4 ms·

It is tiring correcting your repeated inability to read: > even if the Swedes could question Assange while he was in the UK.... There is no "even if" about it

It is tiring correcting your repeated inability to read: > even if the Swedes could question Assange while he was in the UK.... There is no "even if" about it. The entire core of your current argument is baseless fiction: "It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him." > The court examined this material... No. The Swedish government did not provide any supporting materials for the allegations in its warrant, and neither Assange nor the court was given access to relevant evidence despite the defense repeatedly calling for it. If you think the burden of disproving he-said-she-said allegations based on secret evidence is reasonable and defendants have anything but an "extremely limited" ability to challenge accusations on the basis of fact, you may as well just tank the presumption of innocence and start championing military tribunals for the general public. > You're clearly very angry with me for some reason No. I pity you. What horrifies me is your inability to think, and your complete abandonment of the do-unto-others Christian and democratic principle that the legal system should be invoked in ways proportional to the accusation and bearing the public interest in mind. I'm appalled you fail to see these events as what they are: a disproportionate and punitive attack on public-interest journalism. And I am shocked at your repeated failure to understand the referenced passage in which the Swedish prosecutor flat-out admits THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY STOPPING HER from accepting Assange's offers to cooperate in whatever way would not expose him to extradition to the United States. Sweden could end this impass in a matter of hours. Your failure or refusal to realize this makes you an apologist for the abuse of power. But it doesn't matter, because at this point you have spent the last half-dozen posts arguing around the reasonability of the extradition instead of providing an example of a commensurate offense.

foldr 12y ago
>There is no "even if" about it. The entire core of your current argument is baseless fiction: You just quoted the Swedish prosector explaining why Assange can't be questioned in the UK. They expect to charge Assange, and hence need him to be in Sweden so they can put him on trial. The High Court saw this clearly (see the end of this post for more detail). It's bizarre to infer from this statement that the EAW is unnecessary. It's unnecessary if you're already assuming that Assange is innocent and hence should not be put on trial. >If you think the burden of disproving he-said-she-said allegations based on secret evidence is reasonable and defendants have anything but an "extremely limited" ability to challenge accusations on the basis of fact, you may as well just tank the presumption of innocence and start championing military tribunals for the general public. Again, you're confusing the extradition hearing with a rape trial. Assange can argue that he's innocent of the charges when (if) he's put on trial for rape in Sweden. The English courts are not making any findings regarding the facts of the case; they are just enforcing the EAW. >THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY STOPPING HER from accepting Assange's offers to cooperate in whatever way would not expose him to extradition to the United States. His cooperation is besides the point at this stage in the investigation. As the court judgments explain, the presumption at this stage in the investigation is that he will be charged and eventually brought to trial. Hence, his presence in Sweden is necessary. From the High Court judgment: "In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect." Now, could the Swedish prosecutor have choosen to do nothing more than some further questioning on Assange in England? Well, sure, they can handle the case how they like. But they chose not to. I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out before it sinks in, but Assange can't expect to run the investigation himself on his own terms! Once the Swedes have decided to charge him, the English courts can't just piss all over the Swedish legal process. The clue is in the name: European Arrest Warrant. Once Sweden issues it through the proper legal process, the presumption is that England will enforce it. There is no "presumption of innocence" when considering whether or not to enforce a legally obtained arrest warrant, since the facts of the case are not being decided at all. >principle that the legal system should be invoked in ways proportional to the accusation and bearing the public interest in mind. The accusation is rape, so there is no disproportionality, and it's in the public interest for rapists to be prosecuted. >arguing around the reasonability of the extradition instead of providing an example of a commensurate offense. I've explained already that I don't see why this is relevant. If he was being extradited for a parking ticket, I'd see your point, but the charge strikes me as serious enough to merit extradition, both legally and morally.

foldr 12y ago

>There is no "even if" about it. The entire core of your current argument is baseless fiction: You just quoted the Swedish prosector explaining why Assange can't be questioned in the UK. They expect to charge Assange, and hence need him to be in Sweden so they can put him on trial. The High Court saw this clearly (see the end of this post for more detail). It's bizarre to infer from this statement that the EAW is unnecessary. It's unnecessary if you're already assuming that Assange is innocent and hence should not be put on trial. >If you think the burden of disproving he-said-she-said allegations based on secret evidence is reasonable and defendants have anything but an "extremely limited" ability to challenge accusations on the basis of fact, you may as well just tank the presumption of innocence and start championing military tribunals for the general public. Again, you're confusing the extradition hearing with a rape trial. Assange can argue that he's innocent of the charges when (if) he's put on trial for rape in Sweden. The English courts are not making any findings regarding the facts of the case; they are just enforcing the EAW. >THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY STOPPING HER from accepting Assange's offers to cooperate in whatever way would not expose him to extradition to the United States. His cooperation is besides the point at this stage in the investigation. As the court judgments explain, the presumption at this stage in the investigation is that he will be charged and eventually brought to trial. Hence, his presence in Sweden is necessary. From the High Court judgment: "In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect." Now, could the Swedish prosecutor have choosen to do nothing more than some further questioning on Assange in England? Well, sure, they can handle the case how they like. But they chose not to. I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out before it sinks in, but Assange can't expect to run the investigation himself on his own terms! Once the Swedes have decided to charge him, the English courts can't just piss all over the Swedish legal process. The clue is in the name: European Arrest Warrant. Once Sweden issues it through the proper legal process, the presumption is that England will enforce it. There is no "presumption of innocence" when considering whether or not to enforce a legally obtained arrest warrant, since the facts of the case are not being decided at all. >principle that the legal system should be invoked in ways proportional to the accusation and bearing the public interest in mind. The accusation is rape, so there is no disproportionality, and it's in the public interest for rapists to be prosecuted. >arguing around the reasonability of the extradition instead of providing an example of a commensurate offense. I've explained already that I don't see why this is relevant. If he was being extradited for a parking ticket, I'd see your point, but the charge strikes me as serious enough to merit extradition, both legally and morally.