I'm not sure if I am right, but I thought the whole point of Wikileaks was to be a publishing platform with good source protection?
A) it will take years
B) he will need to do it from a US prison cell
C) it will be expensive for him
D) they hope to impact wikileaks while this is ongoing
E) they will try to get him to accept a plea deal where the US govt gets to look like they are right, because he plead guilty after all (certainly not just to avoid a 700 year sentence for treason but because he is actually guilty)
(Consider that even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not executed for treason, but rather for espionage.)
"He is accused in the United States of America computer related offences."
Or, if that doesn't stick, for skipping bail in Sweden:
If you tell the judge you'll be there Monday morning 9:00, you need to turn up or have a good excuse. "I don't trust you" is not the right kind.
The point still stands — he was arrested on a matter between him and the English court system. That the original reason why he should've appeared in court is obsolete doesn't mean that he could disregard the court.
EDIT: Maybe I misunderstand something. I thought a summons involves being handed a fat envelope and signing a receipt that basically says "I have received <that envelope> and promise to do as instructed within". Isn't that correct? What is a summons, if not that?
It's an entirely separate (and frankly relatively trivial) issue. This part of the discussion involves whether or not Assange's arrest was a consequence of (in @pvg's words) 'his journalistic activities'. It clearly was. See Greenwald's analysis in the Intercept today, with quotes directly from the extradition request. The extradition attempt is part of an ongoing assault by the US government on investigative journalism.
> I thought a summons ..
The legal docs involved here are an arrest warrant and extradition request. It's well beyond the summons stage.
Conspiracy to commit a felony is likewise super serious - sometimes even more serious than the underlying crime.
So, why do you say 'weak', if the evidence supports the charge?
Justice is for "soldiers". Generals get a pat on the back even for espionage.
However, if you're genuinely curious, algolia brings up plenty of examples pretty regularly. In particular I am thinking of a discussion from 2012 in which one particular HN 'power user' makes a lot of comments trying to debunk the idea that Assange actually feared extradition to America. That's one particularly egregious example off the top of my head, but there are plenty of others. I have another cute example of that same user citing the case of Polanski to argue that extradition to America was unlikely. In 2016 this user flat out said that Assange's expressed concern of extradition to America was 'dishonest' and 'irrational.'
I believe that should give you enough to go off of to find what I'm talking about. Like I said, I would rather see if that user comes forward without being directly confronted, and what they will say if they do.
@areyousure I have given you ample leads to find the specific comments I am talking about. Are you sure you looked? You won't have to go down the leader list very far at all to find the user I am talking about. It's 9am in Chicago, maybe he will be gracing us with his insight soon!