4 ms·

>> [...] 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.

>> [...] 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
>It's well documented. He was interviewed in Sweden and left weeks later after notifying the police. That means he isn't a fugitive. EAW. "Fugitive" isn't a precisely defined term, but he is subject to an arrest warrant and isn't complying with it. >Sweden has also conducted interviews with suspects in foreign countries during the period of time they've been trying to make Assange return, As has been repeatedly said, the investigation has reached the point where the prosecutor wants to charge Assange, not merely ask him questions, and according to Swedish law he must be in custody before they can do that. > 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. I doubt that this is possible. At least, you appear to be the only person who has suggested it. Has anyone with the relevant legal expertise indicated that this is a possibility? >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. I don't see any reason to think so, given that he is already ignoring the EAW. Why should Sweden take his word for it? They're not under any obligation to conduct the investigation in accordance with Assange's wishes. > 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. How on Earth can you be "sure" of that? Are you on intimate terms with the Ecuadorian authorities? >Of course I'm urging people to deviate - when to follow the procedure would cause a greater injustice. You already accept that Sweden can try Assange. Why would it be more unjust to do so with him present at the trial than it would be in his absence?
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > "Fugitive" isn't a precisely defined term, but he is subject to an arrest warrant and isn't complying with it. Color me a traditionalist, but only valid warrants count. > As has been repeatedly said, the investigation has reached the point where the prosecutor wants to charge Assange, not merely ask him questions Nope. They issued the arrest warrant to compel him to return for questioning. > according to Swedish law he must be in custody before they can do that. Sweden is willing to question others in foreign jurisdiction so that obviously not true. > I don't see any reason to think so, given that he is already ignoring the EAW. He's not ignoring them, he's refusing to comply with non-legal orders. You have no reason to think he wouldn't comply with legal orders, because he has always complied before. This isn't wikipedia, but Assume Good Faith. > Why should Sweden take his word for it? They're not under any obligation to conduct the investigation in accordance with Assange's wishes. Right, and he's not under any obligation to do with them to participate in the sham. > How on Earth can you be "sure" of that? Are you on intimate terms with the Ecuadorian authorities? I'm surer of that, with more evidence, than you are that they would not comply. You first. > You already accept that Sweden can try Assange. It's their courthouse, they can try Kermit the Frog if they want. It's the legitimacy of the trial that's in question. > Why would it be more unjust to do so with him present at the trial than it would be in his absence? Because one requires extraordinary rendition. If it's legal for me to eat an icecream cone, why is it illegal for me to kidnap you, lock you in a box, and transport you to a foreign country, then eat an icecream cone? (Hint, the kidnapping and rendition...)
  - foldr 10y ago
    >Color me a traditionalist, but only valid warrants count. The warrant is legally valid. I don't think even Assange denies this! >Nope. They issued the arrest warrant to compel him to return for questioning. No, they issued it because he needs to be in their custody before they can charge him. This was explained repeatedly at the time. See e.g. paragraph 140 of the high court judgment: In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect. Or, directly from the Swedish prosecutor (paragraph 142): It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries. >Sweden is willing to question others in foreign jurisdiction so that obviously not true. He is not wanted merely for questioning. >I'm surer of that, with more evidence, than you are that they would not comply. You first. I don't claim to know what the Ecuadorian authorities would do under hypothetical circumstances. If you have some inside knowledge, please share it. (I thought wikileaks supporters, of all people, would believe in transparency?) >Because one requires extraordinary rendition. What on Earth are you talking about? Assange could go to Sweden today and the trial could be held there. No extraordinary rendition required.

foldr 10y ago

>It's well documented. He was interviewed in Sweden and left weeks later after notifying the police. That means he isn't a fugitive. EAW. "Fugitive" isn't a precisely defined term, but he is subject to an arrest warrant and isn't complying with it. >Sweden has also conducted interviews with suspects in foreign countries during the period of time they've been trying to make Assange return, As has been repeatedly said, the investigation has reached the point where the prosecutor wants to charge Assange, not merely ask him questions, and according to Swedish law he must be in custody before they can do that. > 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. I doubt that this is possible. At least, you appear to be the only person who has suggested it. Has anyone with the relevant legal expertise indicated that this is a possibility? >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. I don't see any reason to think so, given that he is already ignoring the EAW. Why should Sweden take his word for it? They're not under any obligation to conduct the investigation in accordance with Assange's wishes. > 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. How on Earth can you be "sure" of that? Are you on intimate terms with the Ecuadorian authorities? >Of course I'm urging people to deviate - when to follow the procedure would cause a greater injustice. You already accept that Sweden can try Assange. Why would it be more unjust to do so with him present at the trial than it would be in his absence?

EdHominem 10y ago
> "Fugitive" isn't a precisely defined term, but he is subject to an arrest warrant and isn't complying with it. Color me a traditionalist, but only valid warrants count. > As has been repeatedly said, the investigation has reached the point where the prosecutor wants to charge Assange, not merely ask him questions Nope. They issued the arrest warrant to compel him to return for questioning. > according to Swedish law he must be in custody before they can do that. Sweden is willing to question others in foreign jurisdiction so that obviously not true. > I don't see any reason to think so, given that he is already ignoring the EAW. He's not ignoring them, he's refusing to comply with non-legal orders. You have no reason to think he wouldn't comply with legal orders, because he has always complied before. This isn't wikipedia, but Assume Good Faith. > Why should Sweden take his word for it? They're not under any obligation to conduct the investigation in accordance with Assange's wishes. Right, and he's not under any obligation to do with them to participate in the sham. > How on Earth can you be "sure" of that? Are you on intimate terms with the Ecuadorian authorities? I'm surer of that, with more evidence, than you are that they would not comply. You first. > You already accept that Sweden can try Assange. It's their courthouse, they can try Kermit the Frog if they want. It's the legitimacy of the trial that's in question. > Why would it be more unjust to do so with him present at the trial than it would be in his absence? Because one requires extraordinary rendition. If it's legal for me to eat an icecream cone, why is it illegal for me to kidnap you, lock you in a box, and transport you to a foreign country, then eat an icecream cone? (Hint, the kidnapping and rendition...)
- foldr 10y ago
  >Color me a traditionalist, but only valid warrants count. The warrant is legally valid. I don't think even Assange denies this! >Nope. They issued the arrest warrant to compel him to return for questioning. No, they issued it because he needs to be in their custody before they can charge him. This was explained repeatedly at the time. See e.g. paragraph 140 of the high court judgment: In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect. Or, directly from the Swedish prosecutor (paragraph 142): It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries. >Sweden is willing to question others in foreign jurisdiction so that obviously not true. He is not wanted merely for questioning. >I'm surer of that, with more evidence, than you are that they would not comply. You first. I don't claim to know what the Ecuadorian authorities would do under hypothetical circumstances. If you have some inside knowledge, please share it. (I thought wikileaks supporters, of all people, would believe in transparency?) >Because one requires extraordinary rendition. What on Earth are you talking about? Assange could go to Sweden today and the trial could be held there. No extraordinary rendition required.