6 ms·

> 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 wo

> 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.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > 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.) If he's arrested on trumped up charges, then yes, it would be. (I'm sure the CIA printed up some sort of receipt (err, warrant) for the people it had smuggled out of the country. Paperwork doesn't make things right.) > You're conceding the key point here. I.e., they do want to prosecute him and not just question him. Right, and they always have. But their lies around that, and framing him for fleeing, etc, have rendered that moot. Any legitimacy the trial may have had is up in smoke. If he can't get fair treatment pre-trial why would we think he'd get a fair trial? > 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.) That directly contradicts the text of the law. Trials in absentia are possible - there are merely rules for notification, etc. Also, they've lied before so the default position is that they're lying this time too. > But even if they could do this, why should they? Why does Assange deserve special treatment that no-one else gets? Because it's their fault, not his. Their fuckups and their lies. Anyone in his position deserves proper treatment. > They want to charge him and prosecute him now, and they have an EAW to back this up. A warrant they wrote themselves. Not very convincing. Prosecutorial misconduct is not justice and they can't pretend that it is by doubling down. > But we can make an educated guess based on his continuing attempts to evade justice. To achieve justice. > I did not say that anyone was a rapist. I don't prejudge the result of any future trial. No, but you're sure he'll get convicted and that he wouldn't report for jail. That means: rapist, and unrepentant. You didn't say it out right, and now you're walking it back to "strongly suspect"... > 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. You're saying the usual process involves lies and slander? I doubt that. And no, I don't have a general problem with EAWs... > Neither of us knows what Assange would do if he was found guilty in absentia. If he was convicted in absentia, by a clown court, I imagine he'd thumb his nose at Sweden. I would. But if he was given the chance to participate in a real trial, remotely, that would be vastly different. > your claims here are unsourced, and I do not believe they are true. The UN working group on arbitrary detention didn't idly side with him. If the charges appeared to have merit they wouldn't have come out in support. I think they're read both sets of sources... """Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. [...] The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation."""

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.

EdHominem 10y ago
> 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.) If he's arrested on trumped up charges, then yes, it would be. (I'm sure the CIA printed up some sort of receipt (err, warrant) for the people it had smuggled out of the country. Paperwork doesn't make things right.) > You're conceding the key point here. I.e., they do want to prosecute him and not just question him. Right, and they always have. But their lies around that, and framing him for fleeing, etc, have rendered that moot. Any legitimacy the trial may have had is up in smoke. If he can't get fair treatment pre-trial why would we think he'd get a fair trial? > 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.) That directly contradicts the text of the law. Trials in absentia are possible - there are merely rules for notification, etc. Also, they've lied before so the default position is that they're lying this time too. > But even if they could do this, why should they? Why does Assange deserve special treatment that no-one else gets? Because it's their fault, not his. Their fuckups and their lies. Anyone in his position deserves proper treatment. > They want to charge him and prosecute him now, and they have an EAW to back this up. A warrant they wrote themselves. Not very convincing. Prosecutorial misconduct is not justice and they can't pretend that it is by doubling down. > But we can make an educated guess based on his continuing attempts to evade justice. To achieve justice. > I did not say that anyone was a rapist. I don't prejudge the result of any future trial. No, but you're sure he'll get convicted and that he wouldn't report for jail. That means: rapist, and unrepentant. You didn't say it out right, and now you're walking it back to "strongly suspect"... > 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. You're saying the usual process involves lies and slander? I doubt that. And no, I don't have a general problem with EAWs... > Neither of us knows what Assange would do if he was found guilty in absentia. If he was convicted in absentia, by a clown court, I imagine he'd thumb his nose at Sweden. I would. But if he was given the chance to participate in a real trial, remotely, that would be vastly different. > your claims here are unsourced, and I do not believe they are true. The UN working group on arbitrary detention didn't idly side with him. If the charges appeared to have merit they wouldn't have come out in support. I think they're read both sets of sources... """Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. [...] The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation."""