4 ms·
You're referring to a separate arrest of Assange for skipping bail. That's not what this article is about. Far be it from me to suggest you didn't read it.
by crispinb 8y ago
You're referring to a separate arrest of Assange for skipping bail. That's not what this article is about. Far be it from me to suggest you didn't read it.
- Arnt 8y agoAdmittedly, I mixed up my browser tabs and thought I was commenting in a HN thread about the BBC story on Assange's arrest. I think I read the Met page directly after posting that comment. The point still stands — he was arrested on a matter between him and the English court system. That the original reason why he should've appeared in court is obsolete doesn't mean that he could disregard the court. EDIT: Maybe I misunderstand something. I thought a summons involves being handed a fat envelope and signing a receipt that basically says "I have received <that envelope> and promise to do as instructed within". Isn't that correct? What is a summons, if not that?
- crispinb 8y ago> The point still stands ... It's an entirely separate (and frankly relatively trivial) issue. This part of the discussion involves whether or not Assange's arrest was a consequence of (in @pvg's words) 'his journalistic activities'. It clearly was. See Greenwald's analysis in the Intercept today, with quotes directly from the extradition request. The extradition attempt is part of an ongoing assault by the US government on investigative journalism. > I thought a summons .. The legal docs involved here are an arrest warrant and extradition request. It's well beyond the summons stage.