4 ms·

One charge was dropped, and it was for molestation and they ran out of time on that one. The rape charge is from a women who continued to sleep with after the a

by x5n1 11y ago

One charge was dropped, and it was for molestation and they ran out of time on that one. The rape charge is from a women who continued to sleep with after the alleged rape, according to Assange for a week. Not particularly serious charges, in my opinion.

jgrahamc 11y ago
So, if they are not serious charges he should have his day in court and get it over with. And, don't tell me the ridiculous story about how if he went to Sweden he'd be extradited to the US. He was in the UK, you think we aren't buddy-buddy with the US and would have handed him over?
- x5n1 11y ago
  The UK or the Swedish government could easily determine his guilt or innocence -- as in questioning him in the embassy and he's said more than once he's willing, if that's really all they wanted to do instead of waste millions of dollars watching him. The burden of proof is never on the accused to prove his innocence. It's after all only an accusation. If they want to bring formal charges in court and send him a summons and try him in abstention they can do that too. It's just funny how they have played the game while claiming b/s like you are claiming. edit because of rate limit to the person below: If he has no guilty mind then why should he be willing to be arrested? In fact if he's afraid they will do to him what they did to Chelsea Manning, then he's perfectly in his right mind to attempt to avoid extradition by whatever means necessary. If a totalitarian government is pursuing you because you stole their secrets and exposed them to the public, and they have already imprisoned one of your partners for life in inhumane conditions. Why should you comply with that request?
  - jgrahamc 11y ago
    You seem to think Assange gets to make the rules and choose how he gets treated. There's a European arrest warrant, the UK needs to arrest him and he needs to go to Sweden.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      Assange is playing by the rules and that's why he's in the Embassy. He's following the rules to the book and so are the authorities. Why should they, well if they wish to bring justice and save money they should do it. Because if they do not, then the time expires which for the rape warrant is in 4 years. And justice will not be done.
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        Skipping bail when the Supreme Court rules against you is not "playing by the rules" by any definition.
        chriswarbo 11y ago
        Of course it is. 'The rules' include things like "committing rape can cause rape allegations", "proving a rape allegation false causes criminal proceedings against the accuser", "skipping bail causes the authorities to pursue", "breaking/revoking diplomatic status damages foreign relations", etc. The whole point of 'the rules' is that they apply to criminals; the only way to force something on criminals (or anyone) is to make them unavoidable, i.e. make it impossible to not play by the rules. It's not like a game of chess, where the rules don't account for the use of tanks; or DRM, where "the rules" only apply to those with legal copies. It's more like Nomic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), where the rules allow the rules to change. The difference is that Nomic's initial set of rules require unanimous agreement to rule changes (so any unfortunate consequences are ultimately a player's 'own fault' for agreeing to something long ago); the real world's initial rules were natural selection, which is a horrific way to live.
        ascorbic 11y ago
        You've a pretty unusual idea of the meaning of rules. We're talking about a legal process. The rules are the laws of England and Sweden.
    - vidarh 11y ago
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    Why should he be allowed to dictate the terms of his questioning? Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Because the alternative is no questioning. The Swedish prosecutor has, by refusing to arrange to question him in London when it became clear she was unlikely to get him to Sweden, effectively denied justice both to Assange and to the women in question.
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        The only person who has denied justice to Assange and the women is Julian Assange, when he skipped bail.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Because he has a right to respond to the allegations against him, and being in Sweden isn't necessary (neither from a legal nor a practical point of view) for that. >Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he? Except the 44 people that did, you should do a little research before making such statements in the future.
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        Yes, he has a right to respond to the allegations. But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen. The Swedish authorities may decide to grant him that request, but he doesn't have the right to demand it. It's breathtakingly arrogant of him to suggest that he can. He has exercised his right to challenge the EAW and lost comprehensively.
        ryanlol 11y ago
        Assange isn't breaking any Swedish rules or laws by not showing up in Sweden (he did however violate his UK bail). I'm not sure what makes you think that he deserves the special treatment that he's currently receiving, it is common practice for Swedish authorities to interview people abroad (44 times in the UK!). >But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen Of course he does, he has an irrevocable right to defend himself against the allegations against him. His behaviour does not take that right away from him, nor can the Swedish prosecutor dictate the terms of that. Especially after the Swedish supreme court sided with Assange here. It's also worth noting that the prosecutors duty isn't to Assange, but to the legal system. The goal of the legal system is to find whether or not Assange is guilty, not to punish him. By refusing to interview Assange in the embassy the prosecutor has betrayed the court system and breached her duty.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    He's not willing to be arrested in the Ecuadorean embassy which - as ruled by a UK court more informed on Swedish legal processes than you are - is the purpose of the formal questioning process the Swedish government wishes to undertake. Assange's position is broadly equivalent to a fugitive insisting that the state's unwillingness to mail him his Miranda rights proves that it's them and not him trying to evade justice. Strangely, I have never heard it suggested that it represents a major failing of judicial systems for not trying and convicting other alleged rapists whilst they're on the run. The point of a trial, is after all to ensure that criminals are not only fairly treated, but also given the legally mandated punishment.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      The Swedish prosecutor has been heavily criticised in Sweden for the failure to interview him, and finally did agree to negotiate terms to question him in the embassy, so clearly they can. They just didn't want to.
      - simpleigh 11y ago
        Clearly it's possible for the Swedish prosecutor to find a means to interview him in the embassy. They could use the telephone. They could use a videoconferencing system. They could get on a plane. Why should they? They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning. Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them? (Assange's fears about extradition to the US aren't relevant to the Swedish prosecutor if they aren't intending to do that). If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!
        ryanlol 11y ago
        >Why should they? Because, as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court, that's their fucking job. > They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning. This is not true >Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them? Why does anyone have a right to due process? Assange has every right to respond to the Swedish enquiry from the UK, but the prosecutor has not allowed him to make his statement on the accusations against him. >fugitive What are you smoking? Assange is not a fugitive in Sweden, the only country that could consider him a fugitive is the UK. >If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with! But in Sweden you can't, as the courts have confirmed. This is like locking someone up in jail until trial and refusing to interview them because you're busy.
- efdee 11y ago
  I like how you call it a ridiculous story while it's actually very credible and probable.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  That's exactly the problem here, he hasn't been allowed his day in court. According to the Swedish supreme court being in Sweden isn't a requirement for that, no matter his behaviour he should be allowed his day in court. That behaviour includes refusing to personally come to Sweden, he has every right to do that. The only thing he has violated during the entire extradition process is his bail.

by x5n1 11y ago

jgrahamc 11y ago

So, if they are not serious charges he should have his day in court and get it over with. And, don't tell me the ridiculous story about how if he went to Sweden he'd be extradited to the US. He was in the UK, you think we aren't buddy-buddy with the US and would have handed him over?

x5n1 11y ago
The UK or the Swedish government could easily determine his guilt or innocence -- as in questioning him in the embassy and he's said more than once he's willing, if that's really all they wanted to do instead of waste millions of dollars watching him. The burden of proof is never on the accused to prove his innocence. It's after all only an accusation. If they want to bring formal charges in court and send him a summons and try him in abstention they can do that too. It's just funny how they have played the game while claiming b/s like you are claiming. edit because of rate limit to the person below: If he has no guilty mind then why should he be willing to be arrested? In fact if he's afraid they will do to him what they did to Chelsea Manning, then he's perfectly in his right mind to attempt to avoid extradition by whatever means necessary. If a totalitarian government is pursuing you because you stole their secrets and exposed them to the public, and they have already imprisoned one of your partners for life in inhumane conditions. Why should you comply with that request?
- jgrahamc 11y ago
  You seem to think Assange gets to make the rules and choose how he gets treated. There's a European arrest warrant, the UK needs to arrest him and he needs to go to Sweden.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Assange is playing by the rules and that's why he's in the Embassy. He's following the rules to the book and so are the authorities. Why should they, well if they wish to bring justice and save money they should do it. Because if they do not, then the time expires which for the rape warrant is in 4 years. And justice will not be done.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      Skipping bail when the Supreme Court rules against you is not "playing by the rules" by any definition.
      - chriswarbo 11y ago
        Of course it is. 'The rules' include things like "committing rape can cause rape allegations", "proving a rape allegation false causes criminal proceedings against the accuser", "skipping bail causes the authorities to pursue", "breaking/revoking diplomatic status damages foreign relations", etc. The whole point of 'the rules' is that they apply to criminals; the only way to force something on criminals (or anyone) is to make them unavoidable, i.e. make it impossible to not play by the rules. It's not like a game of chess, where the rules don't account for the use of tanks; or DRM, where "the rules" only apply to those with legal copies. It's more like Nomic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), where the rules allow the rules to change. The difference is that Nomic's initial set of rules require unanimous agreement to rule changes (so any unfortunate consequences are ultimately a player's 'own fault' for agreeing to something long ago); the real world's initial rules were natural selection, which is a horrific way to live.
        ascorbic 11y ago
        You've a pretty unusual idea of the meaning of rules. We're talking about a legal process. The rules are the laws of England and Sweden.
  - vidarh 11y ago
- ascorbic 11y ago
  Why should he be allowed to dictate the terms of his questioning? Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Because the alternative is no questioning. The Swedish prosecutor has, by refusing to arrange to question him in London when it became clear she was unlikely to get him to Sweden, effectively denied justice both to Assange and to the women in question.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      The only person who has denied justice to Assange and the women is Julian Assange, when he skipped bail.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Because he has a right to respond to the allegations against him, and being in Sweden isn't necessary (neither from a legal nor a practical point of view) for that. >Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he? Except the 44 people that did, you should do a little research before making such statements in the future.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      Yes, he has a right to respond to the allegations. But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen. The Swedish authorities may decide to grant him that request, but he doesn't have the right to demand it. It's breathtakingly arrogant of him to suggest that he can. He has exercised his right to challenge the EAW and lost comprehensively.
      - ryanlol 11y ago
        Assange isn't breaking any Swedish rules or laws by not showing up in Sweden (he did however violate his UK bail). I'm not sure what makes you think that he deserves the special treatment that he's currently receiving, it is common practice for Swedish authorities to interview people abroad (44 times in the UK!). >But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen Of course he does, he has an irrevocable right to defend himself against the allegations against him. His behaviour does not take that right away from him, nor can the Swedish prosecutor dictate the terms of that. Especially after the Swedish supreme court sided with Assange here. It's also worth noting that the prosecutors duty isn't to Assange, but to the legal system. The goal of the legal system is to find whether or not Assange is guilty, not to punish him. By refusing to interview Assange in the embassy the prosecutor has betrayed the court system and breached her duty.
- notahacker 11y ago
  He's not willing to be arrested in the Ecuadorean embassy which - as ruled by a UK court more informed on Swedish legal processes than you are - is the purpose of the formal questioning process the Swedish government wishes to undertake. Assange's position is broadly equivalent to a fugitive insisting that the state's unwillingness to mail him his Miranda rights proves that it's them and not him trying to evade justice. Strangely, I have never heard it suggested that it represents a major failing of judicial systems for not trying and convicting other alleged rapists whilst they're on the run. The point of a trial, is after all to ensure that criminals are not only fairly treated, but also given the legally mandated punishment.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    The Swedish prosecutor has been heavily criticised in Sweden for the failure to interview him, and finally did agree to negotiate terms to question him in the embassy, so clearly they can. They just didn't want to.
    - simpleigh 11y ago
      Clearly it's possible for the Swedish prosecutor to find a means to interview him in the embassy. They could use the telephone. They could use a videoconferencing system. They could get on a plane. Why should they? They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning. Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them? (Assange's fears about extradition to the US aren't relevant to the Swedish prosecutor if they aren't intending to do that). If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!
      - ryanlol 11y ago
        >Why should they? Because, as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court, that's their fucking job. > They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning. This is not true >Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them? Why does anyone have a right to due process? Assange has every right to respond to the Swedish enquiry from the UK, but the prosecutor has not allowed him to make his statement on the accusations against him. >fugitive What are you smoking? Assange is not a fugitive in Sweden, the only country that could consider him a fugitive is the UK. >If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with! But in Sweden you can't, as the courts have confirmed. This is like locking someone up in jail until trial and refusing to interview them because you're busy.
efdee 11y ago
I like how you call it a ridiculous story while it's actually very credible and probable.
ryanlol 11y ago
That's exactly the problem here, he hasn't been allowed his day in court. According to the Swedish supreme court being in Sweden isn't a requirement for that, no matter his behaviour he should be allowed his day in court. That behaviour includes refusing to personally come to Sweden, he has every right to do that. The only thing he has violated during the entire extradition process is his bail.