Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Assuming that the court is resonably fair and that not exposed to political pressure of any kind, like it happened countless times in history.
Please look at the examples above.
Your faith in the trustability of the "system" is really really naive, if I may..

So famous or political people should never be tried for anything by anyone because of the possibility of political interference. That is the conclusion to that line of 'reasoning'.

[Wudang]

Plus I think Assange is being tried in a Swedish court not a US military court. I think they have different rules.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

So famous or political people should never be tried for anything by anyone because of the possibility of political interference. That is the conclusion to that line of 'reasoning'.

I have never said anything remotely close to this

Originally Posted by Wudang

Plus I think Assange is being tried in a Swedish court not a US military court. I think they have different rules.

And based on what evidence you say (if this is what you are saying) that military courts may be influenced by political issues while Swedish civilian courts can not?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

I have never said anything remotely close to this

So which people should be tried by politically corrupted or influenced courts? What makes Assange special? How should it be handled if someone such as Assange really does commit a crime? Do they get a special court?

What I said is a direct consequent of your reasoning. You don't have to say it for it to be present, and you can't escape it by denying that it's there. If Assange shouldn't be tried because the court could be politically led then no other person like Assange should be either. It's what your argument leads to, unless other people are simply less important than Assange.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

So which people should be tried by politically corrupted or influenced courts? What makes Assange special? How should it be handled if someone such as Assange really does commit a crime? Do they get a special court?

You are confusing two separate issues:
1) is there any reasonable evidence to believe that Assange` s case may be influenced by political issues?
2) if yes, how then shall we handle the case

Since most readers here are not even OK with 1), there is no point to go to 2)

Originally Posted by tyr_13

What I said is a direct consequent of your reasoning. [..]

The "consequence" is only due to your confusion, if I may ..

[uke2se]

Since you are still here, John, could you please answer the question you pathetically ran from before?

What would you prefer that the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

Please note that the Swedish government can't legally issue any more of a guarantee that Assange won't be extradited than the guarantee that all laws will be adhered to. Doing so would be an act of totalitarianism, and Sweden is a democratic country.

[TjW]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Government never formally "break" the laws, as they are the one making the laws.
And they can always find a way out of any law: see for example US` invasion of Iraq

A complete non-sequitur in attempting to answer the question of what practical repercussions Sweden would face if it gave the "guarantee" Assange, or Ecuador, or whoever, demands, and then extradited him anyway.

If Sweden can be trusted to follow its own laws, there is no reason to ask for a guarantee.

If Sweden is NOT trustworthy, but there are no serious repercussions to the politicians that make the guarantee if Sweden extradites anyway, there is no reason reason to insist on a guarantee, since the guarantee is worthless.

It's only in the case where Sweden is NOT trustworthy, but faces serious sanctions if it does extradite Assange, that a guarantee is worth anything.

I haven't seen anything to convince me that this is the case. The only sanction you've advanced, that they would "lose face" if they broke their promise, doesn't seem to me to be a whole lot more embarrassing than being asked to make that kind of promise in the first place.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by TjW

A complete non-sequitur in attempting to answer the question of what practical repercussions Sweden would face if it gave the "guarantee" Assange, or Ecuador, or whoever, demands, and then extradited him anyway.

If Sweden can be trusted to follow its own laws, there is no reason to ask for a guarantee.

If Sweden is NOT trustworthy, but there are no serious repercussions to the politicians that make the guarantee if Sweden extradites anyway, there is no reason reason to insist on a guarantee, since the guarantee is worthless.

It's only in the case where Sweden is NOT trustworthy, but faces serious sanctions if it does extradite Assange, that a guarantee is worth anything.

I haven't seen anything to convince me that this is the case. The only sanction you've advanced, that they would "lose face" if they broke their promise, doesn't seem to me to be a whole lot more embarrassing than being asked to make that kind of promise in the first place.

Follow “its own laws” and giving a guarantee are obviously two separated matters.
You can always count on being able to interpret the extradition laws in one way or the other, since there is nothing in the law that expressely prohibits Sweden to extradite Assange.
On the other side, if Sweden would issue a clear declaration in front of the international community that they will not extradite Assange, it would be quite difficult for them then to change their word without appearing as liars.
They might do that as well, but it would be much more difficult

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Follow “its own laws” and giving a guarantee are obviously two separated matters.
You can always count on being able to interpret the extradition laws in one way or the other, since there is nothing in the law that expressely prohibits Sweden to extradite Assange.

No, the extradition laws have been explained over and over. If you didn't read it before why should we say it again?

Quote:

On the other side, if Sweden would issue a clear declaration in front of the international community that they will not extradite Assange, it would be quite difficult for them then to change their word without appearing as liars.
They might do that as well, but it would be much more difficult

And it again it has been explained that the Swedish government is prevented by its own laws and treaties from giving such a guarantee. Have you actually read anything that's been posted? And will you answer uk2se's question please?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Wudang

No, the extradition laws have been explained over and over. If you didn't read it before why should we say it again?

As I said numerous times, if you look at laws only, you can twist things as you like.
You can send a person who slapped a police officer in jail for 5 years and leave a mafia boss who killed 20 people free.

Originally Posted by Wudang

And it again it has been explained that the Swedish government is prevented by its own laws and treaties from giving such a guarantee. Have you actually read anything that's been posted? And will you answer uk2se's question please?

And here we go again..
The Soviet laws were not broken when thousands of kulaki were sent to die in Siberia.
Do not you underrstand that formal respect of law does not necessarily mean anything close to “morality” or “justice”?

[Helen]

You are afraid that the legal process in Sweden will be influenced by politics, and to ensure that it will not, you want Swedish politicians to override the law, by promising things they have no legal right to promise?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Helen

You are afraid that the legal process in Sweden will be influenced by politics, and to ensure that it will not, you want Swedish politicians to override the law, by promising things they have no legal right to promise?

This certainly seems to be what he's arguing. Maybe if he'd answer the question he keeps running from, we could understand him, because right now, nothing he posts makes any sense whatsoever.

John: What would you prefer that the Swedish authorities did with this case. Should they dismiss it out of hand because it is possible that Assange didn't commit rape? Should they throw away the evidence because there exists a possibility that the evidence is flawed, or points to some other sequence of events that does not involve Assange raping two women?

What do you think they should do?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Helen

You are afraid that the legal process in Sweden will be influenced by politics, and to ensure that it will not, you want Swedish politicians to override the law, by promising things they have no legal right to promise?

"This invalidated most, but not all, of the charges against him; but the outcome was that extradition could proceed. In April 1999, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former US President George H. W. Bush called upon the British government to release Pinochet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictm...gusto_Pinochet

Why then for Pinochet Thatcher and Bush called for the release of Pinochet?
If the UK judiciary is independent, why did Thatcher and Bush say anything?

Why the UK Government stepped into the arrest warrant of Livni?
The Foreign Office, clearly deeply embarrassed by the episode, said in a statement: "The UK is determined to do all it can to promote peace in the Middle East and to be a strategic partner of Israel. To do this, Israel's leaders need to be able to come to the UK for talks with the British government. We are looking urgently at the implications of this case."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...el-gaza-arrest

Since we are here, how many of the crimes that resulted from the leaks (including the famous elicopter scene when civilians were killed) were prosecuted?
Is it against the law to prosecute killings of civilians during a war?
And why Sgt. Wuterich did not spend a day in jail for killing 28 unarmed civilians?
Is it against the law to send to jail people who kill unarmed civilians?

Has justice been done in the above cases?

[Helen]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

"This invalidated most, but not all, of the charges against him; but the outcome was that extradition could proceed. In April 1999, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former US President George H. W. Bush called upon the British government to release Pinochet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictm...gusto_Pinochet

Why then for Pinochet Thatcher and Bush called for the release of Pinochet?
If the UK judiciary is independent, why did Thatcher and Bush say anything?

Why the UK Government stepped into the arrest warrant of Livni?
The Foreign Office, clearly deeply embarrassed by the episode, said in a statement: "The UK is determined to do all it can to promote peace in the Middle East and to be a strategic partner of Israel. To do this, Israel's leaders need to be able to come to the UK for talks with the British government. We are looking urgently at the implications of this case."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...el-gaza-arrest

Since we are here, how many of the crimes that resulted from the leaks (including the famous elicopter scene when civilians were killed) were prosecuted?
Is it against the law to prosecute killings of civilians during a war?
And why Sgt. Wuterich did not spend a day in jail for killing 28 unarmed civilians?
Is it against the law to send to jail people who kill unarmed civilians?

Has justice been done in the above cases?

And your answer to my question was... what, exactly?

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

As I said numerous times, if you look at laws only, you can twist things as you like.
You can send a person who slapped a police officer in jail for 5 years and leave a mafia boss who killed 20 people free.

And as uke2se keeps asking you - what would you replace the process with? Why do you repeatedly avoid the question?

Quote:

And here we go again..
The Soviet laws were not broken when thousands of kulaki were sent to die in Siberia.
Do not you underrstand that formal respect of law does not necessarily mean anything close to “morality” or “justice”?

Soviet laws do not apply in Sweden which has a separation of legislative and judicial powers - again.
How is morality or justice served by giving an alleged sexual predator a free pass just because he was once part of a process that allegedly did some good?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

"This invalidated most, but not all, of the charges against him; but the outcome was that extradition could proceed. In April 1999, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former US President George H. W. Bush called upon the British government to release Pinochet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictm...gusto_Pinochet

Why then for Pinochet Thatcher and Bush called for the release of Pinochet?
If the UK judiciary is independent, why did Thatcher and Bush say anything?

Why the UK Government stepped into the arrest warrant of Livni?
The Foreign Office, clearly deeply embarrassed by the episode, said in a statement: "The UK is determined to do all it can to promote peace in the Middle East and to be a strategic partner of Israel. To do this, Israel's leaders need to be able to come to the UK for talks with the British government. We are looking urgently at the implications of this case."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...el-gaza-arrest

Since we are here, how many of the crimes that resulted from the leaks (including the famous elicopter scene when civilians were killed) were prosecuted?
Is it against the law to prosecute killings of civilians during a war?
And why Sgt. Wuterich did not spend a day in jail for killing 28 unarmed civilians?
Is it against the law to send to jail people who kill unarmed civilians?

Has justice been done in the above cases?

You failed to answer the question. I'll just repeat it for you:

Quote:

You are afraid that the legal process in Sweden will be influenced by politics, and to ensure that it will not, you want Swedish politicians to override the law, by promising things they have no legal right to promise?

If you were to start answering some of the very relevant questions being posed to you, this discussion might move forward. As it is, you're just answering every hard question with "PINOCHET!", as if that had anything at all to do with the Assange case. Please get a grip and start trying to understand the case you are arguing about.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Wudang

And as uke2se keeps asking you - what would you replace the process with? Why do you repeatedly avoid the question?

With what would you replace the Processes of Moscow with?

As I said, law and processes are not in my opinion the issue, so there is no point in asking with what we would replace the process with.

The point is: is there any legitimate evidence that points to the fact that the prosecution of Assange may be politically motivated?
And, so far, have the crimes committed in wars and exposed by Wikileaks treated in a fair way?
That is, criminals being prosecuted in the same fair way whether they are from “our side” or “their side”?

If for the above the answer is “yes”, then there is no need to change anything and the trial should go ahead with the usual judiciary process.

Originally Posted by Wudang

Soviet laws do not apply in Sweden which has a separation of legislative and judicial powers - again.

Nominally the judiciary is independent in any country, even in North Korea and Iran, I believe.

Originally Posted by Wudang

How is morality or justice served by giving an alleged sexual predator a free pass just because he was once part of a process that allegedly did some good?

And when did I argue that you should give him a free pass if he is guilty?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

With what would you replace the Processes of Moscow with?

Separate government and judicial system, obviously. Irrelevant red herring number 1.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

As I said, law and processes are not in my opinion the issue, so there is no point in asking with what we would replace the process with.

That's all that's relevant here. You apparently advocating that the Swedish government should disregard Sweden's laws and legal process just because you think Assange is innocent. That's not a rational position to take, so I want to know if I have understood you properly by asking you what the Swedish government should do, in your opinion. Thus far you have ran from this question as fast as you could.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

The point is: is there any legitimate evidence that points to the fact that the prosecution of Assange may be politically motivated?

No.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

And, so far, have the crimes committed in wars and exposed by Wikileaks treated in a fair way?

Irrelevant to the Assange case. Red herring number 2.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

That is, criminals being prosecuted in the same fair way whether they are from “our side” or “their side”?

Sweden is not the same country as the US or the UK so you can stop with this whole ridiculous dichotomy thing.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

If for the above the answer is “yes”, then there is no need to change anything and the trial should go ahead with the usual judiciary process.

It doesn't matter whether the answer to your false dichotomy is "yes" or "no". What matters is law, and Assange has broken the law by running from justice and might have broken the law by raping two women.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Nominally the judiciary is independent in any country, even in North Korea and Iran, I believe.

Irrelevant. Red herring number 3.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

And when did I argue that you should give him a free pass if he is guilty?

It appears to be what you've been arguing all the time, but since you keep running from every question for you to clarify your position - in a weird analog to Assange running from a trial - we'll never know what your actual position is - just as we'll never know if Assange is guilty or not until he gives himself up.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Is it against the law to prosecute killings of civilians during a war?

And why Sgt. Wuterich did not spend a day in jail for killing 28 unarmed civilians?
Is it against the law to send to jail people who kill unarmed civilians?

Has justice been done in the above cases?

Killing of civilians is called collateral damage and it happens in war.

Would you prosecute all the RAF and USAAF bomber pilots who bombed the crap,out of Aachen, Aschersleben, Berchtesgaden, Berlin, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn, Bramsfeld, Braunschweig, Bremen, Brunswick, Brüx, Chemnitz, Cologne, Dessau, Dortmund, Dresden, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Emden, Emmerich, Essen, Flensburg, Frankfurt, Hagen, Hamburg, Hannover, Helgoland, Herbouville, Hüls, Kaiserslautern, Kassel, Kiel, Koblenz, Krefeld, Leipzig, Leverskusen, Ludwigshavn, Lüne-Merseberg, Lützkendorf, Magdeburg, Mainz, Mannheim, Mariensburg, Munich, Münster, Nuremberg, Ostfriesische Inseln, Pforzheim, Posen, Regensburg, Schleswig-Holstien, Schweinfurt, Solingen, Stettin, Stuttgart, Willhelmshavn, Wuppertal, and Zeitz.

[Captain_Swoop]

If the UK is so set on ignoring the law on Extradition, how come after 7 years Abu Qatada is still in the UK and not sent back to Jordan? At the last attempt by the Govt to Extradite the Courts blocked it again and ordered him to be released from custody.

[Helen]

Let's see if I have got it now:

1. You are afraid that politics will interfere with the law, so you want politicians to interfere with the law.

2. Other people may have committed other crimes, but have not been prosecuted, so Assange should not be prosecuted either.

3. Trials are not always fair, so Assange should not be tried.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Helen

Let's see if I have got it now:

1. You are afraid that politics will interfere with the law, so you want politicians to interfere with the law.

I have not said this

Originally Posted by Helen

2. Other people may have committed other crimes, but have not been prosecuted, so Assange should not be prosecuted either.

I have not said this

Originally Posted by Helen

3. Trials are not always fair, so Assange should not be tried.

I have not said this

Are not you little bit trolling here??

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

If the UK is so set on ignoring the law on Extradition, how come after 7 years Abu Qatada is still in the UK and not sent back to Jordan? At the last attempt by the Govt to Extradite the Courts blocked it again and ordered him to be released from custody.

Was this guy responsible for one of the biggest leaks of data in history?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Killing of civilians is called collateral damage and it happens in war.

Sad but true

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Would you prosecute all the RAF and USAAF bomber pilots who bombed the crap,out of Aachen, Aschersleben, Berchtesgaden, Berlin, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn, Bramsfeld, Braunschweig, Bremen, Brunswick, Brüx, Chemnitz, Cologne, Dessau, Dortmund, Dresden, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Emden, Emmerich, Essen, Flensburg, Frankfurt, Hagen, Hamburg, Hannover, Helgoland, Herbouville, Hüls, Kaiserslautern, Kassel, Kiel, Koblenz, Krefeld, Leipzig, Leverskusen, Ludwigshavn, Lüne-Merseberg, Lützkendorf, Magdeburg, Mainz, Mannheim, Mariensburg, Munich, Münster, Nuremberg, Ostfriesische Inseln, Pforzheim, Posen, Regensburg, Schleswig-Holstien, Schweinfurt, Solingen, Stettin, Stuttgart, Willhelmshavn, Wuppertal, and Zeitz.

If really necessary to stop Hitler, maybe not.

Maybe I would prosecute the US soldiers who raped Japanese Okinawan women during the war, or shall we close our eyes on this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_du...ation_of_Japan

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Killing of civilians is called collateral damage and it happens in war.[..]

BTW, I have just noticed that..
.. are you implying that the murder of 28 unarmed civilians has to be considered as "collateral damage"?
Please elaborate.

[Wudang]

Why are you changing the subject to anything else than uke2se's very simple and direct question?

eta: and if anyone wants to change the subject to military killing please start a new thread

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Helen

Let's see if I have got it now:

1. You are afraid that politics will interfere with the law, so you want politicians to interfere with the law.

2. Other people may have committed other crimes, but have not been prosecuted, so Assange should not be prosecuted either.

3. Trials are not always fair, so Assange should not be tried.

I see this isn't being denied.

[Locknar]

Folks...lets stay on topic. If you wish to discuss specifics re "war crimes" please do so elsewhere (in existing threads, or start a new thread if the specific topic you wish to discuss is not covered).

Posted By:Locknar

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Was this guy responsible for one of the biggest leaks of data in history?

[/url]

No, but Jordan has been trying to extradite him on Terrorism charges for years and the British Govt are deperate to get rid of ih. British Courts won't let him go. they accept that there is enough evidence but until the extradition complies with British Law he stays.

Assange hasn't been charged with anything by the US and they haven't tried to extradite him from anywhere. If they did decide they wanted him then the courts want to see the evidence and make sure the application complied with the law.

Sweden did apply for an extradition and the courts decided that he should go based on the evidence and the application.

It goues to show that the courts don't allow an extradition just because the Govt wants it.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I don't see why anyone should hurry anything just because Assange lost his appetite.

The Reaper will see to it that matters are hurried up if he keeps losing weight...

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Why are you changing the subject to anything else than uke2se's very simple and direct question?

eta: and if anyone wants to change the subject to military killing please start a new thread

Thank you. As I suspect John has me on ignore in order to more effectively ignore my question, it would help if people helped pin John down to answering this question.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Thank you. As I suspect John has me on ignore in order to more effectively ignore my question, it would help if people helped pin John down to answering this question.

I can't get excited about what that person says any more. There are limits.

[Here_to_learn]

Of course JA is no longer requiring any promise from Sweden, instead he is now waiting for the US:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Julian Assange has said he will not consider leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in London unless the US government drops its "immoral" investigation into WikiLeaks.
[...]
"Meanwhile, the FBI has been engaged in building this tremendous case, now up to 41,235 pages."

He also claims that the investigation breaches the 1st amendment. I don't know if the US constitution limits what may be investigated? Is there a simple answer to that, otherwise I guess that question should be in a Wikileaks thread?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Of course JA is no longer requiring any promise from Sweden, instead he is now waiting for the US:



He also claims that the investigation breaches the 1st amendment. I don't know if the US constitution limits what may be investigated? Is there a simple answer to that, otherwise I guess that question should be in a Wikileaks thread?

The simple answer is that we may legally investigate any damned thing we want.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Of course JA is no longer requiring any promise from Sweden, instead he is now waiting for the US:



He also claims that the investigation breaches the 1st amendment. I don't know if the US constitution limits what may be investigated? Is there a simple answer to that, otherwise I guess that question should be in a Wikileaks thread?

Isn't that a bit like Lance Armstrong saying Livestrong won't spend any more money on charity work, until the bogus investigation into his TDF doping is called off?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

No

Good.
On the remaining part of your post, I have already replied earlier

[John Mekki]

Double post

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Of course JA is no longer requiring any promise from Sweden, instead he is now waiting for the US:

This does not change much what I said, since Sweden would (as alleged) be requested from the US.

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

He also claims that the investigation breaches the 1st amendment. I don't know if the US constitution limits what may be investigated?[..]

It does not, but it prevents obstruction of freedom of speech, and in particular freedom to let people know about the crimes that the West commits in wars and that have been leaked in the Wikileaks affair.

Of course, there are no direct evidence that the US Government is trying to do just that, as it would be extremely surprising to find a mail from Hillary Clinton asking to someone in the Swedish Government to mob Assange.
But there is a lot of evidence that points to that direction and that gives ground to legitimate suspicion that the US may be interested in mobbing Assange and silencing him.

And the evidence is:

1) that Wikileaks have caused a tremendous amount of damage to the US Government
2) that the crimes that have been shown in the leaks have not been prosecuted
3) that there is a blatant bias in how US justice prosecutes some crimes and do not prosecute others
4) that there is a blatant bias in how the UK Government tries to extradite some “criminals” and protects other “criminals”
..

Of course, for each of the above point you can find a perfect legal expalnation on why things went like that, as you can find a legal explanation for many if not all the crimes that have been in history, since most of the worst crimes have been done in a perfectly legal way.
So much for the “perfectly legal” side of the issue.

So, in my opinion, even if people do not believe that Assange is innocent, they should ask themselves if they are OK with all the four points above.

If they are OK with that, I have not much to say

[Wudang]

And one more sodding time, if he's scared of being extradited to the US why did he try to stay on the UK when it would be an order of magnitude easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden?

And none of your 4 points refer to the Swedish who are the ones prosecuting him. Do you even know what you're replying to?

And for yet another time why are you hiding from uke2se's simple question?

[Wudang]

And for yet another time why are you hiding from uke2se's simple question?

[appalling]

Do you think that people who have done important things should not have to answer accusations of sexual assault?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Isn't that a bit like Lance Armstrong saying Livestrong won't spend any more money on charity work, until the bogus investigation into his TDF doping is called off?

Well I guess, although I haven't really followed that.

I just realized that there's an interesting hardly surprising double standard in what JA is saying. Regarding the Swedish investigation, he has pointed out that he is not charged (yet), that it is only an investigation/questioning.

For example, in that Guardian article he says:

Quote:

The Guardan"]"There's an attempt to extradite me without charge and without evidence, allegedly for the purpose of questioning,"

So apparently since Sweden hasn't charged him, that investigation is not important.

However, when it comes to the US investigation, according to JA it is about Wikileaks (not just about JA), and even though there hasn't been anybody charged, that investigation should stop:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

unless the US government drops its "immoral" investigation into WikiLeaks.[...]"Meanwhile, the FBI has been engaged in building this tremendous case, now up to 41,235 pages."