4 ms·

That's well within the range of what a leader can do. Presidential pardon overrides the courts for one specific issue. And they could preemptively refuse to al

That's well within the range of what a leader can do. Presidential pardon overrides the courts for one specific issue. And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws.

foldr 10y ago
It's not possible within the limits of the Swedish constitution, as has been endlessly explained by now. Presidential pardons are irrelevant as Sweden is not the USA, but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted. >And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws. Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority to override the courts and declare that someone isn't guilty of a crime in the absence of any proper legal process?
- piaste 10y ago
  > but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted. Well, in Assange's case, those would be past offences for which they may or may not be convicted. And I think that would be the same situation as Nixon when Ford pardoned him - he'd already done the deed, but hadn't been convicted yet. edit: Though, since we're speculating already - does it even make sense for an American president to pardon an Australian citizen?
  - foldr 10y ago
    Ok, you are correct that the US President can in fact pardon people preemptively (though it is very rare). But no such power is available to anyone within the Swedish government or judiciary, so far as I am aware, and to pardon Assange preemptively would in any case violate Sweden's treaty obligations.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  No, as has been explained before, that's just apologist rhetoric. Yes, their government is different than the USA but it's ridiculous to think that the leader of a free country couldn't figure out a way to make it work. They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely. Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts. > Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority Nobody cares. That question is the sole point of blame-diffusion systems. All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability. Bush didn't have the authority to do much of what he did, but he had the ability and by the time we could point out the difference it was a done deal and now he's not prosecuted so I guess he did have the authority... The rules work differently at that level. But, even if they didn't, better the leader of a country sits in a country-club prison for doing the right thing than yet another innocent is illegally kidnapped and tortured.
  - foldr 10y ago
    >They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely. Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts. None of these suggestions makes any sense. (i) A declaratory judgment on the issue of leaks, whatever that means, would have no bearing on Assange's arrest warrant for rape. (ii) Assange is not being charged with whistleblowing; he is being charged with rape. (iii) "The government" cannot just "investigate" a prosecutor, and there's no evidence of misconduct. (iv) There would be no point in trying the case remotely as this would make it impossible to punish Assange if he were convicted. (v) I'd be wary of throwing legal niceties aside. It's only those that are preventing the UK government from entering the embassy and arresting him there. >All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability. This is false as far as anyone can tell. If you know something that the rest of us don't, then please elaborate.

foldr 10y ago

It's not possible within the limits of the Swedish constitution, as has been endlessly explained by now. Presidential pardons are irrelevant as Sweden is not the USA, but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted. >And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws. Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority to override the courts and declare that someone isn't guilty of a crime in the absence of any proper legal process?

piaste 10y ago
> but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted. Well, in Assange's case, those would be past offences for which they may or may not be convicted. And I think that would be the same situation as Nixon when Ford pardoned him - he'd already done the deed, but hadn't been convicted yet. edit: Though, since we're speculating already - does it even make sense for an American president to pardon an Australian citizen?
- foldr 10y ago
  Ok, you are correct that the US President can in fact pardon people preemptively (though it is very rare). But no such power is available to anyone within the Swedish government or judiciary, so far as I am aware, and to pardon Assange preemptively would in any case violate Sweden's treaty obligations.
EdHominem 10y ago
No, as has been explained before, that's just apologist rhetoric. Yes, their government is different than the USA but it's ridiculous to think that the leader of a free country couldn't figure out a way to make it work. They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely. Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts. > Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority Nobody cares. That question is the sole point of blame-diffusion systems. All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability. Bush didn't have the authority to do much of what he did, but he had the ability and by the time we could point out the difference it was a done deal and now he's not prosecuted so I guess he did have the authority... The rules work differently at that level. But, even if they didn't, better the leader of a country sits in a country-club prison for doing the right thing than yet another innocent is illegally kidnapped and tortured.
- foldr 10y ago
  >They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely. Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts. None of these suggestions makes any sense. (i) A declaratory judgment on the issue of leaks, whatever that means, would have no bearing on Assange's arrest warrant for rape. (ii) Assange is not being charged with whistleblowing; he is being charged with rape. (iii) "The government" cannot just "investigate" a prosecutor, and there's no evidence of misconduct. (iv) There would be no point in trying the case remotely as this would make it impossible to punish Assange if he were convicted. (v) I'd be wary of throwing legal niceties aside. It's only those that are preventing the UK government from entering the embassy and arresting him there. >All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability. This is false as far as anyone can tell. If you know something that the rest of us don't, then please elaborate.