4 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
  I 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.
  - untog 9y ago
    Good grief, if that was your original point you really could have phrased it better, it wasn't clear at all. That said, mea cupla: you're right that my own phrasing could have been better, I've amended it. (it certainly wasn't directly calling him guilty in any case - people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time without being accused of being the perpetrator of that crime)
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time Where the crime is known while the criminal is not this is true.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
All warrants for arrest refer to allegations. Is that your whole point. I'm pretty sure we all realise this.

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 ago
I 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.
- untog 9y ago
  Good grief, if that was your original point you really could have phrased it better, it wasn't clear at all. That said, mea cupla: you're right that my own phrasing could have been better, I've amended it. (it certainly wasn't directly calling him guilty in any case - people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time without being accused of being the perpetrator of that crime)
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time Where the crime is known while the criminal is not this is true.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

All warrants for arrest refer to allegations. Is that your whole point. I'm pretty sure we all realise this.