To be fair it's high profile because it's known where he is and that he's attempting to avoid capture. Not because he's from wikileaks and he might get extradited, those merely gave him the celebrity clout to pull the stunt in the first place.
If they actually gave up and he popped up in Ecuador and he's suddenly like 'haha, the british police, usually bunch of pricks', it would be embarrassing for the whole of the UK.
So it's a bit of a catch-22 position.
EDIT: Whoops, wrote wikipedia instead of wikileaks
FWIW, that ignorant bit of Wikipedia vs Wikileaks confusion has resulted in causing harm to people affiliated with Wikipedia when US customs officers have suffered from it.
My elderly father the other day told me that he thought the work I was doing with Wikimedia was related to "that wikileaks fella". Of course I corrected him, but I'm a little bit more accepting of the mistake!
He isn't high profile because of his alleged crime though.
The amount of money they spend guarding the embassy is ridicules. A similar spending would have been accepted if it was just some random guy. The British public should furious about wasting £12.6 million trying to catch a guy that many not be guilty, or may only be guilty of something that's only rape in the Swedish sense.
Don't get me wrong, if guilty then I don't care who he is. In that case he should be punished. It's just that I don't think Sweden should be allowed to hand him over to the US afterwards.
Still the amount of money wasted trying to catch him should say something about why the UK police wants him. You simply don't spend that kind of money trying to catch a person, just so you can question him.
no, not all. she consented, but was surprised that he didn't use a condom. which could be legally interpreted as mutilation or rape in sweden. she didn't interpret it as rape at all
According to Swedish law, yes. Not necessarily according to the law in other countries. That's why it was called out that he may have committed Sweden's definition of rape.
Rape is a legal concept, but in a larger sense it is a moral concept. This concept does not change from nation-state to nation-state and even if no country in the world defined this behavior as legal rape, it is still rape. For centuries, marital rape was not considered legally rape (it is still quite difficult to prosecute); rape that begins after sex is initiated is still not considered rape in the United States (courts have acquitted in recognition of some absurd "right to finish"); rape of men by women is still not considered rape by the FBI.
All of these legalities are irrelevant. Assange committed rape, and would have committed rape in any country. Nation-states do not define rape; moral people recognize it.
Well fortunately/unfortunately the police do not camp outside of an embassy for years waiting to arrest someone and send them to another country for questioning because they may have broken a moral concept. They do that when there are laws being broken. So in this situation, all that matters is the law.
The question was "what is rape in the Swedish sense, and how is it different from rape anywhere else". The answer is, this type of sexual misconduct is considered rape in Sweden and not in many other places. Nation-states define laws, which is what the legal system is based off, so it doesn't matter what moral people recognize. It wouldn't have been legally rape in some other countries, and that's the answer to the question.
One charge was dropped, and it was for molestation and they ran out of time on that one. The rape charge is from a women who continued to sleep with after the alleged rape, according to Assange for a week. Not particularly serious charges, in my opinion.
So, if they are not serious charges he should have his day in court and get it over with.
And, don't tell me the ridiculous story about how if he went to Sweden he'd be extradited to the US. He was in the UK, you think we aren't buddy-buddy with the US and would have handed him over?
The UK or the Swedish government could easily determine his guilt or innocence -- as in questioning him in the embassy and he's said more than once he's willing, if that's really all they wanted to do instead of waste millions of dollars watching him. The burden of proof is never on the accused to prove his innocence. It's after all only an accusation.
If they want to bring formal charges in court and send him a summons and try him in abstention they can do that too. It's just funny how they have played the game while claiming b/s like you are claiming.
edit because of rate limit to the person below:
If he has no guilty mind then why should he be willing to be arrested? In fact if he's afraid they will do to him what they did to Chelsea Manning, then he's perfectly in his right mind to attempt to avoid extradition by whatever means necessary.
If a totalitarian government is pursuing you because you stole their secrets and exposed them to the public, and they have already imprisoned one of your partners for life in inhumane conditions. Why should you comply with that request?
He's not willing to be arrested in the Ecuadorean embassy which - as ruled by a UK court more informed on Swedish legal processes than you are - is the purpose of the formal questioning process the Swedish government wishes to undertake. Assange's position is broadly equivalent to a fugitive insisting that the state's unwillingness to mail him his Miranda rights proves that it's them and not him trying to evade justice.
Strangely, I have never heard it suggested that it represents a major failing of judicial systems for not trying and convicting other alleged rapists whilst they're on the run. The point of a trial, is after all to ensure that criminals are not only fairly treated, but also given the legally mandated punishment.
The Swedish prosecutor has been heavily criticised in Sweden for the failure to interview him, and finally did agree to negotiate terms to question him in the embassy, so clearly they can. They just didn't want to.
So assume they finally hammer out terms with Ecuador so they can interview him. Let's assume the outcome of the interview is that the prosecutor formally charges him.
(as everybody expects, because there's been no suggestion Assange has cast iron evidence that could radically change the prosecution's view that it's worth bringing to trial)
What happens then? Are we genuinely expecting him to walk out accompanied by a couple of police officers and get on a plane to face trial in Sweden? Or do we expect him to stay put, perhaps issuing new legal challenges claiming there were elements of the questioning process that weren't conducted under Swedish law and so the original warrant is now invalid...
Regardless of whether one of five Swedish Supreme court justices chose to write a dissenting opinion criticising Ms Ny's handling of the case, do we really think that the questioning in the embassy is going mean Assange suddenly stops doing everything in his power to avoid standing trial in Sweden?
Clearly it's possible for the Swedish prosecutor to find a means to interview him in the embassy. They could use the telephone. They could use a videoconferencing system. They could get on a plane.
Why should they?
They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning. Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them? (Assange's fears about extradition to the US aren't relevant to the Swedish prosecutor if they aren't intending to do that).
If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!
Because, as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court, that's their fucking job.
> They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning.
This is not true
>Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them?
Why does anyone have a right to due process? Assange has every right to respond to the Swedish enquiry from the UK, but the prosecutor has not allowed him to make his statement on the accusations against him.
>fugitive
What are you smoking? Assange is not a fugitive in Sweden, the only country that could consider him a fugitive is the UK.
>If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!
But in Sweden you can't, as the courts have confirmed. This is like locking someone up in jail until trial and refusing to interview them because you're busy.
Because it quickly became clear that the alternative was not to be able to interview him, and they have a legal duty to seek justice. Justice has not gotten done by refusing their best opportunity to interview him.
> Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning.
Yet they deviate from this regularly, and actually did so in another case during Assange's extradition hearings.
You seem to think Assange gets to make the rules and choose how he gets treated. There's a European arrest warrant, the UK needs to arrest him and he needs to go to Sweden.
The UK is not, however, compelled to use this extraordinary level of resources on a single person. As we can clearly see since it has been drastically scaled back. The only reason for this kind of resource usage was because of Assange's profile.
Assange is playing by the rules and that's why he's in the Embassy. He's following the rules to the book and so are the authorities.
Why should they, well if they wish to bring justice and save money they should do it. Because if they do not, then the time expires which for the rape warrant is in 4 years. And justice will not be done.
Of course it is. 'The rules' include things like "committing rape can cause rape allegations", "proving a rape allegation false causes criminal proceedings against the accuser", "skipping bail causes the authorities to pursue", "breaking/revoking diplomatic status damages foreign relations", etc.
The whole point of 'the rules' is that they apply to criminals; the only way to force something on criminals (or anyone) is to make them unavoidable, i.e. make it impossible to not play by the rules.
It's not like a game of chess, where the rules don't account for the use of tanks; or DRM, where "the rules" only apply to those with legal copies. It's more like Nomic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), where the rules allow the rules to change. The difference is that Nomic's initial set of rules require unanimous agreement to rule changes (so any unfortunate consequences are ultimately a player's 'own fault' for agreeing to something long ago); the real world's initial rules were natural selection, which is a horrific way to live.
Because he has a right to respond to the allegations against him, and being in Sweden isn't necessary (neither from a legal nor a practical point of view) for that.
>Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?
Except the 44 people that did, you should do a little research before making such statements in the future.
Yes, he has a right to respond to the allegations. But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen. The Swedish authorities may decide to grant him that request, but he doesn't have the right to demand it. It's breathtakingly arrogant of him to suggest that he can. He has exercised his right to challenge the EAW and lost comprehensively.
Assange isn't breaking any Swedish rules or laws by not showing up in Sweden (he did however violate his UK bail).
I'm not sure what makes you think that he deserves the special treatment that he's currently receiving, it is common practice for Swedish authorities to interview people abroad (44 times in the UK!).
>But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen
Of course he does, he has an irrevocable right to defend himself against the allegations against him. His behaviour does not take that right away from him, nor can the Swedish prosecutor dictate the terms of that. Especially after the Swedish supreme court sided with Assange here.
It's also worth noting that the prosecutors duty isn't to Assange, but to the legal system. The goal of the legal system is to find whether or not Assange is guilty, not to punish him. By refusing to interview Assange in the embassy the prosecutor has betrayed the court system and breached her duty.
Because the alternative is no questioning. The Swedish prosecutor has, by refusing to arrange to question him in London when it became clear she was unlikely to get him to Sweden, effectively denied justice both to Assange and to the women in question.
That's exactly the problem here, he hasn't been allowed his day in court.
According to the Swedish supreme court being in Sweden isn't a requirement for that, no matter his behaviour he should be allowed his day in court.
That behaviour includes refusing to personally come to Sweden, he has every right to do that. The only thing he has violated during the entire extradition process is his bail.
He's a high-profile fugitive who is evading arrest for alleged sexual offences against women in a member state in Europe.