3 ms·
Don't be baffled. There are, at the very least, some very dubious aspects surrounding the original claims: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian
by Jedd 12y ago
Don't be baffled.
There are, at the very least, some very dubious aspects surrounding the original claims: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-...
I guess I am suggesting that due process, in this case, should be avoided - but only because this is clearly an exceptional situation, with some profound risks for Assange and other whistle-blowers.
The idea that any change to due process should be avoided because it 'sets precedent' I think is a misdirection. There appears to be not substantial reason for Swedish prosecutors to attend London and talk to Assange directly before making their (next) decision.
To be candid I don't really understand what his political ideals are - but I am informed enough to understand that it's more complicated than the way one might explain it to a 5yo.
- PlzSnow 12y agoI'm still baffled by your arguments. We live in a modern democratic society. Professionals in the law system examined the Assange case and decided that there was a case to answer. Just because someone on the Internet is "dubious about it" doesn't change that, and I would never want to live in a society where it did.
- Datsundere 12y agoguys, i found the uk government
- droope 12y agoObviously the Equatorian government and Assange don't feel that if he were to submit, he would get a fair trial. I think the argument that they are making -- not that I agree -- is that the UK and Sweden are bad governments, just like when governments protect Chinese journalists and such.