6 ms·

If he leaves, he goes to jail.

alex_hitchins 10y ago
But he can leave. He isn't in jail. It is his choice to stay where he is. I really can't see why people insist he is being held there against his will.
- skylan_q 10y ago
  Yes, you're right. I suppose it is a very comfortable position to be in and we should envy him. Thanks!
  - alex_hitchins 10y ago
    I'm not sure it's a position that would be envied as such, I guess everyone is different. I suppose if you were wanted for questioning by police for a serious crime that you wanted to evade and you hadn't got a friendly government seeking positive news coverage to give you a legal loophole to remain at large, you might.
    - xlxlxlx 10y ago
      The post you replied to was being sarcastic. "Questioning by police" is an enormous understatement. If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested, extradited to the US, and likely convicted of treason. His fate would at best look something like Chelsea Manning's, and at worst, execution.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested, extradited to the US, and likely convicted of treason. Almost certainly not. The Constitutional definition of treason in the US is such that it is pretty much never charged, outside of TV shows and movies. The charges usually discussed in the context of the ongoing US criminal investigation of Assange are violations of the Espionage Act, violations of the CFAA, theft/conversion of US government property, and conspiracy. OTOH, the government that has actually requested his extradition is Sweden, and not for anything related to national security matters.
      - alex_hitchins 10y ago
        Oh, I see. As others have pointed out, very unlikely he could be done for treason given he isn't American. But let's not let facts get in the way of some good down voting.
        whamlastxmas 10y ago
        You're right, as a non-American he'd just get sent to Gitmo where he faces indefinite detention without any recourse, without any legal rights or constitutionally required due process, and endless torture+interrogations for the rest of his life. But at least he can't be found guilty of treason in a constitutionally bound American court system by a jury of peers!
        alex_hitchins 10y ago
        Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? Genuinely don't know the answer and a cursory search I can't see anything obvious. Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? The UK would be much more likely to do as the USA pleases than Sweden.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? There is a publicly disclosed criminal investigation, and several years ago there were reports based on a non-detailed reference in an email in the Stratfor leak (which didn't come from anyone who would have firsthand knowledge) that there was a sealed indictment produced from that investigation, which the Justice Department has flatly denied. So, apparently not. > Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? If there were charges, there probably would be an extradition request.
        whamlastxmas 10y ago
        More importantly, if there were criminal charges, it would mean going through the regular channels of the criminal justice system. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process).
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      > I suppose if you were wanted for questioning by police for a serious crime that you wanted to evade and you hadn't got a friendly government seeking positive news coverage to give you a legal loophole to remain at large, you might. There is so much wrong with this, and I suspect you know this, so I am probably wasting my time replying. >serious crime I am not sure a he-said/she-said argument about whether someone used a condom is a "serious crime". It's a shitty thing to do obviously but a "serious crime" it is not. The chief public prosecutor even said "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." and three of the four allegations made against him have been dropped. >that you wanted to evade Suggesting he actually did the crime. There are only allegations, and coming from a place of questionable integrity. Additionally, he's not evading any alleged sexual crime, he's evading being extradited and facing capital punishment for political reasons. The UN itself had said his detention was in violation of international law, and Sweden said to uphold the warrant anyway.
      - alex_hitchins 10y ago
        So much wrong? >serious crime He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? >that you wanted to evade The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. Also, it is gracious of him to permit them to call him over the phone for questioning. Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? In situations where the defendant is already incarcerated, on remand or perhaps in a military setting I can understand but a civilian? Why should an exception be made? You aren't wasting your time replying, I am not aiming to troll or wind anyone up. I genuinely agree with my above statements and don't find them wrong, ill-conceived or flippant. It saddens me people down vote my comments just because they disagree with my conclusion.
        whamlastxmas 10y ago
        The downvotes are because your point of view is that of one who conveniently ignores the facts that don't fit the narrative they want to be true. >The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so. >Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? Why should an exception be made? How many police interviews take place with someone who is under political asylum to be protected from the UNITED STATES for a very real fear of being put to death or tortured because someone is politically motivated to make it happen? How often do they have to interview someone who the UN has officially declared as being illegally and arbitrarily detained? These are all tremendously good reasons for an exception, and obviously Sweden finally agreed since they did go to him in the embassy as a last resort. How often does Sweden try to extradite someone over or go through these lengths for an allegation (with no evidence) of sexual assault? Never. Why did they make the exception for Assange? >He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. The facts are that the alleged assaults were non-violent and the involved women that had consented to sex with him, just not the exact way in which sex was allegedly had. Not using a condom during sex when you said you would doesn't rank anywhere near murdering someone (a serious crime) in my opinion. It is not an allegation worth trying to fucking extradite someone for questioning who is currently being protected by asylum for political reasons. A woman going to a police station and saying "he didn't use a condom when I told him to" should not be carte blanche for the nation of Sweden demanding someone be arrested and extradited from anywhere in the world. It is beyond ridiculous and transparently politically motivated and that you would argue otherwise is why you're downvoted.

But he can leave. He isn't in jail. It is his choice to stay where he is. I really can't see why people insist he is being held there against his will.

skylan_q 10y ago
Yes, you're right. I suppose it is a very comfortable position to be in and we should envy him. Thanks!
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  I'm not sure it's a position that would be envied as such, I guess everyone is different. I suppose if you were wanted for questioning by police for a serious crime that you wanted to evade and you hadn't got a friendly government seeking positive news coverage to give you a legal loophole to remain at large, you might.
  - xlxlxlx 10y ago
    The post you replied to was being sarcastic. "Questioning by police" is an enormous understatement. If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested, extradited to the US, and likely convicted of treason. His fate would at best look something like Chelsea Manning's, and at worst, execution.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested, extradited to the US, and likely convicted of treason. Almost certainly not. The Constitutional definition of treason in the US is such that it is pretty much never charged, outside of TV shows and movies. The charges usually discussed in the context of the ongoing US criminal investigation of Assange are violations of the Espionage Act, violations of the CFAA, theft/conversion of US government property, and conspiracy. OTOH, the government that has actually requested his extradition is Sweden, and not for anything related to national security matters.
    - alex_hitchins 10y ago
      Oh, I see. As others have pointed out, very unlikely he could be done for treason given he isn't American. But let's not let facts get in the way of some good down voting.
      - whamlastxmas 10y ago
        You're right, as a non-American he'd just get sent to Gitmo where he faces indefinite detention without any recourse, without any legal rights or constitutionally required due process, and endless torture+interrogations for the rest of his life. But at least he can't be found guilty of treason in a constitutionally bound American court system by a jury of peers!
        alex_hitchins 10y ago
        Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? Genuinely don't know the answer and a cursory search I can't see anything obvious. Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? The UK would be much more likely to do as the USA pleases than Sweden.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? There is a publicly disclosed criminal investigation, and several years ago there were reports based on a non-detailed reference in an email in the Stratfor leak (which didn't come from anyone who would have firsthand knowledge) that there was a sealed indictment produced from that investigation, which the Justice Department has flatly denied. So, apparently not. > Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? If there were charges, there probably would be an extradition request.
        whamlastxmas 10y ago
        More importantly, if there were criminal charges, it would mean going through the regular channels of the criminal justice system. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process).
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    > I suppose if you were wanted for questioning by police for a serious crime that you wanted to evade and you hadn't got a friendly government seeking positive news coverage to give you a legal loophole to remain at large, you might. There is so much wrong with this, and I suspect you know this, so I am probably wasting my time replying. >serious crime I am not sure a he-said/she-said argument about whether someone used a condom is a "serious crime". It's a shitty thing to do obviously but a "serious crime" it is not. The chief public prosecutor even said "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." and three of the four allegations made against him have been dropped. >that you wanted to evade Suggesting he actually did the crime. There are only allegations, and coming from a place of questionable integrity. Additionally, he's not evading any alleged sexual crime, he's evading being extradited and facing capital punishment for political reasons. The UN itself had said his detention was in violation of international law, and Sweden said to uphold the warrant anyway.
    - alex_hitchins 10y ago
      So much wrong? >serious crime He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? >that you wanted to evade The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. Also, it is gracious of him to permit them to call him over the phone for questioning. Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? In situations where the defendant is already incarcerated, on remand or perhaps in a military setting I can understand but a civilian? Why should an exception be made? You aren't wasting your time replying, I am not aiming to troll or wind anyone up. I genuinely agree with my above statements and don't find them wrong, ill-conceived or flippant. It saddens me people down vote my comments just because they disagree with my conclusion.
      - whamlastxmas 10y ago
        The downvotes are because your point of view is that of one who conveniently ignores the facts that don't fit the narrative they want to be true. >The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so. >Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? Why should an exception be made? How many police interviews take place with someone who is under political asylum to be protected from the UNITED STATES for a very real fear of being put to death or tortured because someone is politically motivated to make it happen? How often do they have to interview someone who the UN has officially declared as being illegally and arbitrarily detained? These are all tremendously good reasons for an exception, and obviously Sweden finally agreed since they did go to him in the embassy as a last resort. How often does Sweden try to extradite someone over or go through these lengths for an allegation (with no evidence) of sexual assault? Never. Why did they make the exception for Assange? >He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious? I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. The facts are that the alleged assaults were non-violent and the involved women that had consented to sex with him, just not the exact way in which sex was allegedly had. Not using a condom during sex when you said you would doesn't rank anywhere near murdering someone (a serious crime) in my opinion. It is not an allegation worth trying to fucking extradite someone for questioning who is currently being protected by asylum for political reasons. A woman going to a police station and saying "he didn't use a condom when I told him to" should not be carte blanche for the nation of Sweden demanding someone be arrested and extradited from anywhere in the world. It is beyond ridiculous and transparently politically motivated and that you would argue otherwise is why you're downvoted.