6 ms·
That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that a
by untog 9y ago
That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions.
(EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)
- barrkel 9y agoForeign embassies generally don't permit random alleged criminals to claim sanctuary.
- Xylakant 9y agoUnless it happens to suit whatever goal the host state wants to pursue.
- js8 9y agoIsn't it right of any government to grant sanctuary, though?
- notahacker 9y agoIt's the right of any government not to have police enter their embassy without permission, but not their right to retrospectively grant immunity from prosecution under UK or European law to anyone they choose to. Not setting that precedent is likely one of the main reasons the UK wasted so much money on policing.
- randcraw 9y agoCrime? I'm aware only that a charge was made against Assange by an individual for an infraction that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. This is strikingly convenient since it bypasses the introduction of any Wikileak-related evidence in Assange's prosecution, and thus prohibits it. In light of Assange's political activity, and now the astonishing level of CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him appears: 1) awfully convenient, 2) increasingly implausible (i.e. politically trumped up), and of course, 3) not a crime until his guilt is proven.
- untog 9y agoHe was charged with rape and molestation. Those are crimes. But if you want to call them "infractions" I suppose that is up to you. To look at your logic in the reverse direction, you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime, because it will be a false accusation trumped up by state actors. That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. Just because it could be the case doesn't mean that it is. It doesn't mean it isn't either, but you can't just assume it is because it is "strikingly convenient".
- crdoconnor 9y ago> you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime No, I think he was implying that until he's been successfully using the phrase "a crime that was committed" is premature. It is still alleged. If you want to know who did say "in light of Assange's political activity this crime is likely not credible" well... that would inconveniently be GCHQ: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-gchq-messages-extradition https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange... >That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny Straw men usually don't.
- untog 9y ago> It is still alleged. Of course it is, Assange never came in for questioning! That's the reason people are arrested: so that they can be charged. Since he evaded arrest, he hasn't been charged. It's absurdly circular logic to suggest that this implies innocence.
- crdoconnor 9y agoI am not implying here that he is innocent - though I think he probably is. I'm just stating that the crime was and still is alleged. The fact that the Swedish prosecutors never took up his invitation to question him in the embassy doesn't change that. You did a little more than imply he was guilty. You directly called him guilty when you used the phrase "a crime was committed". You are now contradicting yourself by agreeing that the crime was alleged.
- JupiterMoon 9y agos/accused|committed/alleged/g