done that, its a restatement of known facts. Admirably briefly put, but still just a re-statement. Shit man, it even starts: 'Just to restate'
this is a good point, and it is indeed why any defense of Assange leaves a somewhat unpleasant taste in the mouth. i would say that there is some clear, circumstantial, evidence in Assanges favour. Leading members of the US state had just said how they wanted him tried for aiding and abetting the enemy, there were direct and current accusations and threats against him. It was all remarkably convenient for them.
read this now, and it does make exactly the point I was making:
Invited into their homes is not permission to screw them at his convenience.
It's illegal for them do so! FFS
Sleeping with him is not permission to force himself on them at any and all future opportunities.
get to the end of the thread before posting! We've covered that one
They know what he is like makes the set-up likely but you don't believe he might have a case to answer because of what he is like?
Not to give the 'strongest possible statement' it isnt. Fucks sake, thats what they pay lawyers millions for, to find ways of meeting the letter of the law whilst bending its intent to what is needed at the time.
I give up - you're entrenched.
you've just said it was 'likely' a set up.
Wasn't aware the question was international warrants - certainly my point was that these charges for sexual offences weren't unprecedented, hence haven't elicited any surprise/outrage on that score in Sweden.
and you arent?!
You honestly think JA has any intention whatsoever of facing a Swedish court? Talk about wishful thinking.
Not from Sweden they arent, which is what the article says. And it is still a preliminary investigation, as it will remain until he is arrested.They cant move on until they have questioned him, which is why they issued the warrant.
Yes. Ultimately i think even he must know he will have to. Ecuador has already met with Labour bods to try and find a way out of the impasse.
OK. Thanks for ignoring my poor attempt at mocking you. It doesn't add anything and I should really stop it.
My other link says he's now at what would be the charged stage, just need him there in person to plead to continue the process.
You aren't really 'arguing' tho, are you? You're just stating and restating your personal belief. Whenever your points are demolished, you just ignore them and move swiftly on. Sounds a bit Jazzzy to me.
lol, that was basically my point, dumbo! the article is technically absolutely correct, it is still a preliminary investigation because they cant physically arrest him. Thus, it cannot move onto the next stage. Which is what I said.
But that stage is of being charged, as that's how Swedish law operates. They have no doubt he has a case to answer. So not a preliminary investigation.
But until he actually is arrested, it is in limbo. Yes, hey know they want to move onto the next stage, yes we all know they want to move onto the next stage, but, technically until they nick him, they cant.
I get that, but does strike me as a substantive difference between being at the stage of firm charges that procedurally require a "how do you plead" versus we just have some questions we want to clear up with you.
That isnt what it says at all. It says there has only been one EAW issued for (alleged) sex offences. And that that was issued for someone with significant previous for those crimes. That is a very different thing. It strongly implies (tho doesn't state explicitly, I'll grant you) that there were other people accused of sex offenses who did not have an EAW issued for them.
I agree, I was just disagreeing with smokedouts claim that the article was wrong. It was technically absolutely correct.
You said it was likely because of the way he is known to behave with women. You didn't say that this also makes it believable that he has a case to answer. In a country that cannot legally extradite him for political crimes including espionage.
