91–100 of 135 posts
Good. I'm glad to see public pressure and armchair lawyers being properly ignored.
I think if you talk to most American's they'd like to see Assange arrested and tried. I bet half would like to see him convicted. There is no pressure to have him pardoned. An e-petition is not pressure at all.
Additional information from two days ago: Ecuador says it will allow Swedish investigators to question Assange at the embassy on October 17 [0]. If Sweden is serious about this case, they should accept Ecuador's invitation. Not doing so will further fuel questions about whether this case is a ruse. [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idU...
"Swedish court upholds Assange warrant, clears way for questioning in October"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idU...
So as far as I can see, he will be questioned in place, in October.
You also have to understand the current political climate in Sweden. Assange's case is the ONLY rape that is disclosed/covered publicly. The 3000% increase in rapes due to immigration forced the government to ban the reporting on rapes to prevent racism. That also includes internet censorship, including foreign news sites.
That's crazy. And if it isn't political, they're surely making it hard to believe that this is the case.
All of these are covered in all the major news sites. The poster your responded to belongs to our equivalent of Trump supporters, meaning that, yes, there is a tiny bit of truth in what he's saying (there are some minor problems with violance and rape amongst the refugees) but the extent is extremely exaggerated and fueled by nationalism, paranoia and xenophobia as well as a complete lack of care about the truth.
https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexu...
Here you can see some stats that shows the real statistics, and as you can see the levels are stable. Please note also that this isn't only for rape, but all kinds of crimes with a sexual component (i.e. everything from groping, spreading nude pictures, sexual harassment etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely right, Assange should face his accusers in court. That's obvious. The problem is that Sweden and the UK are complicit in America's desire to seize Assange and put him in prison without even the possibility of a fair trial, and the first step in that process is his extradition to the US from either the UK or Sweden. That is what's interfering with the case and what Assange is fleeing from, not the ra…
It's an unrealistic demand, which Assange is fully aware of. The Swedish constitution makes it illegal for politicians to interfer with the judicial system. Our laws do also, by the way, make it impossible for us to extradite him to the US without the consent of the UK, so it seems awfully convenient that he claims that he would trust an illegal guarantee by the Swedish government but not that it would follow it's ow…
If they think the demands for extradition are not fulfilled, they can say so, and that's the final word. There's nothing the US or UK can do but complain, there's no court they can apply to to overrule such a decision (because of course, the UK or US governments would certainly not allow themselves to be overruled by any independent court in a matter like this).
The national courts can overrule the government and say that an extradition is illegal, even if government wants to extradite. But the converse is not true: if the court thinks that an extradition would be permissible, the government can still stop it. They can even promise this beforehand, preempting the need for a court ruling. See sovereignty, again.
At worst this would be "impolite". The government of course loathes to do something like this, because then they have to answer for all the cases they did not intervene in with the courts and the civic service's many rulings. They would like to wash their hands of unpopular decisions. But they do in fact intervene quite a lot.
That the government claims "we must not meddle with the judiciary" as some holy principle is darkly ironic in this case. Because if you don't think it was political that Marianne Ny revived the case after it had been firmly dismissed by the previous prosecutor, how naive are you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that Sweden and the UK are complicit The UK isn't that complicit, because he's been here for a while and the UK has done fuck all.
Legally an embassy is a tiny parcel of sovereign land that belongs to the country it's an embassy of, so strictly speaking, he's in Ecuador.
Someone accused of rape should not be given refuge to wait it out. Its easy for armchair conspiracists to imagine this whole thing an elaborate ruse to extradite Assange to the US, but Assange was being questioned in Sweden before he fled from there and on bail in the UK prior to 'fleeing' to the Ecuadorian embassy. It seems a very roundabout way for the Americans to get at him. Occams Razor Assange is fleeing justic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not relevant, because he doesn't. He refuses to go anywhere that makes him extraditable to the US. The Swedish, in turn, say roughly "our general rules are such that we can't guarantee that, and an exception isn't practically possible". Which makes sense, it's arguably better to have plain and simple rules than ones that cover every last edge case. Personally, I think the Swedish should bend their laws. Globalisation…
Sweden shouldn't have to bargain or compromise with someone accused of a crime just because that person is picky about what countries they set foot in for their own reasons. IF there are US charges against him and IF the US tries to extradite then I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to fight it.
What is your opinion about what countries should or should not have to do based on? Your feelings about countries in general, or a specific empathy for Sweden?
> IF there are US charges against him and IF the US tries to extradite then I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to fight it.
You're absolutely sure? Why haven't you called Assange yet? I'm sure he'd be happy to know what you know.
Additional information from two days ago: Ecuador says it will allow Swedish investigators to question Assange at the embassy on October 17 [0]. If Sweden is serious about this case, they should accept Ecuador's invitation. Not doing so will further fuel questions about whether this case is a ruse. [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idU...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the prosecution values their dignity so much it is free to do the interview per video or by going to London and finish this thing. The options are there, they just have to use them.
How do they "finish the thing" by being unable to complete the arrest because he's sitting on foreign territory? Particularly when the Ecuadorean embassy keeps throwing curve balls by blocking requests and insisting on asking the questions themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally an embassy is a tiny parcel of sovereign land that belongs to the country it's an embassy of, so strictly speaking, he's in Ecuador.
This is not true.