Ok, so you can netiher confirm nor deny that you would like Sweden to
   pursue its case of sexual assault against Assange?  Maybe to step back
   further in search of a common ground, if Assange were not the founder
   of Wikileaks, and instead were some generic, non-controversial plumber
   (ie, fixing real leaks) named Bob.  Woud you like Sweden to pursue
   sexual assault charges against Bob?

     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?

   Again, in a civil suit, mediation works because no crime was committed:
   two people are just settling a personal disagreement.  This is quite
   different than if someone, for example, kills someone with no living
   family or friends, no next of kin.  The aggrieved party is dead; nobody
   is there to speak up for them.  Can you help me understand in your mind
   how this killer would be brought to justice via mediation?  If the
   victim is dead, who brings forth evidence?  If there is no jury nor
   judge, who evaluates the evidence and renders a verdict?
   Again, I'm just really trying to find some very basic common ground
   scenario that we agree upon, to build from there.
   -david

   On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:04 PM Karl <[1]gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:

   On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM David Barrett <[2]dbarrett@expensify.com>
   wrote:

     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?

   -david

References

   1. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com
   2. mailto:dbarrett@expensify.com