3 ms·
I completely agree that the UK statements about revoking the embassy's status are dumb on a massive level and they need to back off of that position in a hurry.
by Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I completely agree that the UK statements about revoking the embassy's status are dumb on a massive level and they need to back off of that position in a hurry. I think Ecuador are abusing the asylum process but your point about what the UK's actions if they did it mean is completely right.
In terms of the being charged thing, that's a technical distinction based on how the Swedish process works where you have to be formally questioned before you can be charged. As the UK judges at his appeal stated, it's misleading to say that, criminal charges have in effect been bought.
But that still doesn't justify storming the embassy.
I'm not saying that mistakes haven't been made in the past but Assange will, I suspect have far better legal representation and a far better PR apparatus than the Egyptian's had. This is a trial that would be in the glare of the world's media which makes any kind of cover up far, far harder.
- vidarh 14y agoAssange has been formally questioned. He was formally questioned back in 2010. Then the prosecutor decided there was no indication of a crime. It took another prosecutor to take the extremely unusual step of swooping in and reopening the case before it was suddenly imperative he was questioned in Sweden, after he had been given the go-ahead to leave. Meanwhile the Swedish police are happily interviewing suspected murderers elsewhere without the same insistence. As for the Egyptians - it caused a massive uproar, then as stated, the US was shown to be right back at it again shortly afterwards, ignoring the political fallout of the initial cases. Even if Sweden doesn't want to be involved in the dirty work - and they have a lengthy history of bending over for the US -, that is by no means any guarantee of anything.