Move on Assange

Unless you live under a rock most people have heard of the Assange extradition case. While highly complex, involving lots of technicalities there are multiple reasons he should be extradited, and he should agree to it.
Firstly he has been accused of breaking another nation’s laws, which I am sure most people, agree is something that deserves investigation. He needs to be arrested and interrogated by the police for the initial stage of the investigation to move forwards to him being indicted. This also why Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is not suitable in this case as he is not simply being questioned or asked his view of events (this part has already happened in Sweden) but interrogated with all the facts from the investigation that has gone before. The extradition would also be legal as all the offences he is accused of would also be criminal in the UK, sex without a condom when one partner demands the use of a condom is considered rape in the UK as well as Sweden.

There is also no plot to extradite him to Sweden so they can extradite him to the United States, but simply following the correct legal Swedish procedure. This idea falls down if you understand extradition laws; Sweden shares the same laws as the UK on extradition specifically he couldn’t be extradited for any charge where he would face the death penalty. Secondly it is harder to extradite him from Sweden than it is from the UK to the US due to the extradition treaty between the UK and US allowing extradition without prima facie, whereas in Sweden it would need a formal request and court case. Also by extraditing him to Sweden the US would need to gain permission not only from Sweden but also the UK, which from what I understand would then require a formal extradition request placed with the UK government as well.

Therefore there is no moral, political, or human rights reason for him not to face the charges. We must also remember the human rights of the woman who claim they were raped; they deserve a chance for their case to be heard.

However I do think there is political motivation to the claims against him and also the publicity it is given. Firstly the case was initially dropped and then subsequently  reopened about a month later. At the same time other slanderous campaigns from ex-members of WikiLeaks who appear to have fallen out from the main group throwing vague claims of Assange abuse of position and financial motivation none of which can be substantiated, while they themselves are financially motivated through making these claims to sell ‘expose’ books which reveal at most that Assange may have stolen cocoa powder and petted his cat a little bit too much. What is suspicious is the amount of media coverage given to all of this, considering the US government is known to use accusations of rape as a weapon, I think it is likely they are promoting this case and anything else which could discredit Assange and wiki leaks.

This is the initial reason why Assange should agree to be extradited; this isn’t an attempt to move him to the United States, but an attempt to slander him, the only way to remove the slander is to agree to go to Sweden and face interrogation. Why you might ask? He stands a good chance of winning his case, or it not even being charged, as case against him is full of major holes. Firstly both women claim they agreed to sleep with him as long as he wore a condom. The lower rape accusations of molestation against Miss A primarily arise from this, also rubbing his penis against her, and pinning her down. The accusations associated with Miss W are of rape however this has some major issues in itself.

The Miss W interview is not useable as proper evidence for a start as she did not have it read back to her and she did not sign it off as correct. This was due to her becoming visibly distressed when she heard they were going to arrest Assange. While not causing any suspicion by itself, the fact that the interview was edited after the investigation was initially dropped, these edits portray Assange as much more forceful and aggressive man. Therefore we have something that suggests the interviewer is liberal with the truth. This is significant as since the interview it has been reported Miss W has said that she was half awake when Assange initiated the sex. This would mean she was not asleep when Assange initiated it therefore a bit of a grey region on the rape charge, she also admits she was conscious enough to say no or stop him but decided against this. However, this is irrelevant as it is not acceptable evidence as it has not been agreed upon therefore no one is actually yet accusing him of rape.

Miss A is more complex. The entire breaking condom issue is problematic as she accuses him of breaking it on purpose, by her claims it was still on him during the sex so he didn’t take it off half way through. The ability to prove this in a court will be interesting. The other charges become more complicated after this incident, which she said left her feeling threatened etc. when Assange was staying in her flat, however Witness E offered repeatedly to find somewhere else for him to live, which she continually refused.

Witness E also provides another insight. The reason the two woman went to the police was as Miss W wanted an HIV test but Assange refused, they blackmailed him by effectively saying: “Get the test or we will go to the Police”. This is blackmail and clearly causes issue with the rape case as it brings the evidence provided by the woman into disrepute. While Miss W simply wanted an HIV test done due to fear, Miss A’s involvement becomes questionable and leads to wider issues for the wider case.

According to witness A, Miss A only went to support Miss W and never planned on accusing him of rape however the police decided to accuse him from her testimony. Issues arise from this claim as Witness A posted on her Facebook a comment about a man raping someone after consensual sex. Clearly she has been talking about this as rape to other people so it is unlikely that she never intended to make Assange out to be a rapist. This part becomes incredibly important: the woman who interviewed Miss W, Imeli Krans, was a friend of Miss A. Therefore she is likely to have heard directly or indirectly of Miss A’s accusation, and therefore gone into the interview with Miss W with prejudice. This would explain why Assange was accused of rape before Miss W’s interview was complete and why she became so distressed when she was told as such, it was Miss A’s view not Miss W’s view. A sign that Krans’ view was prejudiced was her dismay when the Swedish Chief prosecutor decided to close the case, with an outburst on Facebook ‘SKANDAAAAAAAAL!!!!!’

Witness E also provides one last useful point in his interview. The woman who Miss A surrounded herself with were feminist to the level of reverse chauvinism some explicitly anti-male. If Krans comes from the same group, with some websites insinuating it was possibly her who made the anti-male outburst, it would make the interview likely to be prejudiced from the beginning.

However I believe Assange knows all this, his lawyer’s will as well, therefore why is he so determined to avoid extradition to the extent of aligning with a government which is openly suppressive to the press? I believe he is genuinely scared of losing the case and going to prison this would be disastrous to his name and to Wiki Leaks. The US government toiling on with the grand jury deciding if they should extradite Assange is in my view merely a smoke screen one to scare Assange into dragging this out but refusing to be extradited anywhere putting the case in the media and helping to slander his name. Secondly it distracts everyone else from actually looking at the rape cases properly and realising how weak the case against this one man is.