4 ms·

He went to the UK, but strictly speaking isn't in the country - he's in the Equadorian embassy, and doesn't leave it.

by misterS 12y ago

notahacker 12y ago
He went to the UK and for a substantial period of time was both aware there was a Swedish prosecutor wishing to interview him back in Sweden, and at liberty to do what he liked in the UK (including leave for another third party country with no extradition treaty arrangements with Sweden or the US) unless and until Sweden arranged for a European Arrest Warrant. If he truly feared the impending prosecution was driven by attempts to get him extradited to the US, he would have had ample warning and the opportunity to find a much better refuge from the legal systems of the US and her allies than the Ecuadorian embassy. Edit: if you're inclined to disagree, please point out any factual inaccuracies or weaknesses in my reasoning rather than reflexively reaching for the down vote button. Assange entered the UK in late September 2010 and the arrest warrant became valid in the UK in December. That's a lot of time to book a flight elsewhere. The Ecuadorean embassy was a last-ditch move when his appeals failed.
- trevelyan 12y ago
  Assange obviously stayed in the UK because he had excellent legal support, the linguistic ability to understand what was going on, the ability to continue his professional work, and access to a legal system that should not have granted extradition. How is this baffling? More generally, the "weakness in [your] reasoning" is partly the arrogance to imagine that you understand Assange's legal options better than his lawyers did. But it is also partly the logical fallacy of ad hominem rhetoric, since you accuse him of hypocrisy and then use that accusation to try to discredit concerns of his that very clearly have nothing to do with questions of personal character. As other commenters on this thread have mentioned, and as minimal research will confirm, Sweden has a long history of illegal rendition. Its handling of this case is extremely unorthodox, politically motivated, and shows a fairly clear attempt to maneuver Assange into indefinite detention through a legal process that even the UK High Court commented on as being unreasonable.

He went to the UK, but strictly speaking isn't in the country - he's in the Equadorian embassy, and doesn't leave it.

by misterS 12y ago

He went to the UK, but strictly speaking isn't in the country - he's in the Equadorian embassy, and doesn't leave it.

He went to the UK and for a substantial period of time was both aware there was a Swedish prosecutor wishing to interview him back in Sweden, and at liberty to do what he liked in the UK (including leave for another third party country with no extradition treaty arrangements with Sweden or the US) unless and until Sweden arranged for a European Arrest Warrant. If he truly feared the impending prosecution was driven by attempts to get him extradited to the US, he would have had ample warning and the opportunity to find a much better refuge from the legal systems of the US and her allies than the Ecuadorian embassy. Edit: if you're inclined to disagree, please point out any factual inaccuracies or weaknesses in my reasoning rather than reflexively reaching for the down vote button. Assange entered the UK in late September 2010 and the arrest warrant became valid in the UK in December. That's a lot of time to book a flight elsewhere. The Ecuadorean embassy was a last-ditch move when his appeals failed.

trevelyan 12y ago
Assange obviously stayed in the UK because he had excellent legal support, the linguistic ability to understand what was going on, the ability to continue his professional work, and access to a legal system that should not have granted extradition. How is this baffling? More generally, the "weakness in [your] reasoning" is partly the arrogance to imagine that you understand Assange's legal options better than his lawyers did. But it is also partly the logical fallacy of ad hominem rhetoric, since you accuse him of hypocrisy and then use that accusation to try to discredit concerns of his that very clearly have nothing to do with questions of personal character. As other commenters on this thread have mentioned, and as minimal research will confirm, Sweden has a long history of illegal rendition. Its handling of this case is extremely unorthodox, politically motivated, and shows a fairly clear attempt to maneuver Assange into indefinite detention through a legal process that even the UK High Court commented on as being unreasonable.