261–270 of 396 posts
David Allen Green, Law and policy commentator at @FT: >It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever) wanted it. >Now only UK's consent required, not UK and Sweden. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/86550564980685619...
Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1]. And before that, for years, Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they reluctantly accepted) [2]. As @belorn noted [3], the prosecutors had 3 options, and given it seems like they didn't have enough to make a case or a plan to continue the investigation, it had t…
Lol. Pretty standard to tell courts and investigators: "Hey, how about we meet at my place instead?" (on top of that at a place where the investigators don't have jurisdiction)
David Allen Green, Law and policy commentator at @FT: >It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever) wanted it. >Now only UK's consent required, not UK and Sweden. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/86550564980685619...
It's always a good thing to bring cases like this into some kind of context to see the extent to which it's the rule of law or something else. Julian Assange may be a rapist but a prosecutor thought there wasn't enough to even say maybe don't leave the country. Roman Polanski may not be a child rapist but I'm not even sure he arguing that. [1] How would you characterise the difference in the treatment of these gentle…
David Allen Green, Law and policy commentator at @FT: >It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever) wanted it. >Now only UK's consent required, not UK and Sweden. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/86550564980685619...
Why is Ecuador's consent not required if he is inside their embassy?
Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1]. And before that, for years, Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they reluctantly accepted) [2]. As @belorn noted [3], the prosecutors had 3 options, and given it seems like they didn't have enough to make a case or a plan to continue the investigation, it had t…
That is very very bad for Sweden because it proves that it was a low class political game so Sweden cannot be viewed as an independent state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from obscure statutes to do with privacy, computer misuse etc he may or may not (probably not) have been actually guilty of under Swedish law, I'd have thought anti-terrorism legislation (fewer legal safeguards, more reason to seize Wikileaks' digital assets) would have provided the perfect opportunity to put him out of action, as well as being the basis for all these renditions Assange-supporters keep referrin…
You'd still have to extradite. I don't see that happening in those cases, for one the EU in general (even the UK, or at least that was the situation in the past, May is an unknown quantity in this respect) has a dim view of the 'war on terror' as it is perpetrated by the US, for another the UK is pretty good when it comes to being consistent in their application of the law. More so than Sweden in any case.
I mean, I know the US burned a lot of international goodwill invading a country (Iraq) that was completely un-involved with the attack on false pretenses (weapons of mass destruction) while ignoring the mastermind (bin Laden) for a decade, all the while more-or-less flaunting an illegal off-shore prison where hundreds of people, some of whom were definitely innocent and many of whom weren't particularly guilty, in inhuman conditions, but try to remember what things were like immediately after the attacks.
Back in 2001-2003, America was still the good guys, and we'd just had two 100-story skyscrapers in our largest city destroyed in a morning, with thousands of people killed. Hell, at the time we thought it was tens of thousands. Other countries - Sweden and Italy and everyone else - weren't bending over backwards to help us extraordinarily rend people because the CIA has magic powers and can do anything they want, anywhere they want. They were complying because, well, shit, 9/11.
Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1]. And before that, for years, Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they reluctantly accepted) [2]. As @belorn noted [3], the prosecutors had 3 options, and given it seems like they didn't have enough to make a case or a plan to continue the investigation, it had t…
It's nice of him to offer to answer their questions where he chooses, everyone should have that choice. It wasn't Assange that refused to go back to Sweden, it was Sweden to refused to come to Assange.
His refusal to cooperate with the investigation on Sweden's terms wasn't about the alleged crime itself. His concern was that because he was involved in a criminal investigation, he could be taken into custody by either British or Swedish authorities at which point he could be extradited to the US.
Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1]. And before that, for years, Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they reluctantly accepted) [2]. As @belorn noted [3], the prosecutors had 3 options, and given it seems like they didn't have enough to make a case or a plan to continue the investigation, it had t…
This is simply not true. The questions was asked by Ecuadorians and had to be approved beforehand. Swedish prosecutors where allowed in the room but could not talk to Assange. IE no follow up questions etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. The law is a perfectly "good reason" for authorities to act the way they did. It is a rather common meme to accuse Swedes of not conforming to concepts of British/U.S. law (common law system) when Swedish has another system, not any worse but somewhat different in the usage of terms like "charge".
> You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. Can you clarify this? I'm honestly confused - the topic seems to be the refusal and then acceptance of an in-embassy interview. I could understand if the refusal was a procedural issue, but in that case why was it eventually accepted?