This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. <\/p>\n
AMY GOODMAN: Today marks the 1,000th day that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has spent in Ecuadors London embassy, where he has political asylum. Now, for the first time, Swedish prosecutors have issued a request to question Assange in London. This follows pressure from their own courts, from Swedish courts, and repeated requests by Assanges lawyers. Assange has never been charged over allegations of sexual assault, yet he has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, fearing that if he steps outside, he would be arrested and extradited to Sweden, which could lead to his extradition to the United States. His lawyers have been asking Swedish prosecutors to question him in London for over four years. On Friday, Assanges attorney in Stockholm, Sweden, Per Samuelson, welcomed the news. <\/p>\n
PER SAMUELSON: A bottom line is, after the autumn of 2010, the prosecutor did nothing for more than four years. Thats clear breach of Swedish law. That has hurt Mr. Assange severely. And it has also hurt both the women, who have not had their case tried for over four years. And it hurts the court, because witnesses forget. Time passes on, and all the evidence is much worse now than it was back in 2010. <\/p>\n
AMY GOODMAN: In July, Democracy Now! went to London to the Ecuadorean Embassy to speak with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about the Swedish governments handling of his case. <\/p>\n
JULIAN ASSANGE: There has been no movement. Although the Swedish government is obligated to somehow progress the situation, theyve been very happy to keep it a complete stasis. Theyve refused to come here to speak to me here or pick up a telephone or to accept an affidavit. They have also refused to provide a guarantee that I will not be extradited to the United States if I offer to go to Sweden. So, that situation means we have to tackle the Swedish matter, it seems, in Sweden. The only other alternative is perhaps going to the International Court of Justice in relation to the asylum. ... The Swedish government has an obligation under its own law to proceed with maximum speed, with minimum cost, and also with bringing the minimum suspicion on the person whos being investigated. And it is in clear violation of all those points of law. <\/p>\n
AMY GOODMAN: That was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaking to Democracy Now! in July from inside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. To see the whole hour, you can go to democracynow.org. <\/p>\n
But right now, were joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He and CCR are the U.S. attorneys for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Hes also the chairman of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. <\/p>\n
Michael, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of what the Swedish government has now said. <\/p>\n
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, its the Swedish prosecutor, really, as you pointed out, being forced to do so because Julians lawyers have gone to the Swedish courts and said, \"How can this go for four years with allegations, over four years?\" Julian is in custody because he cant leave that embassy without being forced to go to Sweden, and ultimately to the United States. And so, its a victory for Julian, but it also shows the outrage of the Swedish prosecutor and their system. Here its four years. Julian has had to give up his passport, take refuge in the embassy, been given asylum, deprived of any kind of real freedom, no ability to visit his family, etc. Four years later, now the prosecutor says, \"I can question Julian about these allegations.\" <\/p>\n
AMY GOODMAN: So I want to go exactly to what she said. On Friday, the director of public prosecutions in Sweden, Marianne Ny, issued a statement. She wrote, quote, \"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. 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.\" <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n