7 ms·
He's subject to a European Arrest Warrant. It's not the UK police's job to question him. The procedure in an EAW is that the receiving country checks that the w
by ascorbic 11y ago
He's subject to a European Arrest Warrant. It's not the UK police's job to question him. The procedure in an EAW is that the receiving country checks that the warrant is valid (which is procedural, and doesn't assess the merits of the case). If it is, then they arrest the suspect and hand him over to the requesting country. Julian Assange had every opportunity to argue against this, and was able to take it all the way to the UK Supreme Court. They ruled against him, which is when he skipped bail.
- efdee 11y agoBut isn't the fact that they obsess over catching him when he leaves the embassy, over of a claim of sexual molestation that even the "victim" doesn't really support, to the tune of 12 million pounds, a hint that maybe it's not really about this case alone?
- LordKano 11y agoAnother hint is that Roman Polanski lives openly in France despite being convicted of drugging and raping a child but somehow Assange is much of Europe's priority...
- tptacek 11y agoIt doesn't surprise me that European countries that are all bound by the ECHR (among other things) would take extradition requests from each other more seriously than they would a request from the US. The fact that they won't render Polanski to the US cuts against Assange's argument.
- Tomte 11y agoI've never understood why Polanski is still in Europe. I get why Poland and France won't extradite him, but all the other European countries he set foot into. Including my own.
- kafkaesq 11y agoWould you care to substantiate this idea that the district court which rejected the US extradition request simply "didn't take the request seriously"? Being that this is an incredibly insulting accusation to make about the Polish legal system? Had you bothered researched the matter a second or two (before making up a condescending opinion about it) you would have readily found the basis on which that court made the decision that it did. A very specific, and universally understood (and generally accepted) basis, in fact.
- tptacek 11y agoI don't think there's any productive discussion to have about the Polanski case, but if you're referring to the most recent hearing (I've linked to it below), I think it's contemptible. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/europe/roman-polanski-poland-extradiction.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/europe/roman-polansk...
- kafkaesq 11y agoThey would call it "due process." As an American, you're welcome to find that contemptible, if you like. But either way, I don't think the Europeans would particularly care.
- tptacek 11y agoHe was convicted of a heinous, drug-assisted rape of a child, one he surely committed (he does not contest the victim's story). He's had his due process. What he doesn't like is the outcome.
- kafkaesq 11y agoHe was convicted of the drug-assisted rape of a child ... No, he was charged with "drug-assisted rape", but not convicted. In fact, he wasn't "convicted" of anything; as part of a deal with the judge, he plead guilty to a related, but different charge ("unlawful intercourse with a minor"). But that's OK. Go on living in this emotionally-driven, fact- and reality-divorced haze if you want to...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]