4 ms·
> Because Assange is not charged with anything they can nail him for in the UK. He's not charged by the U.S. for anything that they can nail him for in either
by mpyne 13y ago
> Because Assange is not charged with anything they can nail him for in the UK.
He's not charged by the U.S. for anything that they can nail him for in either Sweden or the U.K.
If that changes U.K. law is unlikely to be significantly more flexible for Assange on national security concerns than Swedish law.
What Assange is charged with under Swedish law is also a crime in the U.K. by the way, as ruled by the U.K. High Court itself.
One big part of "due process" that progressives push for is that you should not get special treatment just because you are famous (or infamous, for that matter).
- nitrogen 13y agoHe may have not been indicted by the US, but supposedly the US has prepared an indictment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/julian-assange-attorney-indictment_n_3386793.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/julian-assange-atto...
- anigbrowl 13y agoAnd if they wanted to extradite him, they don't need him to be in Sweden first. This is the problem with conspiracy theories; there's an excess of path-dependence which leads to absurd conclusions. If Assange's attorneys are correct and the US has prepared an indictment against Assange, they could just ask the UK to extradite him directly to the US, since the US and UK have rock-solid treaty relations. There is absolutely no need to get him to Sweden first. Believing in the conspiracy theory also involves ignoring Assange's tweets saying things like 'Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism' as opposed to simply denying that anything untoward happened.
- tptacek 13y agoIt's even dumber than that, because extraditing him from Sweden is harder, since it would at this point be subject to the approval of both the UK and Sweden.
- trevelyan 13y agoAssange volunteered to go to Sweden if given a guarantee against extradition to the United States. The only conspiracy theory on display is your allegation that the UK government is so inept it actually prefers to spend 8 million a year provoking a diplomatic row with Ecuador and the OAS instead of acceding to a perfectly reasonable request.
- Tomte 13y agoLuckily, criminals (and innocents) don't get to dictate the process and legal rules of criminal investigations (and extraditions). We call it rule of law. You may have heard of it.
- trevelyan 13y agoI'd suggest against using the word "lucky" to describe any situation in which innocent people can be forcibly extradited for "questioning" despite volunteering to be questioned locally, over the telephone/Internet, or even agreeing to traveling abroad if given a guarantee they won't be packed up and shipped to a third-country with a history of extrajudicial torture. Your insistence that this case is following "the process and legal rules of criminal investigations" is laughable and only shows you know next to nothing about how said rules are usually interpreted and applied.
- Tomte 13y agoI do not see where I actually commented on the merits of the case or the extradition request. Maybe you can enlighten all of us?
- tptacek 13y agoIt's easy to gin up outrage by trying to reframe basic mechanisms of the justice systems of pretty much every modern country as abnormal or abusive. For instance, the notion that you can be extradited to face charges seems banal, until you introduce the notion that someone might want to "face their charges" in a totally different country over video link.
- anigbrowl 13y agoBTW 'they' as used above refers to the United States. Sorry for the poor grammar.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mpyne 13y agoAn indictment which the U.K. could extradite him on without having to worry about Sweden, yes.