Why ask all the questions, when you clearly had made your mind up from the start?

ED209 wrote:Why ask all the questions, when you clearly had made your mind up from the start?

Because I didn't understand how anyone thinks Assange is "detained" under his circumstances and even less how anyone thinks he is deserving of compensation. I still don't. Nobody has explained this satisfactorily. Not to my understanding and pardon me for opening a thread asking questions and continuing to ask if I still don't get BTW.

Oh I see - so it wasn't "Please inform me about..." so much as "Persuade me to change my uninformed opinion while I reject all facts you refer to and cling to my initial misconceptions". I guess a more honestly-phrased OP would not have triggered as much participation.

Did you reread the UN panel's report?

ED209 wrote:Oh I see - so it wasn't "Please inform me about..." so much as "Persuade me to change my uninformed opinion while I reject all facts you refer to and cling to my initial misconceptions". I guess a more honestly-phrased OP would not have triggered as much participation.

Aah, I get it now. Every fact you present is to be uncritically accepted and not questioned. All definitions of words such as " detained" can mean whatever anyone else wants them to mean. Prosecution is now synonymous with persecution. Fugitives ought not to be pursued lest police be over zealous. Victims of sexual assault need no longer expect an investigation to proceed if the suspect can hide for long enough!

Could someone provide me with directions to the Mad Hatter's table. I feel I might be late!

If you think any of that is a fair reflection of any of the posts on this thread, then you can't have read it either.

Loving all the crap about me having my mind made up and my "scare tactics" etc but nobody answers questions.

When does diligence in pursuing an arrest suddenly morph into persecution?

When does police containing a fugitive in a location they are hiding out change from acceptable practice to some form of arbitrary detention?

Why is Assange at risk of some sort of persecution requiring asylum for his safety from the USA when he is liable for arrest but not if he was just allowed to walk out of the embassy freely? Listening to some contributors here, America is not beyond some form of illegal abduction, so why does he even want to come out?

Why isn't the report from the UN addressing potential persecution from the USA since that is apparently what has kept him in there so long rather than at the UK?

Is any of this fair to a complainant of a sexual assault that this should all go on so long?

Why should Assange be able to decide where and if he is spoken to, arrested or charged regarding a criminal investigation where others wouldn't be? Oh yes, others have been interviewed abroad, I know. That doesn't mean he has to be. And if they did interview him in the embassy and as a result want to take him straight into custody to face charges? How does that work? They can no more arrest him there than the UK police can.

Why is an article in the Observer to be trusted more than the Swedish and UK police forces and judiciary?

What system should police forces use to decide how long to pursue bail absconders in future without being at risk of being somehow unfair and persecutory to them?

Someone show me where those questions are answered properly here. I've asked most of them before but all I get is shitty smokescreen stuff about my boogey man scare tactics and pejorative language etc. What about some straightforward answers?

monkeyboy wrote:Loving all the crap about me having my mind made up and my "scare tactics" etc but nobody answers questions.

When does diligence in pursuing an arrest suddenly morph into persecution?

If you wanted answers to such question you would make an attempt to answer them yourself. You would consider if due diligence could ever, under any circumstances, amount to persecution (i.e. exceed "due"). You might start with an extreme of someone kept on bail for 5 years without being indicted. Can a line be drawn? how close or far from your line is Assange?

monkeyboy wrote:When does police containing a fugitive in a location they are hiding out change from acceptable practice to some form of arbitrary detention?

Did you read the UN report? What did they say about that?

GrahamH wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Loving all the crap about me having my mind made up and my "scare tactics" etc but nobody answers questions.

When does diligence in pursuing an arrest suddenly morph into persecution?

If you wanted answers to such question you would make an attempt to answer them yourself. You would consider if due diligence could ever, under any circumstances, amount to persecution (i.e. exceed "due"). You might start with an extreme of someone kept on bail for 5 years without being indicted. Can a line be drawn? how close or far from your line is Assange?

Is it fair to blame 5 yrs on bail on the Swedish police/prosecutors/judiciary? He has been in breach of bail conditions for at least 3yrs of that time. That is why UK police want to arrest him and have done for so long.
I would agree that 5yrs of bail under ordinary circumstances would be out of order but this is by no means ordinary. This down to who is responsible for him being where he is. Criminal proceedings don't take place generally across two (three if you count Ecuador) countries. Would the case have been dealt with had he not been holed up in the embassy? I would think so, unless there is regular precedent for this sort of case dragging on for 5yrs.

monkeyboy wrote:When does police containing a fugitive in a location they are hiding out change from acceptable practice to some form of arbitrary detention?

Did you read the UN report? What did they say about that?

From what I recall of it, there is no acknowledgment of delays in his being sent to Sweden due to extensive appeals, no acknowledgment of any responsibility on his part for being in breach of bail by being in the embassy, effectively putting the case on hold for over 3yrs now.
It's apparently all the fault of the Swedes and the British. I guess I skipped the part where it says he's been nothing but cooperative throughout and the part where they have a good go at the Americans for making him feel so threatened that Sweden can't get on with their criminal case.

They make no specific reference to when diligent pursuit of a fugitive becomes arbitrary detention.

Why the black and white thinking? You blame everything on Assange. The rest of us, I think, recognise there are various contributing factors, including appeals and the prosecutors failure to travel (at UK suggestion). Nobody is blameless for the timescale, and no one person is entirely to blame. In particular Assange has explicitly stated he is available for interview. Cut through the complexities and interview him, as Swedish prosecutors do for others.

Like I have said though. What happens if the Swedes do come to interview him in the embassy and want to arrest him and take him back with them?
Is he just going to step out into the taxi and off to the airport?

monkeyboy wrote:Like I have said though. What happens if the Swedes do come to interview him in the embassy and want to arrest him and take him back with them?
Is he just going to step out into the taxi and off to the airport?

I believe he has said he will go to trial in Sweden, if he is indicted, so indict him. Disclose the evidence against him. Call his bluff, if he is bluffing.

Why would the prosecutors give him benefit of blaming them for the situation if they do have a case against him?

If allegations are made against you that do not support an indictment would you be absolutely confident that moves to extradite will be followed by justice? The prosecutor should top pissing about and indict or drop the proceedings, like we would all expect for anybody. Holding people in a limbo state between allegation and indictment seems highly unjust to me. It's reasonable there will be a period of up to a few months where a case is prepared, but beyond that what justification can there be?

It's not as if nobody knows where Assange is and the prosecutor can't get to him.

If there's a case to made against him disclose it to the defence and test it in court. If he's guilty he must pay the price. If he's acquitted he must be freed.

And of course, if the Swedish prosecution is dropped and therefore the UK police presence is no longer required and he steps outside the Embassy...

What then?

[/conspiracy mode]

GrahamH wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Like I have said though. What happens if the Swedes do come to interview him in the embassy and want to arrest him and take him back with them?
Is he just going to step out into the taxi and off to the airport?

I believe he has said he will go to trial in Sweden, if he is indicted, so indict him. Disclose the evidence against him. Call his bluff, if he is bluffing.

Why would the prosecutors give him benefit of blaming them for the situation if they do have a case against him?

If allegations are made against you that do not support an indictment would you be absolutely confident that moves to extradite will be followed by justice? The prosecutor should top pissing about and indict or drop the proceedings, like we would all expect for anybody. Holding people in a limbo state between allegation and indictment seems highly unjust to me. It's reasonable there will be a period of up to a few months where a case is prepared, but beyond that what justification can there be?

It's not as if nobody knows where Assange is and the prosecutor can't get to him.

If there's a case to made against him disclose it to the defence and test it in court. If he's guilty he must pay the price. If he's acquitted he must be freed.

And yet, if they wanted to, apparently the prosecutors had the choice of issuing a warrant to arrest him and have him brought back to Sweden which is what they chose to do. Again, as I clearly stated in my OP, I'm no legal expert, why should Assange be treated any differently to anyone else arrested under a European warrant and extradited to the country issuing it? Because he is fearful of being abducted by the Americans?
Yet he wants to he able to step out of the embassy as a free man without fear of arrest. So walking about with nobody able to legally track and verify his whereabouts, he would feel safer from some sort of illegal abduction?
How is he less likely to be at risk of being spirited to America if he is indicted? What guarantee could he possibly give anyone that he would surrender to being indicted and how could that be enforced if they did dance to his jig and interview him in the embassy?
I don't see it as the prosecutors fault that this has taken so long. It's as if Assange expects special treatment and everyone to do things his way or no way. He has been totally non cooperative and has breached his bail conditions. Anyone else would he liable to arrest. When he first did so, had he been holed up in a friends spare bedroom and picked up, nobody would have batted an eyelid at the police doing their jobs. Because he is in an embassy where they can't just kick in the door he's been able to stretch it out for years. I still struggle to see why this is not mostly his fault that things have dragged on so long. That he now finds his situation to be unpleasant is not necessarily anyone else's fault. Least of all UK police's.

My OP was more about why the UK police and UK government etc are responsible for his situation and why he should he eligible for compensation from them in any way for having effectively absconded from bail for 3yrs.

Alan B wrote:And of course, if the Swedish prosecution is dropped and therefore the UK police presence is no longer required and he steps outside the Embassy...

What then?

[/conspiracy mode]

Exactly. He's in there because the American bogey man is going to spirit him to Gitmo for car battery/testicle time or something, yet he wants to just walk out into the London streets apparently no longer needing asylum because the sex charges are no longer being pursued?

Seems the reason he is in there is to avoid sex charges in Sweden and not the Americans. If that's not the case, why not stay in hiding regardless of what the Swedes are doing and complain to the UN about the Americans bullying him? Why did he only jump in when it looked like he was being sent to Sweden to face these allegations?

It seems a reasonable assumption that, if the US are after him, they won't snatch him off the street. Maybe it's easier to extradite him from custody in Sweden than at liberty in London. There may be good reasons, but I don't know them.

Why did Assange seek asylum when he did? Presumably because he fears being detained in Sweden, but whether that is just fear of prosecution is not at all clear. It is a possibility, of course. It would become clear if Sweden actually indicted him and guaranteed to try him and not extradite him.

monkeyboy wrote:And yet, if they wanted to, apparently the prosecutors had the choice of issuing a warrant to arrest him and have him brought back to Sweden which is what they chose to do. Again, as I clearly stated in my OP, I'm no legal expert, why should Assange be treated any differently to anyone else arrested under a European warrant and extradited to the country issuing it? Because he is fearful of being abducted by the Americans?

Why should he be treated differently to the 44 people Swedish prosecutors have interviewed in London while Assange had been in the embassy? The circumstances are unusual. A little flexibility would move things along and seems to be the best way for Swedish prosecutors to actually try this case. It really looks to me like they don't want it tested in court. They just want Assange in Swedish custody.

monkeyboy wrote:He has been totally non cooperative and has breached his bail conditions.

Has he? He cooperated in Sweden and he volunteered to be interviewed a second time in London. He hasn't been totally cooperative, but "totally uncooperative" seems unreasonable.[/quote]

monkeyboy wrote: Because he is in an embassy where they can't just kick in the door he's been able to stretch it out for years.My OP was more about why the UK police and UK government etc are responsible for his situation and why he should he eligible for compensation from them in any way for having effectively absconded from bail for 3yrs.

He was granted asylum. He made a case for it and was granted it. Ecuador and the UN recognise it as legitimate. Regimes that go after people eligible for asylum are generally considered the bad guys. Who are you to say they are wrong? Any other state doing this would be criticised.

Indict him or let him go free. How can you object to that?

GrahamH wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:And yet, if they wanted to, apparently the prosecutors had the choice of issuing a warrant to arrest him and have him brought back to Sweden which is what they chose to do. Again, as I clearly stated in my OP, I'm no legal expert, why should Assange be treated any differently to anyone else arrested under a European warrant and extradited to the country issuing it? Because he is fearful of being abducted by the Americans?

Why should he be treated differently to the 44 people Swedish prosecutors have interviewed in London while Assange had been in the embassy? The circumstances are unusual. A little flexibility would move things along and seems to be the best way for Swedish prosecutors to actually try this case. It really looks to me like they don't want it tested in court. They just want Assange in Swedish custody.

I'm guessing because his circumstances are different to the others in that he is in an embassy and for whatever reason, they want him in Sweden. Same way I guess that some people get asked questions and are ' helping police with their inquiries' and are not under arrest at that time and some people are arrested for questioning. I don't know who draws that line.
As for flexibility. Hmmmm. " I suspect you of being puppets for your American masters and of having no intention of ever prosecuting this case, in effect of having no professional integrity and of trying to entrap me in some underhand way! Could you cut me some slack please? Of course you can trust that if you decide to properly charge me, I'll step out of my safe place, come straight to your country like I'm frightened of doing now, knowing that at any time I could be acquitted and be handed over to the dark side. Oh and could you overlook the obvious flaws in my reasoning please?"

monkeyboy wrote:He has been totally non cooperative and has breached his bail conditions.

Has he? He cooperated in Sweden and he volunteered to be interviewed a second time in London. He hasn't been totally cooperative, but "totally uncooperative" seems unreasonable.

OK, I withdraw the totally.

monkeyboy wrote: Because he is in an embassy where they can't just kick in the door he's been able to stretch it out for years.My OP was more about why the UK police and UK government etc are responsible for his situation and why he should he eligible for compensation from them in any way for having effectively absconded from bail for 3yrs.

He was granted asylum. He made a case for it and was granted it. Ecuador and the UN recognise it as legitimate. Regimes that go after people eligible for asylum are generally considered the bad guys. Who are you to say they are wrong? Any other state doing this would be criticised.

Indict him or let him go free. How can you object to that?

He was granted asylum etc because he's fearful of being persecuted by America. So why are the UK being hassled for following through on the arrest warrant? Is that supposed to automatically end if someone is granted asylum? Is that established international law? If he went in there for a week and then came out, are we supposed to shrug at Sweden and apologise? Or would it still be OK to nick him and extradite him? Two weeks? A month? Two, three, six months?
Where are the lines between following European treaties, cooperating with fellow members and suddenly being the bad guy? I can't see any guidelines in the UN report just a conclusion that he is being arbitrarily detained. So where does one become the other? The distinction between the two ends of the scale seems to be somewhat, erm, what's the word, hmmm.......arbitrary.
Why is the UK liable for compensation? Why not Sweden or their puppet masters?

As for indict or let him go free, fair enough. If that had been the direction from the UN, no problems. Why not say ,"Hey Sweden, this Assange dude has been complaining that he's scared of the USA taking him from your country. We think he's got a point since we've recognised his asylum. Are you prosecuting him or not? Because if you want to, we'd prefer it if you got on with it and agree not to pull any sneak deals with America. Either that or drop the case." Or something like that. Why not do that instead of expecting the UK to chop and change which treaties they're following and when according to opinion polls or whatever the UN expects them to follow? Oh and to pay out compensation for being stuck between a rock and a hard place?

monkeyboy wrote:Oh and to pay out compensation for being stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Thing is, the UK is one of the rocks, and apparently actually advised the Swedish prosecutor not to question Assange in London. It looks like the UK is doing more than merely meeting it's treaty obligations. Millions have been spent, because the UK chose to act against Assange as if he was a mass murderer or something.