5 ms·

The charges were already dropped, then the prosecutor mysteriously replaced and the case reopened. The whole thing is a farce so there's no reason to bother wi

The charges were already dropped, then the prosecutor mysteriously replaced and the case reopened. The whole thing is a farce so there's no reason to bother with any trial.

Kiro 14y ago
Nothing mysterious going on here. It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it. You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > Guilty or not he should stand trial. If there weren't a lot of major governments that really really want to get him, so that he could be guaranteed a fair trial, then of course he should stand trial.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  > can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that If there's no substance to the allegations, yes, the person accused should absolutely just be set free like that. This is obvious.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    The allegations have been repeatedly upheld as substantial by multiple jurists and court officers in multiple countries.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      You make it sound as if these courts have seriously considered the evidence and determined there's substance to it, but the findings by the courts are far more narrow than that. Swedish courts have found the allegations as stated by the prosecutor gives reason enough to issue an arrest warrant on suspicion to allow him to be questioned again (and possibly charged), not that evidence have been presented sufficient to charge or convict him. The barrier for arresting someone on suspicion in Scandinavian countries is extremely low, as this is a routine way of taking someone in for questioning when the person in question refuses to return willingly. The presence of a police interview with an alleged victim that contains statements that can reasonably be interpreted to implicate Assange in a crime would most likely in itself be sufficient. The UK courts have only agreed that the allegations as stated by the prosecutors, and as supported by the prosecutors unverified accounts of what the women have said in police interviews would also amount to crimes in the UK, and that thus the content of the allegations is not an hindrance to extradition. Assanges lawyers have not had opportunity to challenge the content of these, as that is outside of the scope of the extradition hearings, only to challenge the interpretation. So these courts and jurists have not said much more than that if there is evidence to support these statements, that have not faced any legal challenge, then what is contained in them as written amounts to a crime.
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        My point is that the allegations have been found to have substance. Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England. The English courts have twice ruled that were the complaints brought in England by English citizens, Assange would be liable to arrest and charges being laid. That is the basis of extradition to face trial. Most countries have a multi-stage system of deciding which complaints to take to trial. In general: 1. Police must first receive and investigate a complaint. 2. Police report to prosecutors, who must decide to issue warrants or to lay charges. 3. A magistrate, prosecuting judge or grand jury must decide that there is sufficient evidence that a trial might be be successful -- ie, that's not a frivolous waste of a court's time. 4. Then and only then is there is a criminal trial. So far the matter has gotten as far as stage 2. So of course Assange hasn't been given opportunity to present his case. Because there's no case yet. He's not up to the case-presenting part of the procedure. It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.
- vidarh 14y ago
  > It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it Of course, nobody has actually given any reasons for it. And I've not seen any indication that this isn't in fact uncommon in Sweden. There are however many other factors that makes it curious. Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition. Somehow, the Assange case is "special" enough to the Swedish prosecutor in some way or other that she keeps running this case differently. For example the illegal leaks and official statements made to the Swedish press, that are pretty much unprecedented in Sweden. Maybe she is only trying to score points. Maybe she genuinely believes she is doing the right thing. Maybe it really is a conspiracy. But no matter what, there are too many oddities about the way they've pursued this case for me to not seriously question the motives of the people involved to the extent that I don't particularly believe that Assange has much chance of a fair trial. All the oddities around the Assange case could just be coincidences. But it is arrogant to presume that there is no basis for other people to doubt whether he can get a fair trial. > You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial. Far worse people (even assuming he's guilty) are "just set free like that" all the time when there is reason to believe circumstances won't allow a fair trial. The UK even let Pinochet leave, refusing to honour an extradition request from a Spanish judge. Yet it is so important to extradite someone wanted on an arrest warrant for questioning that may lead to a charge, where the country involved can't be bothered to send investigators despite multiple offers, that they post police around the clock for months outside an embassy. Assange may be guilty, or he might not. If he is, then it would be a shame if he goes free. But he is certainly getting special treatment, and we'd be remiss if we didn't ask why, and in the absence of clear answers, the response should be to demand he goes free.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Don't forget the lack of transparency in these sort of trials in Sweden.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    > Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition. Assange is not wanted for questioning. He is under warrant of arrest. These are not the same thing. At all. He hasn't been charged because he cannot in Swedish law be charged without first being arrested.
- gavinlynch 14y ago
  >> "You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial." Thank you. And yet, in countless meandering pagraphics and who knows how many sentences and words, exactly that is being argued. It defies logic. Look, I get that some of you agree with his politics and cuases. Great. More power to you. But Please address the point above simply. Should someone accused of rape simply roam indefinitely without coming in to address the matter as the authorities have requested?

The charges were already dropped, then the prosecutor mysteriously replaced and the case reopened. The whole thing is a farce so there's no reason to bother with any trial.

Kiro 14y ago

Nothing mysterious going on here. It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it. You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.

cabalamat 14y ago
> Guilty or not he should stand trial. If there weren't a lot of major governments that really really want to get him, so that he could be guaranteed a fair trial, then of course he should stand trial.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
cynicalkane 14y ago
> can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that If there's no substance to the allegations, yes, the person accused should absolutely just be set free like that. This is obvious.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  The allegations have been repeatedly upheld as substantial by multiple jurists and court officers in multiple countries.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    You make it sound as if these courts have seriously considered the evidence and determined there's substance to it, but the findings by the courts are far more narrow than that. Swedish courts have found the allegations as stated by the prosecutor gives reason enough to issue an arrest warrant on suspicion to allow him to be questioned again (and possibly charged), not that evidence have been presented sufficient to charge or convict him. The barrier for arresting someone on suspicion in Scandinavian countries is extremely low, as this is a routine way of taking someone in for questioning when the person in question refuses to return willingly. The presence of a police interview with an alleged victim that contains statements that can reasonably be interpreted to implicate Assange in a crime would most likely in itself be sufficient. The UK courts have only agreed that the allegations as stated by the prosecutors, and as supported by the prosecutors unverified accounts of what the women have said in police interviews would also amount to crimes in the UK, and that thus the content of the allegations is not an hindrance to extradition. Assanges lawyers have not had opportunity to challenge the content of these, as that is outside of the scope of the extradition hearings, only to challenge the interpretation. So these courts and jurists have not said much more than that if there is evidence to support these statements, that have not faced any legal challenge, then what is contained in them as written amounts to a crime.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      My point is that the allegations have been found to have substance. Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England. The English courts have twice ruled that were the complaints brought in England by English citizens, Assange would be liable to arrest and charges being laid. That is the basis of extradition to face trial. Most countries have a multi-stage system of deciding which complaints to take to trial. In general: 1. Police must first receive and investigate a complaint. 2. Police report to prosecutors, who must decide to issue warrants or to lay charges. 3. A magistrate, prosecuting judge or grand jury must decide that there is sufficient evidence that a trial might be be successful -- ie, that's not a frivolous waste of a court's time. 4. Then and only then is there is a criminal trial. So far the matter has gotten as far as stage 2. So of course Assange hasn't been given opportunity to present his case. Because there's no case yet. He's not up to the case-presenting part of the procedure. It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.
vidarh 14y ago
> It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it Of course, nobody has actually given any reasons for it. And I've not seen any indication that this isn't in fact uncommon in Sweden. There are however many other factors that makes it curious. Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition. Somehow, the Assange case is "special" enough to the Swedish prosecutor in some way or other that she keeps running this case differently. For example the illegal leaks and official statements made to the Swedish press, that are pretty much unprecedented in Sweden. Maybe she is only trying to score points. Maybe she genuinely believes she is doing the right thing. Maybe it really is a conspiracy. But no matter what, there are too many oddities about the way they've pursued this case for me to not seriously question the motives of the people involved to the extent that I don't particularly believe that Assange has much chance of a fair trial. All the oddities around the Assange case could just be coincidences. But it is arrogant to presume that there is no basis for other people to doubt whether he can get a fair trial. > You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial. Far worse people (even assuming he's guilty) are "just set free like that" all the time when there is reason to believe circumstances won't allow a fair trial. The UK even let Pinochet leave, refusing to honour an extradition request from a Spanish judge. Yet it is so important to extradite someone wanted on an arrest warrant for questioning that may lead to a charge, where the country involved can't be bothered to send investigators despite multiple offers, that they post police around the clock for months outside an embassy. Assange may be guilty, or he might not. If he is, then it would be a shame if he goes free. But he is certainly getting special treatment, and we'd be remiss if we didn't ask why, and in the absence of clear answers, the response should be to demand he goes free.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Don't forget the lack of transparency in these sort of trials in Sweden.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  > Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition. Assange is not wanted for questioning. He is under warrant of arrest. These are not the same thing. At all. He hasn't been charged because he cannot in Swedish law be charged without first being arrested.
gavinlynch 14y ago
>> "You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial." Thank you. And yet, in countless meandering pagraphics and who knows how many sentences and words, exactly that is being argued. It defies logic. Look, I get that some of you agree with his politics and cuases. Great. More power to you. But Please address the point above simply. Should someone accused of rape simply roam indefinitely without coming in to address the matter as the authorities have requested?