4 ms·

No it does not prove any such thing.

ageofwant 9y ago
It was blindingly obvious that it was. Sweden's reputation took a huge hit because of this incident, and rightly so. They should have resolved the matter within 6 months. But it became such a hot potato that they were willing to sacrifice a man's live, and demonstrated to the world that principles and truth is inconsequential when the bully is sitting on your chest. The stench of this shit will cling to Sweden for generations.
- youngtaff 9y ago
  Whether Swedens's reputation took a hit is a matter of opinion. If he was innocent why didn't he go back to Sweden and face the charges? All the stuff about the risk of US extraditing him in nonsense, they'd find it easier to do from the UK. All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault.
  - jbmorgado 9y ago
    "All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault." All they did was use sexual assault charges in order to force him into political asylum.
    - youngtaff 9y ago
      He was quite happy to use the judicial system until it ruled against his case…
  - micheljones 9y ago
    At the time, Sweden was a better candidate for extradition because it has less limitations on extradition than UK in Assange's case (because he is a Commonwealth citizen). As for the 'if he was innocent', I see this argument quite often, and I have only this to say: his self-imposed punishment of being locked up in a closet for 5 years is worse than any possible punishment he would have received for the crime he was accused of. So tell me, if he was only looking to avoid punishment for the crime he commited, why did he impose an even worse punishment on himself?
    - youngtaff 9y ago
      Because he's a narcissist and martyrdom suits his ego (and perhaps he figured it would come to exile in an embassy, or for so long)
      - micheljones 9y ago
        So, for negative conclusions about Assange we need to apply Occam's razor (if he's innocent why didn't he turn himself in), but for positive conclusions about him we need to avoid that and invent more and more complex, evasive answers? Thank you for your help in getting president Donald Trump elected. Sincerely, A Russian Bot
  - mihular 9y ago
    Gitmo was and is still full of innocent people. Just sayin.
mihular 9y ago
Of course it does. Not wanting to interview him, not having any valid evidence, dubious victims, etc.
- efraim 9y ago
  It really doesn't. They wanted to question him, he fled and locked himself up in an embassy. You don't know what evidence they have but rape cases such as this rarely have any physical evidence but they should still be investigated.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    And Assange kept offering to let them interview him in the UK. They refused for four years before finally agreeing last year. Why could they not have interviewed him for those four years?
    - efraim 9y ago
      Should the Swedish authorities chase after everyone they want to interview and do it where it pleases that person? If someone is wanted for rape and travels to Thailand, should Swedish prosecutor and police fly to Thailand to question them? What if the interview leads to them wanting to arrest that person, should they arrest them while in another country?
      - vidarh 9y ago
        That depends. Should the Swedish authority care more about convenience than about seeking justice? If they care about justice, and they are unable to get the person to Sweden, then it would seem the prudent recourse is to interview that person wherever they are. You'll note that they finally did end up interviewing Assange in London, so they have conceded that it is possible and acceptable to do so. So the question is not whether or not Swedish authorities can or should do so - they've answered that question. The question is what was served by waiting four years to do so. Certainly not justice.

It was blindingly obvious that it was. Sweden's reputation took a huge hit because of this incident, and rightly so. They should have resolved the matter within 6 months. But it became such a hot potato that they were willing to sacrifice a man's live, and demonstrated to the world that principles and truth is inconsequential when the bully is sitting on your chest. The stench of this shit will cling to Sweden for generations.

youngtaff 9y ago
Whether Swedens's reputation took a hit is a matter of opinion. If he was innocent why didn't he go back to Sweden and face the charges? All the stuff about the risk of US extraditing him in nonsense, they'd find it easier to do from the UK. All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault.
- jbmorgado 9y ago
  "All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault." All they did was use sexual assault charges in order to force him into political asylum.
  - youngtaff 9y ago
    He was quite happy to use the judicial system until it ruled against his case…
- micheljones 9y ago
  At the time, Sweden was a better candidate for extradition because it has less limitations on extradition than UK in Assange's case (because he is a Commonwealth citizen). As for the 'if he was innocent', I see this argument quite often, and I have only this to say: his self-imposed punishment of being locked up in a closet for 5 years is worse than any possible punishment he would have received for the crime he was accused of. So tell me, if he was only looking to avoid punishment for the crime he commited, why did he impose an even worse punishment on himself?
  - youngtaff 9y ago
    Because he's a narcissist and martyrdom suits his ego (and perhaps he figured it would come to exile in an embassy, or for so long)
    - micheljones 9y ago
      So, for negative conclusions about Assange we need to apply Occam's razor (if he's innocent why didn't he turn himself in), but for positive conclusions about him we need to avoid that and invent more and more complex, evasive answers? Thank you for your help in getting president Donald Trump elected. Sincerely, A Russian Bot
- mihular 9y ago
  Gitmo was and is still full of innocent people. Just sayin.

mihular 9y ago

Of course it does. Not wanting to interview him, not having any valid evidence, dubious victims, etc.

efraim 9y ago
It really doesn't. They wanted to question him, he fled and locked himself up in an embassy. You don't know what evidence they have but rape cases such as this rarely have any physical evidence but they should still be investigated.
- vidarh 9y ago
  And Assange kept offering to let them interview him in the UK. They refused for four years before finally agreeing last year. Why could they not have interviewed him for those four years?
  - efraim 9y ago
    Should the Swedish authorities chase after everyone they want to interview and do it where it pleases that person? If someone is wanted for rape and travels to Thailand, should Swedish prosecutor and police fly to Thailand to question them? What if the interview leads to them wanting to arrest that person, should they arrest them while in another country?
    - vidarh 9y ago
      That depends. Should the Swedish authority care more about convenience than about seeking justice? If they care about justice, and they are unable to get the person to Sweden, then it would seem the prudent recourse is to interview that person wherever they are. You'll note that they finally did end up interviewing Assange in London, so they have conceded that it is possible and acceptable to do so. So the question is not whether or not Swedish authorities can or should do so - they've answered that question. The question is what was served by waiting four years to do so. Certainly not justice.