71–80 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no guarantee that winning a senate seat would allow him to exit the UK. That said it would add considerable political pressure...
Neither major party really thinks much of Assange. There might be some feeble protests but in practice the UK would be in the same position they are now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither major party really thinks much of Assange. There might be some feeble protests but in practice the UK would be in the same position they are now.
Maybe not pressure from Australia. But a whole load of other people, including governments, would take the opportunity to turn it into a PR nightmare.
A particularly spicy Monbiot column? Gosh!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The charges were already dropped, then the prosecutor mysteriously replaced and the case reopened. The whole thing is a farce so there's no reason to bother with any trial.
Nothing mysterious going on here. It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it. You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.
Of course, nobody has actually given any reasons for it. And I've not seen any indication that this isn't in fact uncommon in Sweden.
There are however many other factors that makes it curious. Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition.
Somehow, the Assange case is "special" enough to the Swedish prosecutor in some way or other that she keeps running this case differently. For example the illegal leaks and official statements made to the Swedish press, that are pretty much unprecedented in Sweden.
Maybe she is only trying to score points. Maybe she genuinely believes she is doing the right thing. Maybe it really is a conspiracy.
But no matter what, there are too many oddities about the way they've pursued this case for me to not seriously question the motives of the people involved to the extent that I don't particularly believe that Assange has much chance of a fair trial.
All the oddities around the Assange case could just be coincidences. But it is arrogant to presume that there is no basis for other people to doubt whether he can get a fair trial.
> You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.
Far worse people (even assuming he's guilty) are "just set free like that" all the time when there is reason to believe circumstances won't allow a fair trial.
The UK even let Pinochet leave, refusing to honour an extradition request from a Spanish judge. Yet it is so important to extradite someone wanted on an arrest warrant for questioning that may lead to a charge, where the country involved can't be bothered to send investigators despite multiple offers, that they post police around the clock for months outside an embassy.
Assange may be guilty, or he might not. If he is, then it would be a shame if he goes free.
But he is certainly getting special treatment, and we'd be remiss if we didn't ask why, and in the absence of clear answers, the response should be to demand he goes free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've not bothered reading the SMH (and by extension, The Age) online for a long time. The online version is weak, lazy journalism, incredibly (to my mind) even worse than The Daily Telegraph . Check out www.smh.com.au now... More than a third of the articles are about celebrities, or are vapid commentary on meaningless issues. There's a bit of content, but nothing really groundbreaking. And today is a day when there…
Online is terrible. In print and on the iPad it is far better. But I fear for Fairfax when the Guardian officially launches: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/australia
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not pressure from Australia. But a whole load of other people, including governments, would take the opportunity to turn it into a PR nightmare.
This would materially affect any Australian government how, exactly? A particularly spicy Monbiot column? Gosh!
We can argue whether or not they would care any more, but given the amount of time senior UK politicians have already spent talking about what is ostensibly "just" a normal extradition case, and spent trying to undo the diplomatic uproar caused by ever-so-slightly hinting they might be able to legally enter the embassy by force, it'll at the very least be fun watching them squirm.
Nice idea. Become a Senator and try for diplomatic immunity. Walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and wave goodbye to the police who have been waiting for him for the last umpteen months. The legal wrangling could become quite complicated if he succeeded. If the voters in Oz realise how annoyed the UK government would be if he did this then that would help his odds even more. For US residents I'll point out that Senate…
You've got that around the wrong way. The Senate is not proportionally worked out when determining Senator numbers. That's the House of Representatives. There are currently 76 senators, 12 from each State, and 2 each for the Northern Territory and the ACT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing mysterious going on here. It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it. You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.
> Guilty or not he should stand trial. If there weren't a lot of major governments that really really want to get him, so that he could be guaranteed a fair trial, then of course he should stand trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've not bothered reading the SMH (and by extension, The Age) online for a long time. The online version is weak, lazy journalism, incredibly (to my mind) even worse than The Daily Telegraph . Check out www.smh.com.au now... More than a third of the articles are about celebrities, or are vapid commentary on meaningless issues. There's a bit of content, but nothing really groundbreaking. And today is a day when there…
So what do you read online then? I'm a displaced Melburnian living in the States and have been reading The Age online for ages, simply because it was the paper I use to read when I live there, many moons ago...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've not bothered reading the SMH (and by extension, The Age) online for a long time. The online version is weak, lazy journalism, incredibly (to my mind) even worse than The Daily Telegraph . Check out www.smh.com.au now... More than a third of the articles are about celebrities, or are vapid commentary on meaningless issues. There's a bit of content, but nothing really groundbreaking. And today is a day when there…
So what do you read online then? I'm a displaced Melburnian living in the States and have been reading The Age online for ages, simply because it was the paper I use to read when I live there, many moons ago...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extradite, waterboard, soletary confinement, sleep deprivation... The only positive thing is it would set a nice precedent for corrupt Parliament members.
I appreciate the humour, but he's running for Senate, not Parliament :)
(Sorry to be pedantic. ;) )