You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it "equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange. But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him.
Are you sure? The thread is about a report saying a witness was lieing, in my universe.
This is part of a series of harmful and powerful things that have happened to Assange. These things could be investigated and prosecuted.
What is fair?
How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair opportunity to form a defense?
He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense. However, even ignoring all that,
You mean before he was arrested?
there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case.
This is true, although it's also true that it makes it incredibly hard to do, to be in jail or prison while needing to compose the most important evidence-backed essay of your life.
We rarely hear of these things until somebody popular is imprisoned.
People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years.
It does make sense here since the charges could imprison him for the rest of his life. It would also be the only way to make a truly fair trial, to have fairness in the opportunity for making a case. Maybe not the most salient point, but good to bring to light.
Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the laws to know that well, but there's probably one there already.
Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned? I think there is: *it's called the courts*. I'm genuinely struggling to
This relates to charging people frivolously.
understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to. You on one hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an
You have repeatedly said this, and I have repeatedly directly disagreed. I would feel more comfortable if I were quoted directly.
alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than the court system you are criticizing.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to build.
I mentioned this earlier, kind of getting to know each other's feelings and values. I think with more points of connection we could really sort this out.
I really feel kind of scared. We have such a habit of disagreeing here and that hasn't always been the case. It sounds like you might feel upset around assange not reaching usa trial, and I might feel upset around him suffering so much? Upsetness is hard, but maybe its based on shared values for justice and order.
We really value justice and order. I'm sure I'd be more clear with myself that I appreciated legal proceedings when it was clear to me they were providing this.
You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher stakes stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this. You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition?
I support the non-legal, positive meaning of the word justice for assange and everybody else. That can include the legal justice systems or not.
You ask me a lot of very specific, ballot-like questions that I would really need more information about the situation to have a clear opinion on.
If I don't want sweden to charge assange, will you somehow prevent it?