The argument isn't that this case should be handled by a court. The argument is whether or not going to court in this matter will result in him being for something that's supposedly completely unrelated.
I don't see how the mere act of extraditing Assange to Sweden to stand trial will make him or Wikileaks any more vulnerable to US jurisdiction. In fact, it makes him even more secure in Europe since any extradition request from the US will then have to be approved by UK, Swedish, and possibly European courts. The rape charges and European arrest warrant just add another layer of complexity to the process of any possible extradition to the US. In short, if the US wanted him, the rape charges are far from ideal from a legal perpective, although they are damaging his reputation.
There are suspicious circumstances, and naturally no proof to the contrary. I don't claim the US is involved - not because I can't proof it, but because I'm truly not convinced either way - but I do believe the US are capable to do this if they wanted too.
As I said above, the rape charges do not aid the US in any possible attempts to extradite him, but they do damage his reputation. It just seems an incredibly convoluted way just to simply damage his reputation, and given the lack of evidence of any US involvement in the rape charges, I simply don't believe that they are involved. Of course it's
possible, but
improbable. Much in the same way that I'm an atheist. There
could be a God, but the lack of evidence and other factors lead me to believe that there isn't.
It's not a separate matter at all, it's at the core of the argument. Is there a 'common' molestation charge, or is there a conspiracy at work.
The argument is relevant, because it indicates that the US is willing to act immorally where it comes to freedom of information and such a conspiracy would be immoral. So in fact it's a counter argument against the hidden argument: 'The US would never steep so low'.
Again, they would, can't be sure they did or did not.
And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Julian Assange has been charged with rape/molestation. Wikileaks is not on trial. And I have already dispelled the idea that the US is involved in the rape/molestation charges. Of course it's possible, but there is no evidence for it and I find it highly unlikely. Given the highly unlikely nature of US involvement, there is no reason to stop the extradition from the UK to Sweden, and the trial itself. If you could offer information that would suggest that US authorities have been involved the decision to charge Assange, or that the complainants have been unduly influenced, then you might have a point. Legal proceedings cannot be stopped based on conspiracies.
And the freedom of information argument is not relevant here at all. It's an invalid extension of the conspiracy. What Wikileaks did was leak classified documents and diplomatic cables that contained very sensitive information and almost certainly endangered lives. I'm all for freedom of information and transparency, but Governments and individuals in sensitive roles expect to have a certain degree of privacy. It's not an all or nothing type situation.
This is certainly not true, the US has the power and resources to do as they please. History has shown they are willing to use that power way beyond the international legal systems. Just recently they killed a man with a beard by sending a team of marines(A fine choice, but few lawyers were involved).
I was originally going to add "assassination" into that statement, but I didn't think it was worth it, and as soon as I hit the post button I knew you were going to invoke Bin Laden. Lets be realistic here, the US is not going to assassinate Julian Assange in the UK or Sweden. A better comparison would have been Kim Dotcom, who is still fighting legal proceedings in NZ after a raid by the FBI. So for all intents and purposes I still stand by the statement that the only chance the US has of "targeting" Assange is through extradition (which would have to go through UK, Swedish and European courts).
Straw man argument right here. I'm not stating the US is involved, I'm stating they might me involved. And what I'm arguing here, is if they had taken this road, it would have been effective. This case has damaged the reputation of Assange. It's just that he might have done that himself.
But there is no evidence the US is involved. Simply saying they "might" be is not enough to change anything. And as I've already said, these rape allegations will damage Assange's reputation, but they add a layer of complexity to a potential extradition to the US. And it's an incredibly convoluted way of damaging his reputation.
What is currently damaging Assange's reputation is evading trial in a corrupt tin-pot South American countries embassy, who regularly clamp down on the freedoms which he is currently being afforded in the UK, while not even having the courage to speak out against them, and continuing with his "orchestrated by the US" routine as some sort of justification for breaking his bail conditions and evading the trial in Sweden, without even offering a shred of evidence in return.
I think you misunderstand. I understand what a criminal trial is for, I also understand that a criminal trial is not always in the best interest of the person on trial - especially if that person committed said crime. Said person is usually aware if he committed said crime and if so it would be in his best interest to make sure he is never tried.
In normal cases however, your day in court is perfect to prove your innocence. However, in this particular case, I would argue, would Assange truly be innocent, for him the fact that he is charged with rape would be strong evidence of a conspiracy.
In short, whether Assange is guilty or not he would be smart to stay away. If he is guilty, that would not be best for the Swedish citizens.
Well, especially if you add in his seemingly endless ego, then I agree that in his eyes skipping bail and evading the trial probably seems like a great idea. If it was me, I would have gone to Sweden to fight the charges, and trust the robustness of the Swedish judiciary which I l previously lauded and lived under.
True. You said the only argument people have would be that the courts are not independent. I say there is another argument: That there are people powerful enough to manipulate the legal system into making mistakes.
And no, I do not know this would happen in this case. The problem with covert operations is that they tend to stay secret, so nobody really knows.
But this isn't reason enough to halt legal proceedings. You freely admit that you do not know if the US is involved in fabricating these charges, merely that it's possible. This is not a reason to stop legal proceedings.
About this whole thing, I think is smells fishy. Problem is, who's making the stink,... Do we have a government abusing its power to harm a man who did his democratic duty, or do we have a molester who's abusing his podium to get out of a fair trial.
My gut feeling says maybe.
If only we could have a trial to find out.
EDIT: You're probably aware, but there has been a recent string of extraditions of alleged terrorists from the UK to the US. They took around
10 years to go through all the courts and the appeals courts to finally get them on the plane. The idea that Assange is going to be extradited to Sweden, jailed and then put on a plane and sent straight to a SUPERMAX prison in the US, with the public losing interest, is laughable. That does happen in ME countries, but it simply won't happen in this case due to the robustness of the countries and legal systems involved. His life is not in any immediate danger, and that's what leads me to believe that this whole saga is down to his ego.
