131–140 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. If this was the only neccessity, why not do said questioning over video link? This is possible – at least, in England, there is even a company that specializes in it ( http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-confere... )
It's technologically possible, but not legally. Shall we rehash all the facts again ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did. EDIT: The article says "He has been in a cell, under house arrest, or effectively detained at the Ecuadorian Embassy since De…
> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. If this was the only neccessity, why not do said questioning over video link? This is possible – at least, in England, there is even a company that specializes in it ( http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-confere... )
Anyway, as another poster said, these facts were pointed out years ago. But I understand that facts and logic are of no interest to the Messiah's disciples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. These questions can evidently not be asked within the embassy. (Ignoring the various, and I concede very loaded, discussions around the validity of the allegations.) > Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. Substitute 'American intelligence agencies' for 'Assange' in that se…
I am genuinely baffled by your reply. Assange is wanted for questioning for allegations of sexual assault, and you say he shouldn't have to follow due process and answer them because... because what? Because his political ideals are aligned with your own? Because of an absurd conspiracy that he will be secretly abducted to Central America?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. If this was the only neccessity, why not do said questioning over video link? This is possible – at least, in England, there is even a company that specializes in it ( http://www.eyenetwork.com/specialist-expertise/video-confere... )
Why would Sweden make an exception to their legal processes just for Assange? He's just another person wanted for questioning over allegations over sexual assault. He's not the messiah. Anyway, as another poster said, these facts were pointed out years ago. But I understand that facts and logic are of no interest to the Messiah's disciples.
Because a sovereign nation has granted him asylum because they (correctly) identified the charges against him as being politically motivated.
If Sweden cannot make a very minor accomodation in response that only gives more weight to the argument that the charges were politically motivated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's technologically possible, but not legally. Shall we rehash all the facts again ?
Don't understand the patronizing tone here. For a start, the BBC Q&A I've read on this says that it's basically the Swedish prosecutors saying, "No, because of circumstances, we want him here", not "It is legally forbidden". The prosecutor saying "We want him here, and we aren't going to tell you why" doesn't exactly radiate fairness and transparency.[1] Maybe I'm wholly mistaken, but it stands to reason that should…
The trial which by law has to begin two weeks later, at the latest.
Really, we've had that dozens of times on HN now.
https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-...
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol...
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am genuinely baffled by your reply. Assange is wanted for questioning for allegations of sexual assault, and you say he shouldn't have to follow due process and answer them because... because what? Because his political ideals are aligned with your own? Because of an absurd conspiracy that he will be secretly abducted to Central America?
Assange is only wanted for questioning and has repeatedly offered to answer their questions. They stated that he must be questioned in Sweden and only in Sweden without adequately explaining why.
"Subject to any matters said by him [in the second interview] which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
The kind of objection you're making also assumes Schizophrenia on the part of the Swedish authorities. On the one hand, Assange is "only wanted for questioning", but on the other hand, there's a secret plot to charge him with a crime he didn't commit and have him extradited to the US. Well, which is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? You mean between Northern Ireland and Ireland? That's the only land border the UK has, and it's one hell of a trek from London, and on the wrong side of the Irish Sea. Sorry, I'm wrong, just thought of the other land border - Gibraltar and Spain. Still, he's going to do well to sneak across either of those... and sneaking around Europe, into Gibraltar, only then to sneak across the amazingly heavily guarded bor…
I was thinking of NI border. If he can get out of the embassy and London, why not sneak to Scotland, boat across, and sneak over?
Whenever big numbers are thrown around, there is a need to put them in perspective. However, I don't think "number of meals" or "teachers hired" are good or relevant perspectives. The UK police budget is about £3.5 billion. So this expense is about 0.3% of that. The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. So this expense is about 0.0000014% of that.
If the UK population is 64 million [1] and the annual national policing budget is 3.5 billion, that's a per person budget of £54 per year. So £10,000,000 on one accused person is the equivalent of the annual policing budget of 185,000 people. Spent on one person yet to be trialled. You'd have to say this is a disproportional response. Why? [1] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=uk+population
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the UK population is 64 million [1] and the annual national policing budget is 3.5 billion, that's a per person budget of £54 per year. So £10,000,000 on one accused person is the equivalent of the annual policing budget of 185,000 people. Spent on one person yet to be trialled. You'd have to say this is a disproportional response. Why? [1] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=uk+population
That's not a reasonable argument, though. You can't generalise police spending over the population because criminals make up a relatively small proportion. Is it a disproportionate response then to spend £10m on one guy? The fact that he's not been tried yet is irrelevant – there's a warrant for his arrest, and for a pretty serious crime. I struggle to see what the alternative would be.
Yes I think it is. But that is not my point. There are much bigger wastes in the budget, yet here we are getting upset about the (relatively) small excess that is spent on Assange.
People are complaining about the expense, when what they are really incredulous about is the fact that Assange is locked up.
Why do they need to waste so many resources on him? Wouldn't it suffice to monitor the embassy with CCTV cameras on the street and have him flagged at the border if they see him leave?
I wonder if it would be possible to prevent the staff entering the embassy? We can't enter it legally, but we surly could prevent people entering? I understand it would create a stink, but starving the man out must be something they have thought about.