5 ms·

Didn't he offer to have the trial held in another place? I haven't followed so closely. But the assumption that it might all be a farce to get him delivered to

Didn't he offer to have the trial held in another place? I haven't followed so closely. But the assumption that it might all be a farce to get him delivered to the US doesn't sound completely far-fetched. Assuming he just avoids the trial because he is guilty is silly. If you don't trust the system, it's a good reason to try to avoid it. Edit: since I have googled now, apparently he is not wanted in Sweden for a trial, just for a questioning.

Tomte 12y ago
How gracious! You might have missed that the venue of a trial is usually pre-determined, certainly not chosen at the whim of the defendant.
- facepalm 12y ago
  Out of curiosity, what do you think about Amanda Knox? Italy overturned her acquittal and wants another trial. Do you think she should go to Italy? If she doesn't go, would that make you believe she is guilty?
  - Tomte 12y ago
    I think she'd be stupid to go there. But the difference is: no one in their right mind expected Italy to let Ms. Knox leave for the United States when she was in custody. Only when she was acquitted, the arrest warrant was lifted, and according to Italian law she was free to go, was she able to leave.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      I don't remember - how did Assange get out of Sweden? I assume he wasn't in Sweden anymore when the accusations were made? So I am really not sure what you are saying? WOuld you have said Amanda Knox should have gone to Italy, had she already been in the US before the first trial?
      - Tomte 12y ago
        He is in the UK and is wanted for arrest in the UK. What's difficult to understand?
        facepalm 12y ago
        I think technically he is in Ecuador. I don't understand the distinction you make between the two cases. Both people are wanted for trial in another country.
        Tomte 12y ago
        No, he isn't. Can the old urban legend about exteritoriality please already die? The difference is that noone forces Ms. Knox to Italy, because the USA don't extraditre their citizens, I guess. Assange isn't in Australia. He's in the UK, and the UK forces him to Sweden. If you don't see the difference, then there's nothing more I can do or say.
        facepalm 12y ago
        Well if they force him, I expect he will go. That's the definition of forcing somebody to do something. So what was your problem again?
alkonaut 12y ago
It's not even a trial, merely a questioning. And while he has offered to have the questioning take place in London, Swedish law simply doesn't permit it. While that might be ridiculous, it won't just change for this particular case (and Swedish authorities don't make the laws, they enforce them). Next he wanted guarantees from Swedish authorities that if he were to travel to Sweden, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Swedes tried to explain that no such guarantees can be made: authorities can only process requests for extradition once made. Giving a guarantee up front would be illegal as it completely circumvents the laws regarding extraditions. These two things combined meant Assange complained "I can't be questioned here nor be guaranteed I won't be extradited to the US!", both of which are ridiculous complaints when you read the laws involved.
- xorcist 12y ago
  It's also a bit of a peculiar demand to make. Both Assange and his lawyer can not possibly believe they could get any extralegal guarantees.
- dagw 12y ago
  They don't want him for "merely a questioning", they want to file charges against him so that the trail can commence. In Sweden you cannot formally file charges against someone who isn't in custody, and Swedish police obviously can't take someone into custody in a country where they don't have jurisdiction. It's just an accident of terminology that the relevant Swedish legal phrase translates to "questioning" in English.
- contingencies 12y ago
  Untrue. Swedish law does permit it. See http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html
  - alkonaut 12y ago
    Government should not give preemptive assurances and forego the courts, regardless of whether it has happened in the past. The main question is: what is there to gain for Sweden by offering any guarantees to Assange (other than having him show up sooner)? It's a matter of relations with the US (which are closer than they should be as Snowden revealed) versus the matter of human rights. A delicate decision without a given answer. In Sweden one probably wants to keep the possibilities open and delay all investigations regarding refugee status, extradition requests etc to when they actually have Assange. If he wants to wait several years until he needs to visit a hospital, neither the US nor the Swedes really care: his whereabouts are known.

Tomte 12y ago

How gracious! You might have missed that the venue of a trial is usually pre-determined, certainly not chosen at the whim of the defendant.

facepalm 12y ago
Out of curiosity, what do you think about Amanda Knox? Italy overturned her acquittal and wants another trial. Do you think she should go to Italy? If she doesn't go, would that make you believe she is guilty?
- Tomte 12y ago
  I think she'd be stupid to go there. But the difference is: no one in their right mind expected Italy to let Ms. Knox leave for the United States when she was in custody. Only when she was acquitted, the arrest warrant was lifted, and according to Italian law she was free to go, was she able to leave.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I don't remember - how did Assange get out of Sweden? I assume he wasn't in Sweden anymore when the accusations were made? So I am really not sure what you are saying? WOuld you have said Amanda Knox should have gone to Italy, had she already been in the US before the first trial?
    - Tomte 12y ago
      He is in the UK and is wanted for arrest in the UK. What's difficult to understand?
      - facepalm 12y ago
        I think technically he is in Ecuador. I don't understand the distinction you make between the two cases. Both people are wanted for trial in another country.
        Tomte 12y ago
        No, he isn't. Can the old urban legend about exteritoriality please already die? The difference is that noone forces Ms. Knox to Italy, because the USA don't extraditre their citizens, I guess. Assange isn't in Australia. He's in the UK, and the UK forces him to Sweden. If you don't see the difference, then there's nothing more I can do or say.
        facepalm 12y ago
        Well if they force him, I expect he will go. That's the definition of forcing somebody to do something. So what was your problem again?

alkonaut 12y ago

It's not even a trial, merely a questioning. And while he has offered to have the questioning take place in London, Swedish law simply doesn't permit it. While that might be ridiculous, it won't just change for this particular case (and Swedish authorities don't make the laws, they enforce them). Next he wanted guarantees from Swedish authorities that if he were to travel to Sweden, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Swedes tried to explain that no such guarantees can be made: authorities can only process requests for extradition once made. Giving a guarantee up front would be illegal as it completely circumvents the laws regarding extraditions. These two things combined meant Assange complained "I can't be questioned here nor be guaranteed I won't be extradited to the US!", both of which are ridiculous complaints when you read the laws involved.

xorcist 12y ago
It's also a bit of a peculiar demand to make. Both Assange and his lawyer can not possibly believe they could get any extralegal guarantees.
dagw 12y ago
They don't want him for "merely a questioning", they want to file charges against him so that the trail can commence. In Sweden you cannot formally file charges against someone who isn't in custody, and Swedish police obviously can't take someone into custody in a country where they don't have jurisdiction. It's just an accident of terminology that the relevant Swedish legal phrase translates to "questioning" in English.
contingencies 12y ago
Untrue. Swedish law does permit it. See http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html
- alkonaut 12y ago
  Government should not give preemptive assurances and forego the courts, regardless of whether it has happened in the past. The main question is: what is there to gain for Sweden by offering any guarantees to Assange (other than having him show up sooner)? It's a matter of relations with the US (which are closer than they should be as Snowden revealed) versus the matter of human rights. A delicate decision without a given answer. In Sweden one probably wants to keep the possibilities open and delay all investigations regarding refugee status, extradition requests etc to when they actually have Assange. If he wants to wait several years until he needs to visit a hospital, neither the US nor the Swedes really care: his whereabouts are known.