Julian Assange has been in Ecuado's embassy in London for nearly three years to avoid extradition from Sweden. (Photograph: Geoff Caddick/AFP/Getty Images)
Mar 13, 2015
Both a lawyer and spokesperson for WikiLeaks expressed relief on Friday that Swedish prosecutors are now willing travel to London to interview founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange, even as they characterized as ridiculous that fact that it took well over four years to accept such an arrangement.
Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than three years under asylum protection after allegations over sexual misconduct in Sweden sparked a legal battle over extradition. Assange has denied wrongdoing but repeatedly said he would be willing to answer all questions regarding the accusations and details of the case. However, he refused to return to Sweden stating fears of being extradited to the United States over a sealed indictment in that country related to his work with WikiLeaks exposing government and military secrets contained in leaked documents provided by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Swedish prosecutors of the case consistently refused Assange's offer to meet at the embassy in London to conduct the interview, but have now reversed that decision citing the approaching statute of limitations on the alleged offenses in the case.
"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean 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," said lead prosecutor Marianne Ny in a statement. "Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."
Ny said a request by her office was made to Assange's legal team on Friday for an in-person interview inside the Ecuador embassy in London. In addition, the prosecutors have requested to take a DNA swab of Assange.
Speaking with the Associated Press, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said the Swedish decision was "a victory for Julian," even as he criticized the delay.
"I think it's absolutely outrageous that it took the Swedish prosecutor 4 1/2 years to come to this conclusion after maintaining that she couldn't come to London because it would be illegal to do so," he said. "Obviously that was a bogus argument."
One of Assange's lawyers, Per Samuelson, said he had spoken with his client and that they were likely to accept the offer.
"This is something we've demanded for over four years," Samuelson told AP. "Julian Assange wants to be interviewed so he can be exonerated."
In response to the developments on Friday, independent journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, speaking on behalf of the Julian Assange Legal Defense Fund, released the following statement:
I have closely followed the Julian Assange case from the beginning. The Swedish prosecutor's move is demonstrably cynical. In finally agreeing to come to London to interview Assange - something Assange and his legal team have been asking her to do for more than four years - she has waited until just before Sweden's statute of limitations nullifies her patently threadbare case against him and kept Assange trapped in the UK while the US continues to pursue its unprecedented espionage case against Assange and WikiLeaks. She has wasted four and a half years of Assange's life -- against whom she has never produced a shred of evidence with which to formally charge him with any crime. Moreover, she is directly responsible for wasting millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money that have been spent on the policing of the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Her behaviour is scandalous.
According to the Guardian:
Assange has been wanted in Sweden since the accusations were made against him in August 2010. The British Foreign Office said in November it would welcome a request by the Swedish prosecutor to question Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuador's government has also repeatedly stated that it approves of such a step.
Assange's lawyers, who are appealing against his arrest warrant in Sweden's highest court, have complained bitterly about the prosecutor's refusal to travel to London to speak to him - an essential step under Swedish jurisprudence to establish whether Assange can be formally charged.
Ny's refusal, they say, has condemned Assange to severe limitations on his freedom that are disproportionate to the accusations against him.
Ny has argued that interrogating Assange abroad would be complicated and have little point because he would still have to travel to Sweden for trial, should sufficient grounds emerge. However, she is obliged to drop the case against him unless she believes there are "reasonable grounds" for suspicion of his guilt.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Both a lawyer and spokesperson for WikiLeaks expressed relief on Friday that Swedish prosecutors are now willing travel to London to interview founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange, even as they characterized as ridiculous that fact that it took well over four years to accept such an arrangement.
Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than three years under asylum protection after allegations over sexual misconduct in Sweden sparked a legal battle over extradition. Assange has denied wrongdoing but repeatedly said he would be willing to answer all questions regarding the accusations and details of the case. However, he refused to return to Sweden stating fears of being extradited to the United States over a sealed indictment in that country related to his work with WikiLeaks exposing government and military secrets contained in leaked documents provided by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Swedish prosecutors of the case consistently refused Assange's offer to meet at the embassy in London to conduct the interview, but have now reversed that decision citing the approaching statute of limitations on the alleged offenses in the case.
"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean 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," said lead prosecutor Marianne Ny in a statement. "Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."
Ny said a request by her office was made to Assange's legal team on Friday for an in-person interview inside the Ecuador embassy in London. In addition, the prosecutors have requested to take a DNA swab of Assange.
Speaking with the Associated Press, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said the Swedish decision was "a victory for Julian," even as he criticized the delay.
"I think it's absolutely outrageous that it took the Swedish prosecutor 4 1/2 years to come to this conclusion after maintaining that she couldn't come to London because it would be illegal to do so," he said. "Obviously that was a bogus argument."
One of Assange's lawyers, Per Samuelson, said he had spoken with his client and that they were likely to accept the offer.
"This is something we've demanded for over four years," Samuelson told AP. "Julian Assange wants to be interviewed so he can be exonerated."
In response to the developments on Friday, independent journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, speaking on behalf of the Julian Assange Legal Defense Fund, released the following statement:
I have closely followed the Julian Assange case from the beginning. The Swedish prosecutor's move is demonstrably cynical. In finally agreeing to come to London to interview Assange - something Assange and his legal team have been asking her to do for more than four years - she has waited until just before Sweden's statute of limitations nullifies her patently threadbare case against him and kept Assange trapped in the UK while the US continues to pursue its unprecedented espionage case against Assange and WikiLeaks. She has wasted four and a half years of Assange's life -- against whom she has never produced a shred of evidence with which to formally charge him with any crime. Moreover, she is directly responsible for wasting millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money that have been spent on the policing of the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Her behaviour is scandalous.
According to the Guardian:
Assange has been wanted in Sweden since the accusations were made against him in August 2010. The British Foreign Office said in November it would welcome a request by the Swedish prosecutor to question Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuador's government has also repeatedly stated that it approves of such a step.
Assange's lawyers, who are appealing against his arrest warrant in Sweden's highest court, have complained bitterly about the prosecutor's refusal to travel to London to speak to him - an essential step under Swedish jurisprudence to establish whether Assange can be formally charged.
Ny's refusal, they say, has condemned Assange to severe limitations on his freedom that are disproportionate to the accusations against him.
Ny has argued that interrogating Assange abroad would be complicated and have little point because he would still have to travel to Sweden for trial, should sufficient grounds emerge. However, she is obliged to drop the case against him unless she believes there are "reasonable grounds" for suspicion of his guilt.
Both a lawyer and spokesperson for WikiLeaks expressed relief on Friday that Swedish prosecutors are now willing travel to London to interview founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange, even as they characterized as ridiculous that fact that it took well over four years to accept such an arrangement.
Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than three years under asylum protection after allegations over sexual misconduct in Sweden sparked a legal battle over extradition. Assange has denied wrongdoing but repeatedly said he would be willing to answer all questions regarding the accusations and details of the case. However, he refused to return to Sweden stating fears of being extradited to the United States over a sealed indictment in that country related to his work with WikiLeaks exposing government and military secrets contained in leaked documents provided by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Swedish prosecutors of the case consistently refused Assange's offer to meet at the embassy in London to conduct the interview, but have now reversed that decision citing the approaching statute of limitations on the alleged offenses in the case.
"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean 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," said lead prosecutor Marianne Ny in a statement. "Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."
Ny said a request by her office was made to Assange's legal team on Friday for an in-person interview inside the Ecuador embassy in London. In addition, the prosecutors have requested to take a DNA swab of Assange.
Speaking with the Associated Press, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said the Swedish decision was "a victory for Julian," even as he criticized the delay.
"I think it's absolutely outrageous that it took the Swedish prosecutor 4 1/2 years to come to this conclusion after maintaining that she couldn't come to London because it would be illegal to do so," he said. "Obviously that was a bogus argument."
One of Assange's lawyers, Per Samuelson, said he had spoken with his client and that they were likely to accept the offer.
"This is something we've demanded for over four years," Samuelson told AP. "Julian Assange wants to be interviewed so he can be exonerated."
In response to the developments on Friday, independent journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, speaking on behalf of the Julian Assange Legal Defense Fund, released the following statement:
I have closely followed the Julian Assange case from the beginning. The Swedish prosecutor's move is demonstrably cynical. In finally agreeing to come to London to interview Assange - something Assange and his legal team have been asking her to do for more than four years - she has waited until just before Sweden's statute of limitations nullifies her patently threadbare case against him and kept Assange trapped in the UK while the US continues to pursue its unprecedented espionage case against Assange and WikiLeaks. She has wasted four and a half years of Assange's life -- against whom she has never produced a shred of evidence with which to formally charge him with any crime. Moreover, she is directly responsible for wasting millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money that have been spent on the policing of the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Her behaviour is scandalous.
According to the Guardian:
Assange has been wanted in Sweden since the accusations were made against him in August 2010. The British Foreign Office said in November it would welcome a request by the Swedish prosecutor to question Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuador's government has also repeatedly stated that it approves of such a step.
Assange's lawyers, who are appealing against his arrest warrant in Sweden's highest court, have complained bitterly about the prosecutor's refusal to travel to London to speak to him - an essential step under Swedish jurisprudence to establish whether Assange can be formally charged.
Ny's refusal, they say, has condemned Assange to severe limitations on his freedom that are disproportionate to the accusations against him.
Ny has argued that interrogating Assange abroad would be complicated and have little point because he would still have to travel to Sweden for trial, should sufficient grounds emerge. However, she is obliged to drop the case against him unless she believes there are "reasonable grounds" for suspicion of his guilt.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.