Sweden's Still Playing Games With Assange

Four Years Ago ... Assange team challenge Swedish prosecutor to come to London, 2011 4.5 YEARS ...  ... MANY ENRAGED POLITICIANS ... ... A MULTI-SUBJECT FBI INVESTIGATION ... ... US MULTI-AGENCY CO-OPERATION ... ... NUMEROUS COURT CASES ... ... ONE UNITED NATIONS PETITION ... ... & STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (OR TWO) ... ... L A T E R ... Swedish prosecutor requests to interview Assange in London The prosecutor requests to interview Assange in London  2015-03-13  Director of Public Prosecutions Marianne Ny has today made a request to Julian Assange’s legal representatives whether Assange would consent to being interviewed in London and have his DNA taken via a swab.  [Read elsewhere that a swab had previously been provided.] If Assange gives his consent, the prosecutor will promptly submit a request for legal assistance to the British authorities to further continue the investigation. English law states that a person being interviewed through the use of of international legal assistance in a criminal case must also provide his or her consent. A request will also be sent to the Ecuadorian authorities regarding permission to perform investigative measures at the country’s embassy in London. The reason the prosecutor decides now to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.    [Yeah, and there's that little matter of a UN petition.] -The Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in June 2012 that Julian Assange should be surrendered to Sweden. He has prevented this submission by taking refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy, says Director of Public Prosecutions Marianne Ny.  [The Courts do not decide on facts associated with weighing up if there is 'a case to answer'; rather, they deal with technicalities concerning the issuance of  the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in the event of a dispute, and essentially rubber-stamp, on the merits of mere technical issuance, the EAW in question.  However, it has been documented and reported that EAWs are readily issued in Europe by authorities pursuing a large number of trivial prosecutions and for political persecution (as Sweden notes:  Romania).] - My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorian embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview, and that he would need to be present in Sweden in any case should there be a trial in the future. This assessment remains unchanged. Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies to the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward, particularly as there are no other measures on offer without Assange being present in Sweden, said Marianne Ny.  [Interview 'quality' supposedly an issue for 4.5 years while dodging questioning Assange?  Yeah, sure.] In November 2014 the Svea Court of Appeal decided that Julian Assange should remain detained in his absence. The Court further viewed the investigation to be at a standstill and stated that the prosecutor had not fully fulfilled the duty the drive the investigation forward. - Over the past two months we have fully considered and deliberated upon the views made by the Court of Appeal regarding how best to move the investigation forward. This has resulted in the decision I have now taken, namely to try to get permission for an interview in London. As stated, it remains unclear what this may result in. However, I have now decided to try to carry out an interview as the statutory limitation nears, said Marianne Ny. If Julian Assange provides consent to continue the investigation in London, this will be performed by the supporting prosecutor to the case, Chief Prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, together with a police officer. - I cannot comment further on the case at this point, not least when such an interview will take place nor other details, said Marianne Ny  Julian Assange has appealed the Court of Appeal’s detention order to the Supreme Court, which recently requested the Prosecutor-General to submit an opinion concerning the Court’s subsequent dealing of the matter. http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The-prosecutor-requests-to-interview-Assange-in-London/ COMMENT Suspected that the UN petition and the statute of limitations had something to do with this & the statute of limitations factor's been confirmed by Sweden (above), but this is also very much a face-saving excuse for Sweden and the more pressing catalyst for the latest Swedish step in this macabre dance is the UN petition lodged by Assange, I would think. So there you go.  More than four years of someone's life wasted, and casually passed off as stalling over 'quality' of interview issues — after 'illegality' of a London interview claims were made by the same prosecutor.   And, now, that the statute of limitations is looming, and that Assange has lodged a UN petition in protest of arbitrary detention ... Sweden requests an interview. So this is just a legal manoeuvre, probably to undermine the UN petition by being seen to be 'doing' something to progress the case  (yet doing so at the eleventh hour).  The Guardian: Julian Assange set to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors in London WikiLeaks founder expected to be interrogated on rape and sexual molestation claims at Ecuadorian embassy in bid to break deadlock http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/13/julian-assange-wikileaks-swedish-prosecutors-london-interview Originally, I'm pretty sure that Guardian headline was "WikiLeaks founder set to be interrogated", which prompted me to remark on the spin that puts on the story.  But on looking up the article again, the headline's:  "Julian Assange set to be questioned ...". Not sure what's going on there. Odd for me to be mistaken about something like that, but I could be. However, I do note they've also got the following beneath the headline: "WikiLeaks founder expected to be interrogated on rape and sexual molestation claims"  which, in my opinion, maintains that same sensationalising and misleading spin. Consider the following:  SOURCE:  WSWS Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. The average reader would not even be familiar with a broad range of general facts regarding the Assange story, let alone aware of the existence of admissions made that discredit Sweden's almost 5 year pursuit of Assange, so I think language used in conveying any story is important if the aim is non-prejudicial reporting. The word 'interrogate' -  "Ask questions of (someone) closely, aggressively, or formally." Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary that I've got on hand is ancient and hasn't a definition of 'interrogate' or 'interrogation'. According to Wikipedia: Interrogation (also called questioning) is interviewing as commonly employed by law enforcement officers, military personnel, and intelligence agencies with the goal of eliciting useful information. Interrogation may involve a diverse array of techniques, ranging from developing a rapport with the subject, to outright torture. As I'm unfamiliar with criminal law, I can't say whether a prosecutor interviewing a person who has not been charged with a crime constitutes what would be referred to as an 'interrogation', but as The Guardian is writing for an audience of laypeople, I think: "... expected to be interrogated on rape and sexual molestation claims"  is loaded and prejudicial. The term 'interrogated', especially used in that sentence, would almost unconsciously conjurer in the mind of a reader unfamiliar with the facts: (a) an 'inquisition' for extracting admission of wrongdoing or guilt; and (b) agency in the carriage of wrongdoing. So a sentence constructed in such a way may also prejudicially shape public perception and public opinion. Whereas a more straightforward variation, such as 'expected to be questioned on ..." conveys none of the taint associated with a term such as 'interrogation'.  Well, unless it's paired with "rape and sexual molestation claims." Whose claims?  It looks as though these are claims of the legal entity that is Sweden, rather than claims of the women themselves.  So Sweden, by a quirk of the legal system as it presently stands, has made legal claims against Assange; which claims have been discredited given various testimony from the women concerned. Whatever the nature of the claims made by the legal entity that is Sweden, reading "to be interrogated on rape and sexual molestation claims" emblazoned in newspapers, online articles and in other online references around the world is, I think, highly prejudicial to the public perception of the person who is the target of those types of claims, especially when that person is also the target of political persecution, as is Julian Assange. Whatever the scenario, even if it was — "interrogated on theft of inflatable butt plug claims" — it is still prejudicial to whoever is portrayed as the subject of 'interrogation' and as the agent of whatever is claimed to be the individual's culpability. I don't exactly have a way with words, so I'm not quite sure how the factual information could be concisely conveyed in a less prejudicial way (apart from not using the coloured term, 'interrogation', when addressing an audience of laypeople). What about "on alleged XYZ claims":  eg.  "interrogated on alleged theft of inflatable butt plug claims"? That conveys the claim but also, simultaneously, conveys that the claim is an allegation at that point in time; which, I think is important, particularly in a matter that is politically motivated. Publications and journalists, who are experienced wordsmiths, know the power of their words.  Yet Western mainstream media articles persistently portraying Assange either in a clearly negative manner, or negatively in some less obvious way. Anyway, they're my thoughts on the latest.  Tired.  Not sure I'm making sense.  Hopefully, I am. PS ... Funny how the prosecutor claimed Sweden couldn't legally question Assange, but when the heat is on because a UN petition has been lodged nearly 5 years down the track —  Hey, that uncompromising 'legal' position has suddenly changed and questioning Assange is now legally possible (despite past assertions and denials), and this is allegedly due to statute of limitation expiry concerns. So when did the law 'change'?  Was it when the statute of limitations expiry neared or was it when a UN petition was lodged? Disgraceful conduct from anybody, let alone the justice system of a first world country and self-proclaimed humanitarian moral force on the world stage. One final thing:  doesn't this sound like a form of mental torture?  Making a person fight hard and fight for years to progress a matter — blocking political asylum that's been granted, blocking that fight every step of the way and refusing to progress the matter during a 4.5 year stretch of detention without charge — only to turn around and take a calculated step at the eleventh hour, to be seen to be progressing the matter (when, in fact, this has been refused all along)? How maddening is that?  And expensive.  Legal advice and assistance in preparation and lodgement of petitions in UN courts can't come cheaply.  Ultimately, this is Sweden's tactical move; just as dragging this out, denying, dismissing and so on, was a tactical strategy for almost 5 years.