4 ms·

> (ii) Assange is not being charged with whistleblowing Nicely numbered, but not well thought out. Assange is avoiding going to Sweden because he rightfully e

> (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
> A program the Swedish government embraced. Eliminating one of the main legal avenues for this is precisely the point. It's not clear what "making whistleblowing specifically legal" would mean, or how it would achieve this. > 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. None of this is true. You don't say anything in support of it, so I can't say much in response. >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. How would they get him out of the embassy to make him serve the sentence? Plus, you know for sure that if they convicted Assange in absentia, he'd then start complaining that the verdict was invalid because he couldn't attend the trial! >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. >Therefore vastly many people have the chance to sabotage an unjust process The hypocrisy of this part of your comment is quite astonishing. You complain (falsely, I think) that the prosecutor hasn't followed "standard procedure", and yet you are urging others to ignore the law completely.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  >> [...] Prosecutor slandered Assange. > None of this is true. You don't say anything in support of it, so I can't say much in response. It's well documented. He was interviewed in Sweden and left weeks later after notifying the police. That means he isn't a fugitive. Sweden has also conducted interviews with suspects in foreign countries during the period of time they've been trying to make Assange return, showing that they can if they want to. This means they are choosing not to advance the case while loudly declaring otherwise. That's the process deviation. > It's not clear what "making whistleblowing specifically legal" would mean, or how it would achieve this. A declaratory judgement that Assange's alleged actions pertaining to leaks would not be against Swedish law even if committed on their soil. With that there would be no legal basis for extradition. > Plus, you know for sure that if they convicted Assange in absentia, he'd then start complaining that the verdict was invalid because he couldn't attend the trial! Just because you would lie doesn't mean Assange would. I think that if they asked him to appear remotely via video, with the world watching, and serve a fair sentence in an Ecudorean prison if found guilty, that he would abide by the results. > How would they get him out of the embassy to make him serve the sentence? Assuming he didn't comply willingly, I'm sure if they asked Ecuador nicely, with a well-respected judicial result in hand, that Ecuador would transfer him to one of their prisons. But even if not, house-arrest has proven successful so far. > You complain (falsely, I think) that the prosecutor hasn't followed "standard procedure", and yet you are urging others to ignore the law completely. Of course I'm urging people to deviate - when to follow the procedure would cause a greater injustice. Humanity 101. I'm pointing out the deviations of the prosecutor to explain the irregularities that people would be calling to have investigated. It's not a baseless fishing trip.

foldr 10y ago

> A program the Swedish government embraced. Eliminating one of the main legal avenues for this is precisely the point. It's not clear what "making whistleblowing specifically legal" would mean, or how it would achieve this. > 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. None of this is true. You don't say anything in support of it, so I can't say much in response. >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. How would they get him out of the embassy to make him serve the sentence? Plus, you know for sure that if they convicted Assange in absentia, he'd then start complaining that the verdict was invalid because he couldn't attend the trial! >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. >Therefore vastly many people have the chance to sabotage an unjust process The hypocrisy of this part of your comment is quite astonishing. You complain (falsely, I think) that the prosecutor hasn't followed "standard procedure", and yet you are urging others to ignore the law completely.

EdHominem 10y ago
>> [...] Prosecutor slandered Assange. > None of this is true. You don't say anything in support of it, so I can't say much in response. It's well documented. He was interviewed in Sweden and left weeks later after notifying the police. That means he isn't a fugitive. Sweden has also conducted interviews with suspects in foreign countries during the period of time they've been trying to make Assange return, showing that they can if they want to. This means they are choosing not to advance the case while loudly declaring otherwise. That's the process deviation. > It's not clear what "making whistleblowing specifically legal" would mean, or how it would achieve this. A declaratory judgement that Assange's alleged actions pertaining to leaks would not be against Swedish law even if committed on their soil. With that there would be no legal basis for extradition. > Plus, you know for sure that if they convicted Assange in absentia, he'd then start complaining that the verdict was invalid because he couldn't attend the trial! Just because you would lie doesn't mean Assange would. I think that if they asked him to appear remotely via video, with the world watching, and serve a fair sentence in an Ecudorean prison if found guilty, that he would abide by the results. > How would they get him out of the embassy to make him serve the sentence? Assuming he didn't comply willingly, I'm sure if they asked Ecuador nicely, with a well-respected judicial result in hand, that Ecuador would transfer him to one of their prisons. But even if not, house-arrest has proven successful so far. > You complain (falsely, I think) that the prosecutor hasn't followed "standard procedure", and yet you are urging others to ignore the law completely. Of course I'm urging people to deviate - when to follow the procedure would cause a greater injustice. Humanity 101. I'm pointing out the deviations of the prosecutor to explain the irregularities that people would be calling to have investigated. It's not a baseless fishing trip.