange has squandered his chance to clear his name, and sure seems to be at the least a creepy dude.

Bohahahaha5• 11 years ago

A 'comparison' to the US can't prove that Swedens system is not fu but only that the US might be even more so.

trevelyan• 11 years ago

They certainly can charge in absentia and issue extradition warrants afterwards - read the UK high court judgment. The problem is that as soon as they charge they have to share evidence to get an extradition warrant, and Assange could have beat the request on substantive grounds by demonstrating that there was no crime under British law, something that would have been particularly easy since the Swedish prosecutor would be required to share evidence, including the exculpatory texts.

They did not charge because the requirements to extradite for "questioning" are much weaker and require no proof, just a statement from the Swedish prosecutor that cannot be challenged on any substantive grounds.

agd4• 11 years ago

Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly.

I haven't seen any plausible reason why the prosecutor couldn't question him in London, especially given the exceptional circumstances of the case.

edit: Yes, I have seen the reasons put forward by the SPA mentioned in the article, but these complications were easily foreseeable and it is clear the Swedish prosecutor did not allow enough time to resolve them. Indeed the prosecutor claimed until this march (at which point she changed her mind) that it would be completely impossible to interview Assange at the embassy.

dodgyfella2• 11 years ago

The only exceptional circumstance is Assange's arrogant assertion that he deserves special treatment. No reason why the Swedish justice system should kowtow to his demands.

PJDK• 11 years ago

This is covered in the article. Sweden has now (as of March) said they would be willing to interview in London.

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The...

http://www.thelocal.se/20150618/swedish-prosecutor-cancels-a...

Bohahahaha5• 11 years ago

What everyone with that point of view means is this: the prosecutor has had 5 years to fix a potential complex setup but waited for the very last minute.

elemeno• 11 years ago

The article covered that about half way down - the short version is that the Swedish authorities tried to interview him in London but Ecuador wouldn't let him be interviewed by the Swedish authorities unless Sweden agreed on a pre-condition that they couldn't lawfully agree to.

In March 2015, however, the SPA changed its position and requested to interview Assange in London. A spokesperson for Assange welcomed the development and said Assange wanted to be interviewed.
This was followed in June 2015 by a formal request to the English and Ecuadorean authorities.
But the SPA were not able to proceed as Ecuador did not give the requisite permissions. The trip to London by a Swedish prosecutor had to be abandoned.

agd4• 11 years ago

It should be noted that both sides blame the other for the delay.

It is also self-evident that this process was (foreseeably) complex and the Swedish prosecutor left it until the last moment to sort out.

hahainternet4• 11 years ago

Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly.

Which is Assange's fault, as he's fleeing justice at the same time as demanding others face justice.

I can't stand the hypocritical bastard, he's damaged his movement more than anyone else ever could.

Asbostos• 11 years ago

But what if he's right about the risk of being extradited from Sweden to the US? If that happens, the US will surely be far more brutal and punish him for Wikileaks things. We've seen them to it to Manning and threaten it to Snowden.

alkonaut2• 11 years ago

Did you read the article? It's not normally acceptable to demand to be questioned in another country, and when the prosecutor agreed to make an exception, a new (and impossible) condition was added. This is what the author of the article called "calling the bluff".

agd4• 11 years ago

Yes I have read the article.

The Swedish prosecutor has had at least 3 years to organize questioning in the embassy but has left it until the last moment. Now it appears there is not enough time to sort out the (obviously complex) details. Whose fault it that?

The obvious counter-argument to 'calling the bluff' is that the prosecutor has kept the case in limbo for 5 years and then left it too late to organise questioning at the embassy. This allows the prosecutor to save face, and maximises Swedish US relations.

belorn2• 11 years ago

There seem to this normally accepted statement that Sweden do not "normally" perform questioning in other nations, but doing just a lazy google search I find plenty of examples where Swedish police has ventured to other nations to conduct questioning with suspects, victims or relatives. Normally those news articles are about murders, but that is the focus of most news articles when dealing about crimes.

I would be very interested to see statistics on how often police from Scandinavian countries visit each other, interview criminals that jump borders, or simply ask the local police to do the questioning. I personally doubt its such a rare and exceptional occurrence, as I saw a article where police from south of Sweden was lobbying to address speeders who cross the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.

Trombone12• 11 years ago

Dude, it's not like Assange is chained to a pipe inside the Ecuatorian embassy, he has been free to get a flight to Sweden for YEARS.

His continual refusal to do so is not a very convincing reason to concede to his demands, to quote Green:

"It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise."

Some of the complications that have arisen, providing assurances that cannot be given under Swedish law, might well have been foreseen as part of the near futility of the entire attempt to get access to Assange.

Also, we can be fairly sure that Assange has no credible evidence for an extradition to the US being planned, as else he would have shared it as soon as it came in his possession.

dodgyfella2• 11 years ago

Disappointing, but at least they might still be able to nail him for the remaining rape charge.

Hopefully his victims will eventually be able to see justice, despite his cowering behind the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy with spurious claims of political asylum.

gadders3• 11 years ago

It does seem unbelievable that you can in essence go on the lam for five years and then you're free to carry on your life as before.

Zenst2• 11 years ago

Agreed and very much a case of using the letter of the law to abuse the spirit of the law and in this case, avoid it.

He has argued all along that if he left he would be whisked away for nefarious trials by America and if that was the case then this 5 year date of his hiding will make no difference. Unless he just wanted to avoid the trial for whatever reason.

Still for a trial you need a victim and in this case, that victim was not Assange and we have a trial and victim who will not see justice or any form of trial - fair or not. So can imagine how they feel about this.

gadders3• 11 years ago

Even if we leave aside the specifics of the Assange case, I still find it astonishing as a general principle.

Bohahahaha5• 11 years ago

Well waiting 5 years and then switching to strategy B (interview in London) 1-2 months before the last possible moment was obviously not the best strategy for the (potential) victims.

joesmo5• 11 years ago

Although this particular case is highly political and likely fabricated, the tragedy of such a law of limitation applying to rape is sickening. That's not just in Sweden, but many other jurisdictions, including most of the US states. The real question here isn't about Assange--that's an uninteresting political aside.

The real question is why do states have a statute of limitations on a crime that's sometimes a lot worse than murder and in the best cases, only slightly less bad? Yes, a statute of limitations is incredibly useful for petty crimes like stealing and other small things like that. We're talking here about rape and sexual assault though. As far as I can see, this is still a reflection on how poorly our societies treat women, even in the west. Perhaps the fact that the men in charge don't want to acknowledge the horror of rape? Women, however, are not the only ones getting raped. I truly cannot fathom the reason for this horrific limitation on justice, and I think if men being raped was more of a problem (outside prisons and jails where the authorities generally refuse to accept it happens) we would have no such limitations on rape or sexual assault.

danso• 11 years ago

Although this particular case is highly political and likely fabricated...

Huh?

joesmo5• 11 years ago

I think the allegations are likely fabricated to get Assange to Sweden so he can be extradited to the US.

kiiski2• 11 years ago

As I've understood, the accusation for rape in this case is for Assange starting to have sex with the alleged victim while she was sleeping, without wearing a condom (the "not wearing a condom" is the key part here; otherwise it apparently would have been technically illegal, but "consentual" in practical terms). Are you really saying that that is "only slightly less bad" than murder?

The 5 year limit, btw, only applies to the accusations for "Unlawful coercion" and "Sexual molestation" (times two). The rape accusation will remain open for another five years (unless the prosecutor decides to drop it).

joesmo5• 11 years ago

Yes, having sex with someone while she/he is sleeping is rape and yes, as far as statute of limitations, it should be treated like murder. The only reason to not make the punishment the same is that it would entice rapists to kill their victims. I think if you ask someone who has been raped how they'd compare that to murder, it'll be pretty damn close.

Even ten years is ridiculous for such a crime in a society that condemns this. What you're saying is that our societies don't really condemn this crime and it's not a big deal to ruin someone else's life by forcibly having sex with them. That's horrific, IMO, but seems to be the majority opinion.

TerryCarlin2• 11 years ago

We're talking here about rape and sexual assault though.

No we're not we're talking about “sex by surprise”.

One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have “ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups,” according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.

joesmo5• 11 years ago

Yeah, that's called rape.

bruceb• 11 years ago

"sometimes a lot worse than murder and in the best cases" Statements like this has tinge of judgement that a woman is less "pure" after being raped. This of course is ridiculous. Rape is a horrible crime. I doubt most rape survivors would rather have been murdered.

Bohahahaha5• 11 years ago

If I went to my professor at university complaining that I waited 5 years and then could not solve the challenges b/c of not enough time left, he would just laugh at my assumption that I'm not responsible for the fu

Bohahahaha5• 11 years ago

Most people here think this article is about Assange being guilty or not. It's not.

Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

Related Stories