-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
That guy has some issues speaking English.
And, yes, resolving a legal process in a reasonable time is one of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights.
We decided we don't like Assange, so we should revoke all his rights?
He has gotten two supreme courts to look at his case in a short time, I think we can safely say that he has not had his right to a fair trial (he's had 6 of them so far) have been violated.
I take it that you are not aware that Assange was asked by the prosecution to participate in a video conference hearing, something he has asked for many times over the years. Do you want to guess what his response was?
But I guess we decided that we hate women and men who rape them should be given medals, right?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
But I guess we decided that we hate women and men who rape them should be given medals, right?
Seriously dude?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
He has gotten two supreme courts to look at his case in a short time, I think we can safely say that he has not had his right to a fair trial (he's had 6 of them so far) have been violated.
I take it that you are not aware that Assange was asked by the prosecution to participate in a video conference hearing, something he has asked for many times over the years. Do you want to guess what his response was?
But I guess we decided that we hate women and men who rape them should be given medals, right?
Maybe you have different information. As far as I know, Swedish prosecutor refused to take a statement from Assange for more than 4 years. For the same amount of time, Assange has been calling for an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. That interview was supposed to take place in July last year, when Ny (the Swedish prosecutor) cancelled two days before it was supposed to take place and made no effort to set a new date.
The statement from the prosecutor
Quote:
My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorian embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview, and that he would need to be present in Sweden in any case should there be a trial in the future. This assessment remains unchanged. Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies to the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward, particularly as there are no other measures on offer without Assange being present in Sweden
She is basically saying that there's no point in the interview, but she still hasn't charged him, and now the party line is the he can't be charged because there was no interview.
Come on, even someone intellectually challenged could see there's something fishy going on.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
Seriously dude?
Is gravely misrepresenting the view of others an exclusively Eastern European privilege?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
I'm southern European.
Apparently, being oblivious of facts is a northern European privilege, and the one I'm happy to grant you exclusive rights to.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Swedish law requires the suspect to be interviewed before he can be charged, at no point has there been any other "line" on that point.
In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.
Either way, I think we're all better off with him there.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.
...Or believes the americans will jump him in transist.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Swedish law requires the suspect to be interviewed before he can be charged, at no point has there been any other "line" on that point.
In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.
Either way, I think we're all better off with him there.
He was interviewed in Sweden in 2010. He offered opportunities for interview many times and got no answer. The one time the Swedish prosecutor accepted, she cancelled it two days before the interview, supposedly because she couldn't finish the paperwork on time, even though the date was agreed upon months in advance.
It really doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
He was interviewed in Sweden in 2010. He offered opportunities for interview many times and got no answer. The one time the Swedish prosecutor accepted, she cancelled it two days before the interview, supposedly because she couldn't finish the paperwork on time, even though the date was agreed upon months in advance.
It really doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes.
That he was. He is now alas refusing to do any interviews any more for some strange reason... It is as if he was guilty of some kind of crime and has fled justice... Anyway he'll have a lot of long years left of sitting in an embassy, so good for him I guess? Not sure if the embassy or a jail is more preferable in terms of facilities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
...Or believes the americans will jump him in transist.
Which goes back to the insane part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Swedish law requires the suspect to be interviewed before he can be charged, at no point has there been any other "line" on that point.
In any case, the fact he's cowering in the Ecuadorian Embassy means he's either guilty or insane.
Either way, I think we're all better off with him there.
That depends on how much you want to pay for the police guarding the premise in case Assange were to leave it, but I fully agree with the rest of the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
I'm southern European.
Apparently, being oblivious of facts is a northern European privilege, and the one I'm happy to grant you exclusive rights to.
Unless your maps look different from our maps Serbia is Eastern. Possibly South Eastern, but very much Eastern. Apparently being willfully ignorant of reality is a common trait over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Maybe you have different information. As far as I know, Swedish prosecutor refused to take a statement from Assange for more than 4 years. For the same amount of time, Assange has been calling for an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. That interview was supposed to take place in July last year, when Ny (the Swedish prosecutor) cancelled two days before it was supposed to take place and made no effort to set a new date.
The statement from the prosecutor
She is basically saying that there's no point in the interview, but she still hasn't charged him, and now the party line is the he can't be charged because there was no interview.
Come on, even someone intellectually challenged could see there's something fishy going on.
It is true that the prosecutor was too passive for a long time. It is also true that Assange called for an interview from the embassy. However now that the prosecution has accepted these terms, Assange has decided that he doesn't want to talk anymore. Take from that what you will.
The statement from the prosecutor does not say that in any way shape or form. He will always have to be interviewed before he can be charged, that is the way things work here. In the meanwhile he is arrested in his absence, all normal parts of legal procedure. I do agree about the intellectually challenged bit though.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
That he was. He is now alas refusing to do any interviews any more for some strange reason... It is as if he was guilty of some kind of crime and has fled justice... Anyway he'll have a lot of long years left of sitting in an embassy, so good for him I guess? Not sure if the embassy or a jail is more preferable in terms of facilities?
Which goes back to the insane part.
That depends on how much you want to pay for the police guarding the premise in case Assange were to leave it, but I fully agree with the rest of the post.
Unless your maps look different from our maps Serbia is Eastern. Possibly South Eastern, but very much Eastern. Apparently being willfully ignorant of reality is a common trait over there.
It is true that the prosecutor was too passive for a long time. It is also true that Assange called for an interview from the embassy. However now that the prosecution has accepted these terms, Assange has decided that he doesn't want to talk anymore. Take from that what you will.
The statement from the prosecutor does not say that in any way shape or form. He will always have to be interviewed before he can be charged, that is the way things work here. In the meanwhile he is arrested in his absence, all normal parts of legal procedure. I do agree about the intellectually challenged bit though.
You have said, a few times now, that Assange is now refusing an interview....but the interview in the Ecuadorian embassy was cancelled by the prosecuter, not Assange. Could you offer some sort of source for your information that Assange is now refusing an interview?
It just seems there are conflicting reports here...that seems to be at the heart of this disagreement.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Is gravely misrepresenting the view of others an exclusively Eastern European privilege?
I like this manner of debating - ignoring the subject discussed and focusing on the opponent. This tactics involves distributing mental qualities geographically and then attributing them to all inhabitants of the country/region in question. Way to go.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
I like this manner of debating - ignoring the subject discussed and focusing on the opponent. This tactics involves distributing mental qualities geographically and then attributing them to all inhabitants of the country/region in question. Way to go.
Yes, my repeated quoting and mentioning of news reports and articles, as well as relevant laws surely is ignoring the subject discussed. Selective blindness is a Eastern trait as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
You have said, a few times now, that Assange is now refusing an interview....but the interview in the Ecuadorian embassy was cancelled by the prosecuter, not Assange. Could you offer some sort of source for your information that Assange is now refusing an interview?
It just seems there are conflicting reports here...that seems to be at the heart of this disagreement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-founder.html
A former request was denied in January by Ecuador. The reports are not so much conflicting as some people are willing to turn a blind eye to a rapist because he pissed the US off.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Yes, my repeated quoting and mentioning of news reports and articles, as well as relevant laws surely is ignoring the subject discussed. Selective blindness is a Eastern trait as well?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-founder.html
A former request was denied in January by Ecuador. The reports are not so much conflicting as some people are willing to turn a blind eye to a rapist because he pissed the US off.
Do you know what conflicting means? First, this is a report that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador refused, not Assange (so that your claim is factually incorrect). Second, this followed an earlier acceptance for an interview which the Swedish prosecutor cancelled at short notice....which event you seem incapable of acknowledging.
This has nothing to do with defending rapists, your constant insistence on such emotive hyperbole does nothing for your argument.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Do you know what conflicting means? First, this is a report that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador refused, not Assange (so that your claim is factually incorrect). Second, this followed an earlier acceptance for an interview which the Swedish prosecutor cancelled at short notice....which event you seem incapable of acknowledging.
This has nothing to do with defending rapists, your constant insistence on such emotive hyperbole does nothing for your argument.
Yes I imagine that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador certainly did not consult with Assange before making his decision, in fact Assange was probably crying as he was told that there would be no interview. There are many ways that Assange could arrange for an interview from inside the embassy if he chooses, something you seem to have a hard time grasping. Do you understand what facts are?
Assange is a rapist, so this has everything to do with defending a rapist. This is not hyperbole, this is a consequence of him raping a woman.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Assange is a rapist, so this has everything to do with defending a rapist. This is not hyperbole, this is a consequence of him raping a woman.
This is a heinous lie with no basis in reality that defends the murderous imperialist atrocities committed by the murderer-country USA!!!! (dramatic enough?)
Quote:
August 20
Two Swedish women ask police about compelling Julian to take an STD test. Over their protests, the police treat their visit as a report, and open an investigation. Text messages (SMS) from the phone of one of the women at the police station show she did ’not want to accuse him of anything’ that ’it was the police who made up the charges’, and told her friend “she felt railroaded by police”. Julian’s name is disclosed to the tabloid press by the Swedish prosecution office.
August 21
The chief prosecutor now leading the investigation, Eva Finne drops the ’rape’ accusation, saying that the description of the events does not suggest any crime at all.
August 25
The chief prosecutor Eva Finne states that "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever"" and closes the preliminary investigation into "rape".
https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Well, you missed linking your outrage with what has actually happened. But it was a good try I suppose.
This might surprise our local German, but the police and prosecutor is required to investigate and prosecute a crime if they discover that one has been committed. This even includes when the rapist is an international super star who has pissed off the US.
You might also want to choose more credible sources for your claims, unless we shall start discussing if Obama is American based on what is posted on birther websites.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Yes I imagine that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador certainly did not consult with Assange before making his decision, in fact Assange was probably crying as he was told that there would be no interview. There are many ways that Assange could arrange for an interview from inside the embassy if he chooses, something you seem to have a hard time grasping. Do you understand what facts are?
Assange is a rapist, so this has everything to do with defending a rapist. This is not hyperbole, this is a consequence of him raping a woman.
Lol..are you saying that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador takes his orders from Assange? The claim as you make it is factually incorrect. Again you ignore that Assange had previously agreed to an interview which the Swedish Prosecutor cancelled at the last minute.
You know how the law works, right? You are calling someone a rapist before they have been found guilty of such a charge. You're calling someone a rapist before they have even been charged with that offence. Yo are calling someone that without the evidence being tested. It is hyperbole because nobody here is defending Assange's right to rape, so your claim is - again - factually incorrect. The argument is to whether there is actually any substance to the claim or whether it is being used to get Assange into the hands of the government of the USA.
You haven't, as far as can be seen, managed to make one legitimate point in any of your posts on this thread....well done :rolleyes:
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Lol..are you saying that the Prosecutor-General of Ecuador takes his orders from Assange? The claim as you make it is factually incorrect. Again you ignore that Assange had previously agreed to an interview which the Swedish Prosecutor cancelled at the last minute.
You know how the law works, right? You are calling someone a rapist before they have been found guilty of such a charge. You're calling someone a rapist before they have even been charged with that offence. Yo are calling someone that without the evidence being tested. It is hyperbole because nobody here is defending Assange's right to rape, so your claim is - again - factually incorrect. The argument is to whether there is actually any substance to the claim or whether it is being used to get Assange into the hands of the government of the USA.
You haven't, as far as can be seen, managed to make one legitimate point in any of your posts on this thread....well done :rolleyes:
No no, I am saying the prosecutor-general of Ecuador is spitefully keeping our beloved angel rapist Assange under detention in their embassy because he is the reincarnation of Hitler, duh. Again you ignore that Assange has refused to cooperate in having interviews this year, what happened 4 years ago is by comparison not as important to the situation today.
I do know how the law works, do you? A rapist is a man who rapes women, just like Assange. The evidence would have been tested years ago, if Assange was man enough to take responsibility for his behaviour. But as we all know our dear rapist is a big coward. There is no basis for the notion that he would be extradited to the US, but you'd have to know law to understand that. If you would like me to explain this to you in simple terms then do let me know.
You have at no point been able to touch base with reality in your posts in this thread, most impressive.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
No no, I am saying the prosecutor-general of Ecuador is spitefully keeping our beloved angel rapist Assange under detention in their embassy because he is the reincarnation of Hitler, duh. Again you ignore that Assange has refused to cooperate in having interviews this year, what happened 4 years ago is by comparison not as important to the situation today.
I do know how the law works, do you? A rapist is a man who rapes women, just like Assange. The evidence would have been tested years ago, if Assange was man enough to take responsibility for his behaviour. But as we all know our dear rapist is a big coward. There is no basis for the notion that he would be extradited to the US, but you'd have to know law to understand that. If you would like me to explain this to you in simple terms then do let me know.
You have at no point been able to touch base with reality in your posts in this thread, most impressive.
If I accuse you of stealing something you must, by your own understanding of law, be a thief. You reveal only that you have no understanding of law. In response to my question as to whether you are claiming the Prosecutor-General is taking orders from Assange you respond with some incoherent drivel about him being the re-incarnation of Hitler (rather then accepting that your initial claim is factually incorrect.....which it is)
...and after this incoherent ramble you suggest that I cannot touch base with reality...?
You clearly have nothing of any import to say on this matter. Good day to you.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
If I accuse you of stealing something you must, by your own understanding of law, be a thief. You reveal only that you have no understanding of law. In response to my question as to whether you are claiming the Prosecutor-General is taking orders from Assange you respond with some incoherent drivel about him being the re-incarnation of Hitler (rather then accepting that your initial claim is factually incorrect.....which it is)
...and after this incoherent ramble you suggest that I cannot touch base with reality...?
You clearly have nothing of any import to say on this matter. Good day to you.
I can see you are again confused by what is imagined and what is real. If there is clear evidence of me stealing your bike, you are fully entitled to call me a bike thief as I lock myself in the bathroom for 10 years to avoid facing charges in a court. A good day to you as well.
As for the horrible Swedish cancellation of the interview, from the "unbiased" freedomforassange website:
But Ny (prosecutor) said the meeting would have to be called off because she had not received official permission from Ecuador to enter its London embassy.
Bad Sweden for not showing up where they are not allowed to be! Bad Sweden!
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Unless your maps look different from our maps Serbia is Eastern. Possibly South Eastern, but very much Eastern. Apparently being willfully ignorant of reality is a common trait over there.
No. Serbia is sometimes qualified as being in eastern Europe because of whole Orthodox Slavs and ex-communist thingy, by ignorant people who don't know anything about geography, but as southern Europe is comprised of three peninsulas and islands, and since most of Serbia lies in the Balkan peninsula, Serbia is in southern Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
No no, I am saying the prosecutor-general of Ecuador is spitefully keeping our beloved angel rapist Assange under detention in their embassy because he is the reincarnation of Hitler, duh. Again you ignore that Assange has refused to cooperate in having interviews this year, what happened 4 years ago is by comparison not as important to the situation today.
I do know how the law works, do you? A rapist is a man who rapes women, just like Assange. The evidence would have been tested years ago, if Assange was man enough to take responsibility for his behaviour. But as we all know our dear rapist is a big coward. There is no basis for the notion that he would be extradited to the US, but you'd have to know law to understand that. If you would like me to explain this to you in simple terms then do let me know.
You have at no point been able to touch base with reality in your posts in this thread, most impressive.
So you have decided that Assange is a rapist before he was even charged with rape. You ignore the facts you don't like so that you may cling to your view. Now you've decided that Ecuadorian prosecutor general is a puppet of Assange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno
You are... really special.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
No. Serbia is sometimes qualified as being in eastern Europe because of whole Orthodox Slavs and ex-communist thingy, by ignorant people who don't know anything about geography, but as southern Europe is comprised of three peninsulas and islands, and since most of Serbia lies in the Balkan peninsula, Serbia is in southern Europe.
So you have decided that Assange is a rapist before he was even charged with rape. You ignore the facts you don't like so that you may cling to your view. Now you've decided that Ecuadorian prosecutor general is a puppet of Assange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno
You are... really special.
Well lets just say that you have a very... Eastern.. way of thinking :)
I understand that you have 0 understanding of legal systems, but I would think that even you would grasp that a when a man engages in sex with a woman without her consent, that is rape. Or is that legal in the glorious land of Serbia?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Well lets just say that you have a very... Eastern.. way of thinking :)
Well, I do find some aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism fascinating.
Quote:
I understand that you have 0 understanding of legal systems, but I would think that even you would grasp that a when a man engages in sex with a woman without her consent, that is rape. Or is that legal in the glorious land of Serbia?
Well, in glorious land of Serbia there is a court which deals with that. Our system is also slightly more complicated, which is probably why I don't understand your legal system. We have something called presumption of innocence here, which is a concept that every person is innocent until proven guilty. And only a court decides whether a person's guilty after examining all evidence, hearing both sides and any possible witnesses.
How do you guys do it over there? Do tell, old chap, I find this very interesting. I'm learning new things. Yay me!
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Well, I do find some aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism fascinating.
Well, in glorious land of Serbia there is a court which deals with that. Our system is also slightly more complicated, which is probably why I don't understand your legal system. We have something called presumption of innocence here, which is a concept that every person is innocent until proven guilty. And only a court decides whether a person's guilty after examining all evidence, hearing both sides and any possible witnesses.
How do you guys do it over there? Do tell, old chap, I find this very interesting. I'm learning new things. Yay me!
We also have a system with these things known as courts. However before a person can be brought before the court for him to be charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs to conduct an interview with the person. It might be after all that he is not only innocent, but is able to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the prosecutor at which point he need not even be brought before the court. This is a measure which saves cost for both parties and reduces the likelihood of someone being falsely convicted. Me calling someone a rapist is based on his actions, not on a conviction or lack thereof, and has no legal bearing anyway. I presume that you have this newfangled notion of "Free speech" in Serbia?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
We also have a system with these things known as courts. However before a person can be brought before the court for him to be charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs to conduct an interview with the person. It might be after all that he is not only innocent, but is able to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the prosecutor at which point he need not even be brought before the court. This is a measure which saves cost for both parties and reduces the likelihood of someone being falsely convicted. Me calling someone a rapist is based on his actions, not on a conviction or lack thereof, and has no legal bearing anyway. I presume that you have this newfangled notion of "Free speech" in Serbia?
Indeed. And if a person believes his rights and safety are in danger, he has a right to demand an asylum. If one is granted to him, he can laugh off any and all accusations against him. Contrary to that, Assange is the one who has asked for an interview on multiple occasions, in the place he feels his safety is guaranteed, and it was the Swedish prosecutor who has been rejecting, time after time, and who has also refused to take a statement.
So, instead of getting off her northern behind and flying off to that western island, so she can interview that southern man, if that was the goal, she chose to keep sitting on her northern behind and do nothing. With your vast knowledge of legal systems, I assume you know that Sweden can charge and put to trial a person in absentia, just like they have ordered him detained in absentia. They have the statements from the victims, they have the original interview with Assange, the physical investigation is over, so they should have enough evidence to decide either way. Basically, an interview only helps Assange's case. Certainly no one expects him to incriminate himself, even if guilty. If we accept your point of view, that he has refused an opportunity to tell his side of the story, court could have very well continued on, to the detriment of Assange's case. Why didn't it?
Now if the problem is the interview, she could have conducted it multiple times already. But the problem is what happens afterwards - she either has to charge him or let him go, and both solutions would be acceptable if there weren't more at play than just legal issues.
So, one would have to wonder what's the reason this case has been in limbo for such a long time.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Indeed. And if a person believes his rights and safety are in danger, he has a right to demand an asylum. If one is granted to him, he can laugh off any and all accusations against him. Contrary to that, Assange is the one who has asked for an interview on multiple occasions, in the place he feels his safety is guaranteed, and it was the Swedish prosecutor who has been rejecting, time after time, and who has also refused to take a statement.
So, instead of getting off her northern behind and flying off to that western island, so she can interview that southern man, if that was the goal, she chose to keep sitting on her northern behind and do nothing. With your vast knowledge of legal systems, I assume you know that Sweden can charge and put to trial a person in absentia, just like they have ordered him detained in absentia. They have the statements from the victims, they have the original interview with Assange, the physical investigation is over, so they should have enough evidence to decide either way. Basically, an interview only helps Assange's case. Certainly no one expects him to incriminate himself, even if guilty. If we accept your point of view, that he has refused an opportunity to tell his side of the story, court could have very well continued on, to the detriment of Assange's case. Why didn't it?
Now if the problem is the interview, she could have conducted it multiple times already. But the problem is what happens afterwards - she either has to charge him or let him go, and both solutions would be acceptable if there weren't more at play than just legal issues.
So, one would have to wonder what's the reason this case has been in limbo for such a long time.
Asylum is usually something requested to avoid persecution, not prosecution. Assange is the one who is currently refusing interviews, the prosecutor has after being told by the supreme court moved to conduct interviews. This being unlike Assange who is too great and mighty to respect the decision of two (!) supreme courts. His mental illness is not relevant to the case.
They have gotten off their "northern behind" and flown off to that western island, but since the embassy did not wish to allow them to enter the embassy it all became moot. The formality of legal procedure requires for Assange to be presented with the prosecutions side of the story and give his own version before he can be brought to trial. He is of course not required to incriminate himself, such a claim is just ridiculous. Legal proceedings are required for a reason and cannot be exempted even for superstar rapists.
Ever since the prosecution changed its tune (and decided to do its damn job) the Assange side has refused to participate in an interview and have done everything they can to prevent such a thing from taking place.
The reason for this being in limbo is one of a few. 1, his lawyers are lying to him about the risk of extradition. 2, he is mentally ill and believes the CIA will send in a strike team the moment he steps outside of the embassy. 3, He is a rapist and prefers to sit in an Ecuadorian embassy over a Swedish jail.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Asylum is usually something requested to avoid persecution, not prosecution.
That is up to him and the country he requested asylum from. A person can be persecuted by being prosecuted.
Quote:
Assange is the one who is currently refusing interviews, the prosecutor has after being told by the supreme court moved to conduct interviews. This being unlike Assange who is too great and mighty to respect the decision of two (!) supreme courts. His mental illness is not relevant to the case.
No, Ecuador is, and we don't know the reason. Is it technical, is it legal? My google fu failed me, so if anyone has a link to the statement explaining why they declined, I'd like to read it.
Quote:
The formality of legal procedure requires for Assange to be presented with the prosecutions side of the story and give his own version before he can be brought to trial. He is of course not required to incriminate himself, such a claim is just ridiculous. Legal proceedings are required for a reason and cannot be exempted even for superstar rapists.
No it isn't. If I sue you, the court is obliged to inform you of the proceedings and offer you the chance tell your side of the story and prepare a defence. If you refuse to do so, it is not mine or the court's problem. Assange has appointed legal counsel who represent him in this case so the prosecutor could have informed them of the "their side of the story". Also, there's this thing called the mail. Julian Assange, Ecuador embassy, 3 Hans Crescent, Knightsbridge, London, UK.
Quote:
Dear Mr. Assange.
We wish to inform you that since you refused to give an interview which would only help your case, we have decided to formally charge you with rape of Name1 and Name2, under Swedish law, article X. The first hearing will be conducted at Date and Time.
It is a complete bollox that they have to interview him. What if he was detained in Sweden and chose to defend himself by being silent? No one can force him to talk, either at the interview or at the trial. Would they drop the case then? Well, we tried to interview him but he refused to say anything.
So, Mr. Northern Lawyer, your case, like theirs, is paper thin.
Quote:
Ever since the prosecution changed its tune (and decided to do its damn job) the Assange side has refused to participate in an interview and have done everything they can to prevent such a thing from taking place.
Not Assange. You're acting like he's the ruler of Ecuador.
Quote:
The reason for this being in limbo is one of a few. 1, his lawyers are lying to him about the risk of extradition. 2, he is mentally ill and believes the CIA will send in a strike team the moment he steps outside of the embassy. 3, He is a rapist and prefers to sit in an Ecuadorian embassy over a Swedish jail.
1. Really? I don't see it that way.
2. Let's say he is innocent for the moment and that he did receive a text message from a woman he supposedly raped telling him the police twisted her story. Would he really need to be mentally ill to fear he's being persecuted?
3. Possible, but more far fetched. Why would he agree to an interview at any time, then? If the evidence is so overwhelming, why wasn't he charged and tried in absentia already?
You only have two scenarios. He is either guilty or innocent. His behaviour has been more consistent with the latter, so if we assume he is innocent, he's behaviour so far has been perfectly rational. If we assume he is guilty and that the prosecutor has enough evidence to think that, why wasn't he charged and/or tried in absentia and why wasn't every effort taken to interview him, so they can at least say "look we've been trying to interview him for four years, and he's been refusing for four years."
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
If I remember correctly, Assange received a guarantee early on that he wouldn't be shipped out to the USA and ignored it anyway?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
If I remember correctly, Assange received a guarantee early on that he wouldn't be shipped out to the USA and ignored it anyway?
From Britain, not from Sweden, iirc.
USA and Sweden have an extradition treaty, so the USA has to only charge him for hacking and poof, Sweden is obligated to extradite him.
Sweden can refuse, theoretically, citing that real reason is not some cyber crime or theft but a political crime, and legally refuse to extradite him, but Swedish record of "loosely" interpreting laws when under US pressure is not that great, like in 2002 or during police raid of The Pirate Bay servers.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
...and after this incoherent ramble you suggest that I cannot touch base with reality...?
It is because you gave insufficient information on where you come from. If you did, you would learn a lot about the peculiarities of cognitive processes symtomatic of the natives and of the whole region to boot.
