> That wouldn't be extraordinary rendition, assuming he was being arrested by the British police. (It would be a violation of various diplomatic protocols, whic

> 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."""