Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

Swedish courts have found the allegations as stated by the prosecutor gives reason enough to issue an arrest warrant on suspicion to allow him to be questioned again (and possibly charged), not that evidence have been presented sufficient to charge or convict him.

The barrier for arresting someone on suspicion in Scandinavian countries is extremely low, as this is a routine way of taking someone in for questioning when the person in question refuses to return willingly.

The presence of a police interview with an alleged victim that contains statements that can reasonably be interpreted to implicate Assange in a crime would most likely in itself be sufficient.

The UK courts have only agreed that the allegations as stated by the prosecutors, and as supported by the prosecutors unverified accounts of what the women have said in police interviews would also amount to crimes in the UK, and that thus the content of the allegations is not an hindrance to extradition.

Assanges lawyers have not had opportunity to challenge the content of these, as that is outside of the scope of the extradition hearings, only to challenge the interpretation.

So these courts and jurists have not said much more than that if there is evidence to support these statements, that have not faced any legal challenge, then what is contained in them as written amounts to a crime.

As for the West I'll have you know I have been through Strathfield several times, and I once even flew over Parramatta.

Hope I've busted a few stereotypes here tonight!

This is only half true. The allegations have been found to constitute a crime if they are true.

Therefore they are sufficient to justify an arrest warrant in Sweden, and I have described why that means nothing.

You can swear at a police officer in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky you'll find yourself arrested (and released before they'd need to formally charge you with anything). My dad had the misfortune of experiencing that first hand once when I was growing up.

In neither country did the court consider whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges. That was in both cases outside of the remit of the court.

The rest of your comment conveniently contract the process to make it seem like the step from an arrest warrant to a charge is short in this case. It could be. It could also be much longer. It is not unusual for Scandinavian cases to go like this:

1. Police receives a complaint, and starts investigation.

2. Police wants to talk to X, and issues an arrest warrant. Interviews X. Releases X. Continues investigation

3. Police wants to talk to Y, and issues an arrest warrant. Interviews Y. Releases Y. Continues investigation

... continue until they finally find someone they have sufficient evidence to charge...

4. Police charges someone or decides there is no case to answer.

(followed, possibly, your step 3 and 4)

So getting to stage 2 in Scandinavia does not imply that they have any evidence, nor even that they are sure that a crime has occurred, nor that the person being arrested is someone the police have any degree of certainty have done anything even objectionable.

There's been plenty of cases recently with patterns like these.

Now, in this case we know that it's either Assange or nobody. But there is no implication inherent in the arrest warrant that says that there is evidence sufficient for charges, or that any will be made.

> It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.

If that had been true, this wouldn't even have been a discussion. If normal procedure had been followed, there'd been little reason to suspect foul play, and no reason not to urge Assange to go back - in fact, if that was the case and he went back, he'd worst case risk a prison sentence that would rob him of less freedom than what this process would (~6 months in a minimum security prison most non-Scandinavians would consider holiday-camp would be a likely sentence given the allegations, if found guilty).

There's numerous ways in which Assange's case have provably been handled outside the norm:

- He was wanted for arrest. The arrest warrant was cancelled and the case closed. A new prosecutor, a friend of the lawyer who represents the alleged victims, reopened the case. This in itself is at least highly unusual.

- The prosecutor has violated procedure by interviewing witnesses over the phone, possibly invalidating their statements.

- The prosecutor refuses to interview him abroad, alleging it can't be done, despite the fact that Swedish police did this with murder suspects after the extradition request against Assange was issued, and before the decision was handed down. Somehow different rules apply to Assange than people wanted for murder.

- UK police seems fit to "honour" him with a 24/7 watch, while lots of other people that are wanted are not even actively looked for.

You can claim "everybody gets the same process" all you want, but it is provably false.

(In this category it is also worth again mentioning that Sweden has admitted to colluding in illegal CIA rendition flights, handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA for transport to the regime they were fleeing, in direct violation of Swedish law and international treaties - so much for "everbody gets the same process"; forgive me for being sceptical of a regime that not only did that once, but that were caught red-handed by a different branch of government still assisting years after insisting it had stopped)