5 ms·

He did skip out on bail the last time he was released. Fool me once ...

lielielielie 5y ago
Oh yes because the reason Assange gave for not going to Sweden was to avoid extradition to the US, something HN said was 'conspiracy theory', now proven conspiracy fact. These people know nothing of justice, only power and violence.
pydry 5y ago
Remember when he repeatedly said he'd happily face the charges if he could be given assurances he wouldn't be extradited to the US for spying once he got there? And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open" and the media made fun of him for being paranoid and delusional. Correa gave him asylum for a reason. It's too bad Moreno decided to cancel the asylum to score some points with the US.
- 0110101001 5y ago
  Sweden was actually like "our law requires us to consider extradition requests on their own merits." I don't know if he knew that or not, but it's kinda weird he didn't flea to the embassy until his extradition to Sweden was imminent. The UK could've arrested him for extradition to the US any day he was out on bail.
  - pydry 5y ago
    The US had to actually submit the extradition request first. There were no public charges made at that point. It's a lot easier to fight an extradition as a free man... even if that freedom is notional (being holed up in an embassy).
- wutwutwutwut 5y ago
  > And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open" Because the prosecutor can't give any such blanket guarantees. That would be illegal. Assange obviously knew this and tried to play the media, which failed.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Offering to not be extradited to a specific third country on a specific charge would be the furthest possible thing from a blanket guarantee. It's of course entirely their prerogative to not offer any guarantees at all. It is similarly "illegal" for many other countries to offer any guarantees that the suspect wont face torture.
    - wutwutwutwut 5y ago
      > It's of course entirely their prerogative to not offer any guarantees at all. If Assange wanted to have a guarantee of not being extradited he should have submitted an application for this to the Swedish justice department and have it reviewed. That's what the law require. The prosecutor or politicians cannot offer any guarantees and trying to bypass the procedure would be breaking the law. So no, it's not their prerogative. Stop spreading misinformation, it's tiresome.
      - pydry 5y ago
        It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee. Or, they can choose to undermine their credibility as a champion of human rights by providing no guarantees of humane treatment to any person under extradition. Many countries opt to follow this route (not nice countries, mind) and thus voluntarily "fail" to extradite a great number of guilty people as a result. Refusal to respect human rights often comes at a cost. Sweden's hands were not tied on this issue and it was a reasonable request. The reasonableness and the apparent politically motivated intransigence of the Swedish justice system (something noted by eagle eyed GCHQ employees in leaked emails) is a large part of why the application for asylum was approved. This is also probably why he made the offer ~30 times.
        wutwutwutwut 5y ago
        > It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee. By breaking the law? You can't just request something from a prosecutor. You have to follow the process for these kinds of things. The prosecutor has no right to grant what he requested, so how do you propose he would do it?
- mongol 5y ago
  Plea bargain does not exist in the Swedish legal system.

Oh yes because the reason Assange gave for not going to Sweden was to avoid extradition to the US, something HN said was 'conspiracy theory', now proven conspiracy fact. These people know nothing of justice, only power and violence.

pydry 5y ago

Remember when he repeatedly said he'd happily face the charges if he could be given assurances he wouldn't be extradited to the US for spying once he got there? And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open" and the media made fun of him for being paranoid and delusional. Correa gave him asylum for a reason. It's too bad Moreno decided to cancel the asylum to score some points with the US.

0110101001 5y ago
Sweden was actually like "our law requires us to consider extradition requests on their own merits." I don't know if he knew that or not, but it's kinda weird he didn't flea to the embassy until his extradition to Sweden was imminent. The UK could've arrested him for extradition to the US any day he was out on bail.
- pydry 5y ago
  The US had to actually submit the extradition request first. There were no public charges made at that point. It's a lot easier to fight an extradition as a free man... even if that freedom is notional (being holed up in an embassy).
wutwutwutwut 5y ago
> And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open" Because the prosecutor can't give any such blanket guarantees. That would be illegal. Assange obviously knew this and tried to play the media, which failed.
- pydry 5y ago
  Offering to not be extradited to a specific third country on a specific charge would be the furthest possible thing from a blanket guarantee. It's of course entirely their prerogative to not offer any guarantees at all. It is similarly "illegal" for many other countries to offer any guarantees that the suspect wont face torture.
  - wutwutwutwut 5y ago
    > It's of course entirely their prerogative to not offer any guarantees at all. If Assange wanted to have a guarantee of not being extradited he should have submitted an application for this to the Swedish justice department and have it reviewed. That's what the law require. The prosecutor or politicians cannot offer any guarantees and trying to bypass the procedure would be breaking the law. So no, it's not their prerogative. Stop spreading misinformation, it's tiresome.
    - pydry 5y ago
      It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee. Or, they can choose to undermine their credibility as a champion of human rights by providing no guarantees of humane treatment to any person under extradition. Many countries opt to follow this route (not nice countries, mind) and thus voluntarily "fail" to extradite a great number of guilty people as a result. Refusal to respect human rights often comes at a cost. Sweden's hands were not tied on this issue and it was a reasonable request. The reasonableness and the apparent politically motivated intransigence of the Swedish justice system (something noted by eagle eyed GCHQ employees in leaked emails) is a large part of why the application for asylum was approved. This is also probably why he made the offer ~30 times.
      - wutwutwutwut 5y ago
        > It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee. By breaking the law? You can't just request something from a prosecutor. You have to follow the process for these kinds of things. The prosecutor has no right to grant what he requested, so how do you propose he would do it?
mongol 5y ago
Plea bargain does not exist in the Swedish legal system.