6 ms·

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 o

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.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > (ii) Assange is not being charged with whistleblowing Nicely numbered, but not well thought out. Assange is avoiding going to Sweden because he rightfully expects a high chance of being rended to USA custody. A program the Swedish government embraced. Eliminating one of the main legal avenues for this is precisely the point. > (iii) "The government" cannot just "investigate" a prosecutor, and there's no evidence of misconduct Totally untrue. The prosecutor has deviated from standard procedures many times, and slandered Assange as a fugitive from justice despite that he cooperated with all their requests in the beginning. The organizations I work with have rules for automatic investigations of people who deviate from the norm in suspicious circumstances. If there's any question, there's an investigating. Perhaps it's nothing, but if there was an investigation which found no unjust influence from the political side of the equation it would greatly increase public trust in the outcome of the trial. It makes no sense to turn yourself in to the law when you have good reason to assume you will NOT get a fair trial, and all indicators point to corruption. (iv) There would be no point in trying the case remotely as this would make it impossible to punish Assange if he were convicted. That's not true. There are many options here including serving the sentence in a country less likely to render the prisoner to a third jurisdiction. He's essentially serving a sentence in Ecuador already. Also, tough. They had custody and let him go. Why do they deserve infinite do-overs? They could try him and ban him from entering Sweden if they were serious, as that would also serve the goal of making Swedish people safer. >> All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability. > This is false as far as anyone can tell. No, you just need to use your imagination. Picture your mother being arrested on a fabricated charge. Think of all the points along the way that you could ruin the government's case through interference if you were the court clerk, a beat cop, etc. Vastly many people have to do just the right things for a arrest/trial/charge to be valid. Therefore vastly many people have the chance to sabotage an unjust process. Any one of them can act according to their own morality and take an action that while illegal, serves the greater good from their PoV. Yes, it may result in their arrest and charges, but it saves the victim. This in fact is your moral responsibility. If you join an organization its crimes are on your shoulders unless you take an effort to correct them. > If you know something that the rest of us don't, then please elaborate Start by reading the wiki article. Fix that if you think it doesn't match the citations. Then come back and ask about anything you still don't understand. Consider also reading the article about Civil Disobedience.

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.

EdHominem 10y ago
> (ii) Assange is not being charged with whistleblowing Nicely numbered, but not well thought out. Assange is avoiding going to Sweden because he rightfully expects a high chance of being rended to USA custody. A program the Swedish government embraced. Eliminating one of the main legal avenues for this is precisely the point. > (iii) "The government" cannot just "investigate" a prosecutor, and there's no evidence of misconduct Totally untrue. The prosecutor has deviated from standard procedures many times, and slandered Assange as a fugitive from justice despite that he cooperated with all their requests in the beginning. The organizations I work with have rules for automatic investigations of people who deviate from the norm in suspicious circumstances. If there's any question, there's an investigating. Perhaps it's nothing, but if there was an investigation which found no unjust influence from the political side of the equation it would greatly increase public trust in the outcome of the trial. It makes no sense to turn yourself in to the law when you have good reason to assume you will NOT get a fair trial, and all indicators point to corruption. (iv) There would be no point in trying the case remotely as this would make it impossible to punish Assange if he were convicted. That's not true. There are many options here including serving the sentence in a country less likely to render the prisoner to a third jurisdiction. He's essentially serving a sentence in Ecuador already. Also, tough. They had custody and let him go. Why do they deserve infinite do-overs? They could try him and ban him from entering Sweden if they were serious, as that would also serve the goal of making Swedish people safer. >> All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability. > This is false as far as anyone can tell. No, you just need to use your imagination. Picture your mother being arrested on a fabricated charge. Think of all the points along the way that you could ruin the government's case through interference if you were the court clerk, a beat cop, etc. Vastly many people have to do just the right things for a arrest/trial/charge to be valid. Therefore vastly many people have the chance to sabotage an unjust process. Any one of them can act according to their own morality and take an action that while illegal, serves the greater good from their PoV. Yes, it may result in their arrest and charges, but it saves the victim. This in fact is your moral responsibility. If you join an organization its crimes are on your shoulders unless you take an effort to correct them. > If you know something that the rest of us don't, then please elaborate Start by reading the wiki article. Fix that if you think it doesn't match the citations. Then come back and ask about anything you still don't understand. Consider also reading the article about Civil Disobedience.