10 ms·

> The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture interviewed for the article makes a pretty convincing picture that Assange was unlikely guilty of any of the crimes he's

> The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture interviewed for the article makes a pretty convincing picture that Assange was unlikely guilty of any of the crimes he's been accused of. Then if he's not guilty, let it be shown so at trial, and not at the say of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

tremon 7y ago
That's not how it works. Do we need to establish a trial before we can show your innocence in this case too? If he is guilty, then let it be shown so at trial. In absence of such a trial, he is not guilty. But such a trial will not happen, and was probably never intended to happen. Yet it shows how effective the media campaign against him has been: The Swedish state spent almost a decade intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly abandoned the case against him on the strength of the same argument that the first Stockholm prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially suspended the investigation after just five days
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
xrd 7y ago
You should read what Snowden has to say about a fair trial in his case. I think the same thing might apply here.
eindiran 7y ago
There's this incredibly inconvenient thing in Anglo-American jurisprudence called "burden of proof". In criminal cases, until you show that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", you have to act like they're not guilty: also known as the presumption of innocence. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat" (Latin for "the burden of proof is for the one who makes the claim, not the one who denies it"). See the links below, making special note of the fact that the "reasonable doubt" standard applies in both countries relevant to this case, the UK and the US (with the caveat that judges in the UK don't use the phrase anymore post-2008): [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Yeah, I've been through the Federal criminal system. What I've noticed is that Federal prosecutors almost never file a charge they don't believe they can get a conviction for. Now, that being said, I do allow that sometimes the prosecutor is given bad or fabricated evidence, like what is turning up with General Michael Flynn's case.

tremon 7y ago

That's not how it works. Do we need to establish a trial before we can show your innocence in this case too? If he is guilty, then let it be shown so at trial. In absence of such a trial, he is not guilty. But such a trial will not happen, and was probably never intended to happen. Yet it shows how effective the media campaign against him has been: The Swedish state spent almost a decade intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly abandoned the case against him on the strength of the same argument that the first Stockholm prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially suspended the investigation after just five days

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

xrd 7y ago

You should read what Snowden has to say about a fair trial in his case. I think the same thing might apply here.

eindiran 7y ago

There's this incredibly inconvenient thing in Anglo-American jurisprudence called "burden of proof". In criminal cases, until you show that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", you have to act like they're not guilty: also known as the presumption of innocence. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat" (Latin for "the burden of proof is for the one who makes the claim, not the one who denies it"). See the links below, making special note of the fact that the "reasonable doubt" standard applies in both countries relevant to this case, the UK and the US (with the caveat that judges in the UK don't use the phrase anymore post-2008): [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Yeah, I've been through the Federal criminal system. What I've noticed is that Federal prosecutors almost never file a charge they don't believe they can get a conviction for. Now, that being said, I do allow that sometimes the prosecutor is given bad or fabricated evidence, like what is turning up with General Michael Flynn's case.