4 ms·

> "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 warr

> "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.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > What on Earth are you talking about? Assange could go to Sweden today and the trial could be held there. No extraordinary rendition required. Why on earth would he be that stupid though? They clearly aren't prosecuting the case properly so why would he believe he'd get a fair trial? The only way they'll get him there is if they or the brits abduct him at gunpoint. Extraordinary rendition. > No, they issued it because he needs to be in their custody before they can charge him. They can say it all they want but that doesn't make it true. They want him in custody so that they can jail him after the sham trial. Sweden can choose to charge him, and to try him, remotely. The reason they don't is that it's not about the case, with its likely short sentence, it's about capturing and controlling him. If they tried him remotely he would serve his sentence in a foreign (Ecuadorean likely) prison and they wouldn't have achieved their goal. > This was explained repeatedly at the time. Nope. They changed their story multiple times. At one point they claimed he fled Sweden. > He is not wanted merely for questioning. Right, not anymore. When one tactic failed they moved on. > I don't claim to know what the Ecuadorian authorities You claim to know to know that Assange wouldn't comply with a valid judgement. You're accusing someone of being an unrepentant rapist so you have the burden of proof. > The warrant is legally valid. I don't think even Assange denies this! No, valid means it's not a setup. The paper it's written on, the stamp on the paper, and the name signed on the bottom, are just trappings you've started to confuse with legitimacy.
  - foldr 10y ago
    >The only way they'll get him there is if they or the brits abduct him at gunpoint. Extraordinary rendition. That wouldn't be extraordinary rendition, assuming he was being arrested by the British police. (It would be a violation of various diplomatic protocols, which is why the UK hasn't done it.) >They want him in custody so that they can jail him after the sham trial. You're conceding the key point here. I.e., they do want to prosecute him and not just question him. >Sweden can choose to charge him, and to try him, remotely They can't, actually, as the prosecutor explained in the submission to the high court. (You really should read the judgment -- it's very informative.) But even if they could do this, why should they? Why does Assange deserve special treatment that no-one else gets? >Nope. They changed their story multiple times. At one point they claimed he fled Sweden. >Right, not anymore. When one tactic failed they moved on. They want to charge him and prosecute him now, and they have an EAW to back this up. Whether they always wanted to do this is irrelevant. (Although, that being said, your claims here are unsourced, and I do not believe they are true.) >You claim to know to know that Assange wouldn't comply with a valid judgement. I may have used the word "know", but of course I admit that this is merely what I suspect. Neither of us knows what Assange would do if he was found guilty in absentia. But we can make an educated guess based on his continuing attempts to evade justice. >You're accusing someone of being an unrepentant rapist I did not say that anyone was a rapist. I don't prejudge the result of any future trial. >The paper it's written on, the stamp on the paper, and the name signed on the bottom, are just trappings you've started to confuse with legitimacy. It was a acquired through the usual process for acquiring an EAW. If you have some more general problem with EAWs then that is a separate discussion.

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.

EdHominem 10y ago
> What on Earth are you talking about? Assange could go to Sweden today and the trial could be held there. No extraordinary rendition required. Why on earth would he be that stupid though? They clearly aren't prosecuting the case properly so why would he believe he'd get a fair trial? The only way they'll get him there is if they or the brits abduct him at gunpoint. Extraordinary rendition. > No, they issued it because he needs to be in their custody before they can charge him. They can say it all they want but that doesn't make it true. They want him in custody so that they can jail him after the sham trial. Sweden can choose to charge him, and to try him, remotely. The reason they don't is that it's not about the case, with its likely short sentence, it's about capturing and controlling him. If they tried him remotely he would serve his sentence in a foreign (Ecuadorean likely) prison and they wouldn't have achieved their goal. > This was explained repeatedly at the time. Nope. They changed their story multiple times. At one point they claimed he fled Sweden. > He is not wanted merely for questioning. Right, not anymore. When one tactic failed they moved on. > I don't claim to know what the Ecuadorian authorities You claim to know to know that Assange wouldn't comply with a valid judgement. You're accusing someone of being an unrepentant rapist so you have the burden of proof. > The warrant is legally valid. I don't think even Assange denies this! No, valid means it's not a setup. The paper it's written on, the stamp on the paper, and the name signed on the bottom, are just trappings you've started to confuse with legitimacy.
- foldr 10y ago
  >The only way they'll get him there is if they or the brits abduct him at gunpoint. Extraordinary rendition. That wouldn't be extraordinary rendition, assuming he was being arrested by the British police. (It would be a violation of various diplomatic protocols, which is why the UK hasn't done it.) >They want him in custody so that they can jail him after the sham trial. You're conceding the key point here. I.e., they do want to prosecute him and not just question him. >Sweden can choose to charge him, and to try him, remotely They can't, actually, as the prosecutor explained in the submission to the high court. (You really should read the judgment -- it's very informative.) But even if they could do this, why should they? Why does Assange deserve special treatment that no-one else gets? >Nope. They changed their story multiple times. At one point they claimed he fled Sweden. >Right, not anymore. When one tactic failed they moved on. They want to charge him and prosecute him now, and they have an EAW to back this up. Whether they always wanted to do this is irrelevant. (Although, that being said, your claims here are unsourced, and I do not believe they are true.) >You claim to know to know that Assange wouldn't comply with a valid judgement. I may have used the word "know", but of course I admit that this is merely what I suspect. Neither of us knows what Assange would do if he was found guilty in absentia. But we can make an educated guess based on his continuing attempts to evade justice. >You're accusing someone of being an unrepentant rapist I did not say that anyone was a rapist. I don't prejudge the result of any future trial. >The paper it's written on, the stamp on the paper, and the name signed on the bottom, are just trappings you've started to confuse with legitimacy. It was a acquired through the usual process for acquiring an EAW. If you have some more general problem with EAWs then that is a separate discussion.