Assange™ slumps back on Ecuador's sofa after detention appeal binned

Re: dan1980

Is it possible for you to discuss a topic without saying things like "A$$nut"? Why do you do that all the time?

While I accept all you points (though not the delivery) the question again comes back to: "why can't they question him in the UK"? Even the Judge is basically now asking the same thing.

This is my point - if you want to question him then do so. Okay, Assange is not being as cooperative as the Swedes would like but he has never once said that he would refuse to have the formal interview, only that he did not accept that he should be deported to Sweden to do it.

In this he is - in a way - supported by the judge, who has said that he can be questioned in the UK. So why don't they do that?

Is insisting on a course of action (extradition to Sweden) that is very unlikely to happen better than conducting the desired process in a different location?

Whatever your (or anyone else's) view of Assange or his actions now or in the past, this is the situation RIGHT NOW. He's not going to Sweden to answer questions so the prosecutors have to ask themselves which the better outcome is.

The Judge is apparently nearly at that point - saying that there really isn't a good reason NOT to interview him in situ.

Re: Tough choice...

It may seem like forever to him being holed up in a room in an embassy. Then again, with all this in the news for a couple of years, it sometimes seems like forever. :)

Re: "select markets"

@therealmav

"The Swedish investigation needs to take place in Sweden . . ."

Actually no, that's not correct. The interviews CAN take place in the UK.

This is one of the big problems so far as public opinion goes. Yes, Assange comes across as a self-righteous, holier-than-thou type. And yes, he absolutely appears to have acted in rather bad faith as regards his exit from Sweden and his skipping bail.

BUT, and this is a huge 'but' - those acts have a ready explanation. You (and Matt and anyone else) may not believe it but there is no doubt that Assange can provide an answer as to why he did what he did. There is no doubt in my mind that he truly believes he will be extradited to the US if he ever sets foot on Swedish soils again - whether or not you think those fears are reasonable is largely beside the point. He may be paranoid with delusions of importance - picturing himself as a fighter for justice being targeted by government - but the point is that he believes that what he says will happen to him will actually happen to him.

One the other side, however, the Swedish police/prosecutors.just don't have a reasonable explanation for why they are refusing to conduct their interviews as things stand now. The judge has said that they can interview Assange in the UK but they refuse to do so, insisting instead on extradition to Sweden first.

Given - again - that extradition to Sweden is not a legally-necessary pre-condition for conducting a formal interview, this clearly raises questions as to the motives behind the insistence that he be extradited.

Whatever you or Matt may think - and indeed whatever the actual truth of the matter is - this is a bad look. It is easy to understand the reasons why Assange felt he needed to do what he did and those reasons are entirely consistent with his claims now - he believes the aim of all this is to ship him to the US. It is far harder to understand the reasons why it is being insisted that he MUST be extradited to Sweden - especially when the (Swedish) judge has said that it is not necessary.

In short, Assange's actions add up. Whether you think he is imagining things or lying or a raping, lying terrorist who wants to help Al Qaeda to bomb your children's school - his stated reasons and actions are consistent. As much cannot be said for the other 'side' in this palaver.

Personally, I disapprove of the way Assange has acted but I understand it. I do not understand the actions of the Swedish police and prosecutors.

Now, perhaps he gets interviewed and they decide to press formal charges and he still refuses. Okay, so you take that when it comes but the Swedish police are now on the front foot, at least so far as opinion is concerned. At that point, at least some of Assange's support evaporates. Perhaps nothing, ultimately, changes but how exactly is that different from the situation now?

Re: "select markets"

"What utter rubbish. The crime he's alleged to have done was a crime in Sweden. The Swedish investigation needs to take place in Sweden"

Bzzzzt, the prosecutors are free to do the interview anywhere, and have indeed done interviews abroad in other cases. It makes it a bit less convenient if the result of the interview is that they want to take him into custody, but no excuse not to continue the investigation with the next step needed.

Re: Tough choice...

@vociferous

The 35yr sentence is what he is claiming he will get if extradited to the US.

Again, and for the umpteenth time - I don't care if it's really true or not. All I am saying is that I believe that he believes it is true.

That may make him delusional but his detractors could hardly argue with that - they have alwasy maintained that he thinks he's more important than he is. In this instance, assertions of that delusion count in his favour as if one believes that he is delusion and believes he is public enemy no 1 in the US then his actions have plausible motive beyond the otherwise more obvious reason of trying to run from a guilty charge.

Re: Tough choice...

RTFA to wit: "This is about the threat of extradition to the US and 35 years of jail there," Per Samuelson, Assange's Swedish lawyer, told Reuters on Thursday. "As long as that threat remains, there is no doubt he will stay at the embassy."

eh.? wot?

".what he is accused of is questionable enough that it represents a danger to members of Swedish society.."

if "I had sex with him that night, but when I woke up the next morning he was trying to have sex with me again" is the worst danger the Swedish people have to worry about the I think they have it pretty bloody easy.

Re:He fled the country when he got the second summons.

Actually, he LEFT the country before the summons was issued, after his lawyer had obtained an assurance from the state prosecutor that he was not required for interview.

And he's not 'wanted' for anything. The Swedish prosecutor's office want to interview him regarding a complaint which has been made. You have to be charged with something before you can be 'wanted'

for it, surely?

Seriously, the original accounts are easy enough to find. What's with the communal memory loss?