And, don't tell me the ridiculous story about how if he went to Sweden he'd be extradited to the US. He was in the UK, you think we aren't buddy-buddy with the US and would have handed him over?
If they want to bring formal charges in court and send him a summons and try him in abstention they can do that too. It's just funny how they have played the game while claiming b/s like you are claiming.
edit because of rate limit to the person below:
If he has no guilty mind then why should he be willing to be arrested? In fact if he's afraid they will do to him what they did to Chelsea Manning, then he's perfectly in his right mind to attempt to avoid extradition by whatever means necessary.
If a totalitarian government is pursuing you because you stole their secrets and exposed them to the public, and they have already imprisoned one of your partners for life in inhumane conditions. Why should you comply with that request?
Why should they, well if they wish to bring justice and save money they should do it. Because if they do not, then the time expires which for the rape warrant is in 4 years. And justice will not be done.
The whole point of 'the rules' is that they apply to criminals; the only way to force something on criminals (or anyone) is to make them unavoidable, i.e. make it impossible to not play by the rules.
It's not like a game of chess, where the rules don't account for the use of tanks; or DRM, where "the rules" only apply to those with legal copies. It's more like Nomic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), where the rules allow the rules to change. The difference is that Nomic's initial set of rules require unanimous agreement to rule changes (so any unfortunate consequences are ultimately a player's 'own fault' for agreeing to something long ago); the real world's initial rules were natural selection, which is a horrific way to live.
Assange has unquestionably been playing by the Swedish rules, as has been confirmed by the Swedish supreme court.
Assange has no duty to return to Sweden, but the prosecutor does have a duty to give him a chance to respond to the allegations against him.
>Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?
Except the 44 people that did, you should do a little research before making such statements in the future.
I'm not sure what makes you think that he deserves the special treatment that he's currently receiving, it is common practice for Swedish authorities to interview people abroad (44 times in the UK!).
>But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen
Of course he does, he has an irrevocable right to defend himself against the allegations against him. His behaviour does not take that right away from him, nor can the Swedish prosecutor dictate the terms of that. Especially after the Swedish supreme court sided with Assange here.
It's also worth noting that the prosecutors duty isn't to Assange, but to the legal system. The goal of the legal system is to find whether or not Assange is guilty, not to punish him. By refusing to interview Assange in the embassy the prosecutor has betrayed the court system and breached her duty.
Strangely, I have never heard it suggested that it represents a major failing of judicial systems for not trying and convicting other alleged rapists whilst they're on the run. The point of a trial, is after all to ensure that criminals are not only fairly treated, but also given the legally mandated punishment.
Why should they?
They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning. Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them? (Assange's fears about extradition to the US aren't relevant to the Swedish prosecutor if they aren't intending to do that).
If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!
Because, as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court, that's their fucking job.
> They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning.
This is not true
>Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them?
Why does anyone have a right to due process? Assange has every right to respond to the Swedish enquiry from the UK, but the prosecutor has not allowed him to make his statement on the accusations against him.
>fugitive
What are you smoking? Assange is not a fugitive in Sweden, the only country that could consider him a fugitive is the UK.
>If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!
But in Sweden you can't, as the courts have confirmed. This is like locking someone up in jail until trial and refusing to interview them because you're busy.
Because it quickly became clear that the alternative was not to be able to interview him, and they have a legal duty to seek justice. Justice has not gotten done by refusing their best opportunity to interview him.
> Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning.
Yet they deviate from this regularly, and actually did so in another case during Assange's extradition hearings.
Regardless of whether one of five Swedish Supreme court justices chose to write a dissenting opinion criticising Ms Ny's handling of the case, do we really think that the questioning in the embassy is going mean Assange suddenly stops doing everything in his power to avoid standing trial in Sweden?
I think you mean "alleged criminals" and "sentence dictated by law".
According to the Swedish supreme court being in Sweden isn't a requirement for that, no matter his behaviour he should be allowed his day in court.
That behaviour includes refusing to personally come to Sweden, he has every right to do that. The only thing he has violated during the entire extradition process is his bail.