If it was an “obvious fabrication” he ought to have been able to demonstrate that in court. Either the UK one or the Swedish one he ran away from.
Quote:
“””as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution”””
He would never get to set foot in Sweden. Remember he offered to conduct the interview over the phone, and the Swedes said no. Why would they do that? Only thing that makes sense to me is if they wanted to get him to Sweden physically, so he could be sent to the US.
Because that’s how their laws work (I think? Only 70% sure) and it’s unreasonable for an accused person to ask for random special treatment and expect to get it.
He allegedly broke pretty specific Swedish sex law which probably doesn't have an equivalent in the UK..
In normal extradition treaties, being in the UK was safe from being in anyone's custody which is the ideal for no possibility of the US starting an extradition.
No one can know the specifics of the US' soft power and assets except the US, and even then only in some abstract collective sense.
> He allegedly broke pretty specific Swedish sex law which probably doesn't have an equivalent in the UK..
It does. IIRC this was specifically referenced by one of the judges. Even if not explicitly mentioned, by my reading the accusations included the following offences from the 2003 Sexual Offences Act:
* Rape
* Assault by penetration
* Sexual assault
With at least one reference to section 75/2/d “Evidential presumptions about consent”
Now I’m not a lawyer, but actual lawyers did in fact argue this case and I’m going with what they said.
Unless you think Assange is an international legal expert I don't really get your point.. His behavior seemed rational for a man who kicked a bee hive unless you don't believe in bees.
My point is that your claim was false. There is nothing obscure about the law, the (alleged) acts were also offences in the UK.
Further to your new points, he had legal representation from human multiple rights specialists including from a lawyer with the title of Queen’s Council.
Skipping bail also cost his supporters £93,500. He was demonstrably not short of favours.
No, I don’t see his behaviour as “rational”. Rather I see it as arrogant, a person who thinks he knows more than he does, the kind of person who ends up the subject of a notalwaysright.com post.
(Unlike Manning and Snowden, about whom I am rather positive.)
