Prosecutor wants to question Assange in Sweden

an interview with him. The Swedish authorities aren't going to play any more of his games

they want to get their paws on him.

at least for people who are consistent in their viewpoint, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet

2)  Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.

Source: Undue delay for Julian Assange’s interrogation

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Prosecution

Why is the Swedish Prosecutor refusing to Question Assange?

The only beneficiary from delaying the questioning of Julian Assange for 1,5 years is the US, which is preparing it’s case against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Bradley Manning. The delay in no way benefits the two women, who were reportedly not seeking to report Assange to the police anyway, nor Julian Assange, who has been robbed of his liberty in the 500 days spanning from his detention on 7 December 2010 to the Supreme Court judgment. Marianne Ny has given no explanation, either to the two women or to Assange, why she has chosen to delay the case and handled it in such an extraordinary manner. The behaviour of the prosecutor even conflicts with her own directives to the Swedish authorities, which call for the speedy questioning of the suspect.

- snip -

The prosecutor Marianne Ny has misled the public by stating that Swedish and UK law do not permit her to question Julian Assange in the UK. Three days after Marianne Ny had issued the EAW for Julian Assange, (05 December 2010), Ny falsely stated: "Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in London."
Prosecutor Marianne Ny has also claimed that questioning in the UK was illegal in a Time interview on 3 December 2010. This is false. Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute.
Incidentally, Ny’s comments to the Swedish press stating that she is not permitted to question Assange in the UK have subsequently been redacted: compare the original to the redacted version. (If these links are broken click here.)

that he had misrepresented various matters here and that the Swedish authorities were, in fact, making constant efforts, through him (Assange's lawyer) to bring Assange in for further interviews, before Assange suddenly left Sweden

This habit of misrepresenting facts has dominated Assange' Public Relations in recent years, and I think it is increasingly clear that the man has little credibility

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

because Assange's lawyer himself finally admitted to the court that he had misrepresented the situation

on September 27th, the day before the scheduled DNA test and interview on the 28th...

The court heard from Assange's attorneys and the prosecutors. I suggest you read the entire findings, as they form the legal basis for the extradition case. In particular, pages 5-6 discuss how the court came to the conclusion that Assange's lawyer was prevaricating on the interview issue.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Going around and around with this again and again.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the court is the entity that determines the facts of the case.

According to his own attorneys, Mr. Assange fled Sweden the day before his scheduled interview and DNA sample. Apparently, he had not realized until that day that he would be required under Swedish law to give said DNA sample, and would be subject to possible confinement.

He ran. Criminals do it all the time.

Einstein would concur as he was a staunch activist for peace, against government tyranny, war crimes and abuse of power. It is a true shame that you attach his image to your hateful comments.

but in my eyes it wouldn't matter if a person had created world peace, found a cure for cancer and solved world hunger. If the person were to break the law then i would wish for him to be charged and face the relevant court, Past good deeds does not excuse criminal acts done(they might grant some leniency depending but in my eyes shouldn't.)

They've insisted on Assange travelling to Sweden.... who have an extradition treaty with America.

The SECOND Assange lands on Swedish territory, he'll be detained for extradition. Sweden has given him no guarantees that this WON'T happen.

And bad things will happen to you, including being setup for horrible crimes.

It takes quite the ignoramus to not see that's what has been going on from the beginning.

they could have done a better job: maybe they could have left the half-devoured corpse of some child in his room and provided some quality computer animation of him gnawing on it, for example