# Julian Assange (remember him?) update **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2016, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210 "2016-02-05T07:20:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/101 "2016-02-08T21:11:43Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If evidence emerges that the British had beat Assange with rubber truncheons and put him on a show trial on the orders of the government, my views would be different. > > But so far as I can tell from the news accounts, the Swedes and the British have been observing the rule of law and due process, with the legal questions about the validity of the extradition process being determined by independent courts, according to law. Agreed. If he is just a garden variety rape suspect hiding from extradition then you can’t really say that he is being unlawfully held against his will. He can come out and face the music any time he wants. The only way to believe that this is some form of unauthorized detention is if you believe that there is some shadow conspiracy that means that if he shows his face he will unlawful dark acts done against him. In that case the extra legal aspect is the dark acts that will be done against him, and that is what should be condemned by the UN, not the fact that some police are hanging out front in case he makes a run for it. ---
**Author:** ![Anarcho\_Liberalist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@Anarcho\_Liberalist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anarcho_Liberalist)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/102 "2016-02-08T21:31:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I’ve skimmed through the opinion of the Working Group, and Im puzzled by two things. > > […] > > Second, they also count the time in the embassy as arbitrary detention. But he’s there because he wants to be, because he wants to avoid legal process. Bottom line is that I don’t see how avoiding due process at your own desire can count as arbitrary detention on the part of the government. This is my nr 1 problem with the opinion of the Working Group. I have been reading up on the case and must conclude that they willingly ignore the fact that Sweden has explained on several occasions that he’s not ‘just wanted for questioning’ but that Swedish law simply demands that he’s brought in to go through the procedural motions before he can officially be indicted. Why did they ignore this crucial aspect? I can’t think of any other reason than that they have their own agenda. Maybe the Working Group came to the conclusion that all their important work on arbitrary detention by dubious regimes with well known appalling human rights records wasn’t getting enough attention? (Newspaper reader: ‘Oh no! The military dictatorship in country XYZ does horrible things to opposition journalists. What else is new?’). So they went after a high profile case in a western democracy. The general outcome was clear from the beginning: the free speech hero is unlawfully detained. And it worked. Let’s be honest: who was aware of this particular panel until their much covered and debated opinion on the Assange case? I know I’m speculating and I’m by no means implying that mistakes in that area are never made by western democracies. I just can’t help suspecting that when decisions are made on which cases to explore and what conclusions to draw are at least in part driven by vanity and/or bureaucratic wars over funding, official priorities etc. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/103 "2016-02-08T22:29:41Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > [QUOTE=Isamu] > yet he faces extradition, even though the law has changed in the meantime meaning UK is not bound to extradite. A cite for this would be nice. [/QUOTE] The change in the UK law is summarized in the Opinion of the Working Group, at p. 11, note 1: [QUOTE=Opinion of the Working Group] The changes to UK extradition legislation following Mr. Assange’s case. In brief, the United Kingdom has now concluded: (i) By virtue of a binding decision of the UK Supreme Court in 2013, that the UK will no longer, where a request is made under a European Arrest Warrant, permit the extradition of individuals where the warrant is not initiated by a judicial authority. It has determined that the requirement of a “judicial authority” cannot be interpreted as being fulfilled by a prosecutor as is the case in relation to Mr. Assange. (ii) By virtue of legislation in force since July 2014, that the UK will no longer permit extradition on the basis of a bare accusation (as opposed to a formal completed decision to prosecute and charge) as is the case in relation to Mr. Assange. (iii) By virtue of the same legislation now in force, that the United Kingdom will no longer permit extradition under a European Arrest Warrant without consideration by a court of its proportionality (Mr. Assange’s case was decided on the basis that such consideration was at that time not permitted). [/QUOTE] On point (i), this is one of the differences between civil law jurisdictions and common law jurisdictions. Civil law countries traditionally give prosecutors greater procedural authority than prosecutors in a common law regime. A common law prosecutor doesn’t normally have the power to issue an arrest warrant; it has to come from a judge, who reviews the prosecutor’s application. The UK has evidently decided that for purposes of extradition, they will require that the arrest warrant be issued by a judge. I would think that continental European countries will be reviewing their criminal procedures to add in a requirement for a judicial warrant for extradition cases. Point (ii) seems to be in reaction to the Swedish criminal procedure where a charge occurs quite late in the process. At first glance it looks to be a major shift in favour of Assange’s arguments that the extradition process is unfair, since he shouldn’t be extradited if he hasn’t been charged. However, the Working Group’s summary of the changes to the UK law omits a key point, made by a legal blogger in [Julian Assange: do recent changes to extradition law make any difference?](http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/08/18/julian-assange-do-recent-changes-to-extradition-law-make-any-difference/) > [@](#): > > The new section 12A brings in a new bar to extradition under a European Arrest Warrant if the requesting country has not made a decision to charge, and the CPS (which in this case represents the “category 1 territory”, Sweden) cannot satisfy the extradition judge that > > the person’s absence from the category 1 territory is the sole reason for that failure. > > This might or might not help someone in Assange’s situation. Arguably his absence from Sweden is indeed the “sole reason” why he’s not been charged; it’s even more strongly arguable that his absence is the sole reason why no decision has been made whether to charge him or not. But there would certainly be room for Assange’s lawyers to argue, based on points his supporters have made in public about the possibility of interviewing him by video, that his absence from Sweden isn’t the “sole reason” he’s not been charged. Curious that the Working Group does not mention this qualification on the issue of a charge being needed for extradition, which is particularly relevant to the way Assange has acted in this case? As to point (iii), I would have thought that on any assessment of proportionality, a pending rape charge would rank pretty high in favour of extradition. In summary, it doesn’t look like the changes to UK law would have automatically resulted in a different outcome if they had been in force at the time of the application for extradition in the UK (other than the requirement for a judicial warrant, not a prosecutor’s warrant). In any event, none of these changes were retroactive, so there is still an outstanding extradition order, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/104 "2016-02-10T07:13:11Z")
> [@XT](#): > > But you don’t think it’s possible that, you know, Assanage raped two women? Possible? Sure, lots of things are possible. But unlikely. It’s pretty much an open secret that the U.S. is after him, and conveniently he gets convicted of something that had already been dropped? It doesn’t take some vast conspiracy. It takes some officials who are prejudiced against him as people on this board to take another look at something previously resolved, and finding an issue. From there, the U.S. publicly will ask for extradition, and it’s all above board, no conspiracy needed. The only reason they don’t do it now is because it would give everyone reason to help him out. What I don’t get is how this board was all split down the middle about (even leaning favorable towards) Manning but bought all the bullshit about Assange. It’s the same exact issue. The people that tortured Manning (sleep deprivation is a torture technique) are going after Assange. If they actually did care about the charges, they could investigate him where he is. They refuse. When there’s a way to get your stated goal but you refuse to take it, the rational assumption is that your stated goal is not your entire goal. Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it’s not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/105 "2016-02-10T08:05:03Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Possible? Sure, lots of things are possible. But unlikely… > > …Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it’s not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so. Why is it so likely that two women would lie about Assange having sexually assaulted him that you are prepared to drop the allegation out of hand? What could the UK and Sweden do to convince you that this prosecution is genuine. Why do you believe that th[e public statements from both Sweden and the UK](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/03/ecuador-julian-assange-extradited-death-penalty) that they would not extradite him can be ignored? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/106 "2016-02-10T10:52:04Z")
And why didn’t the US ask for extradition when he was under house arrest in the UK? This theory that the evil American shadow government is powerless until Assange arrives in a neutral, non-NATO country is absurd. And in any case, news reports last night indicate that the Swedish prosecutor is caving to the idea of interviewing him in the UK. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/107 "2016-02-10T11:14:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > and conveniently he gets convicted of something that had already been dropped? He hasn’t been convicted, he is wanted for the formal questioning without which charges cannot be brought to court. > [@BigT](#): > > Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it’s not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so. Neither has to prove a negative. I don’t know what the Swedish authorities’ objections are to sending prosecutors to question him where he is, but it may well have something to do with his clearly attempting to evade the normal processes of their justice system. > [@BigT](#): > > What I don’t get is how this board was all split down the middle about (even leaning favorable towards) Manning but bought all the bullshit about Assange. What I don’t get is why you assume the allegations against Assange are so obviously untrue as to require all the normal processes of law and justice to be set aside. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/108 "2016-02-10T15:37:35Z")
[QUOTE=BigT] Possible? Sure, lots of things are possible. But unlikely. It’s pretty much an open secret that the U.S. is after him, and conveniently he gets convicted of something that had already been dropped? [/QUOTE] He hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. I don’t have any idea of what you mean by ‘something that had already been dropped’. Are you claiming both women and the state has dropped charges and just brought them back up at the behest of the US?? So, anyway, you answered the question…you think it’s unlikely that this guy raped two women and you buy into the conspiracy theory that the US government is really behind it all. Gotcha. Thanks for laying that out plainly at least. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t take some vast conspiracy. It takes some officials who are prejudiced against him as people on this board to take another look at something previously resolved, and finding an issue. Yeah, it actually does take a vast conspiracy for this to happen the way you are implying. You have to have the US putting pressure on Sweden and the UK, you have to have Sweden and the UK going along with the pressure, and you have to have these two women in the CT as well. It’s a lot of people who need to be involved for this to happen. Hundreds really. But, you know, the more folks in a conspiracy the better the chance it will last for years and no one but some eagle eyed guy like you will be able to detect it and dismiss the rape charges out of hand as obvious ploys by the US to get their hands on one guy! > [@](#): > > What I don’t get is how this board was all split down the middle about (even leaning favorable towards) Manning but bought all the bullshit about Assange. It’s the same exact issue. The people that tortured Manning (sleep deprivation is a torture technique) are going after Assange. Well, you have those who have a working Occam’s Razor and a decent bullshit detection kit, and those, such as yourself, who go by gut feelings and connect the dot sooper sloooothing techniques. > [@](#): > > If they actually did care about the charges, they could investigate him where he is. They refuse. When there’s a way to get your stated goal but you refuse to take it, the rational assumption is that your stated goal is not your entire goal. I don’t think that because the prosecutors in Swede want to interview him in Sweden because of crimes committed in Sweden and not in a situation where he isn’t even nominally in their control means they don’t ‘care about the charges’. > [@](#): > > Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it’s not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so. How would they convince a CTer such as yourself? What could or would they say that would convince you on this? They have both made public statements that they won’t extradite him to the US…the US has not asked for him to be extradited either. What more would convince you? Would anything? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/109 "2016-02-10T19:55:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > If they actually did care about the charges, they could investigate him where he is. They refuse. When there’s a way to get your stated goal but you refuse to take it, the rational assumption is that your stated goal is not your entire goal. It’s not so simple as you make it sound, and in fact they have not refused to explore that option. In fact, contrary to your statement, the Swedish authorities have been working towards that end for about two years, and recently reached an agreement with the Ecuadorians for the interview to occur in the Embassy. First, this is a formal stage in the Swedish criminal investigation system. If there is a deviation from the strict requirments of Swedish criminal procedure, would it taint the subsequent trial, if there is one? The Swedish prosecutors have to be able to come up with an interview process that can be done in the Embassy of a second country, on the territory of a third country, and be confident that the interview process will meet the requirements of Swedish criminal law and will be accepted by the Swedish courts. That is not something that can be easily done on the fly, any more than an American prosecutor could unilaterally change the rules for a grand jury to be held. Second, once the Swedish prosecutors have their ducks in a row for their law of criminal investigations, they run into another major legal issue: it’s a basic principle of state sovereignty that one state cannot exercise sovereign power on the territory of another state. Since an interview by Swedish prosecutors is an exercise of state sovereignty, they cannot do it on British territory without the permission of the British government. And, the British have to be assured by the Swedes that the way that the interview occurs on British territory is consistent with British law. A big question that occurs to me is whether this type of interview, under Nordic civil law, is consistent with the English right to remain silent, protected by English common law. Then, once the Swedes have satisfied the British that the interview can occur consistently with British law, they have to move on to the Ecuadorians. Since Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Swedish prosecutors cannot interview him without getting the consent of the Ecuadorian government. And just like the British, the Ecuadorians have to be satisfied that the Swedish interview process is consistent with Ecuadorian law and constitutional provisions. Then, once the Swedes have worked out all those arrangements in principle, they have to be approved by the British, Swedish and Ecuadorian governments, apparently at quite a high level, such as the Swedish Cabinet. If you had read the earlier parts of the thread, you would perhaps have noticed that the Swedish authorities have been working on this option for quite some time. The earliest article I have found is from 2014, indicating that they have been discussing it with the Ecuadorians. And they have recently announced an agreement that would allow the interview to occur in the Embassy: > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The Swedish authorities have been working on interviewing him in the Ecuador embassy, but there have been some legal hoops to go through, apparently because it is a major deviation from their normal criminal procedure. > > It involved getting the consent of the UK to conduct a Swedish legal investigation in the UK, then working out the terms with the Ecuadorian government, which then needed to be confirmed by the Swedish and Ecuadorian governments. Arrangements were finalized in December 2015 and January 2016: > > [Ecuador, Sweden break legal impasse over Assange questioning](http://www.dw.com/en/ecuador-sweden-break-legal-impasse-over-assange-questioning/a-18915497) > > [Julian Assange to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors in London](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/15/julian-assange-allowed-questioned-swedish-prosecutors-london) So now it looks like it’s up to Assange to agree to be interviewed, as the Swedish authorities have done all that work to make it so. > [@BigT](#): > > Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it’s not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so. What would you accept as proof that it’s not about wikilinks, when both the Swedish and the British governments have been in court in their respective countries, arguing in favour of the extradition under the ordinary law of the land, putting forward all the proof that they normally need to do to warrant extradition, and the courts, independent of the government of the day, have consistently ruled in their favour? What would convince you? ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/110 "2016-02-10T20:27:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > From there, the U.S. publicly will ask for extradition, Why didn’t the US ask for extradition when he was at large in the UK, not in an embassy? The UK is not exactly hostile to the US, after all. > [@](#): > > Both the UK and Sweden have had ample opportunity to convince the world that it’s not about Wikileaks. They have refused to do so. I don’t see that they have the opportunity to do so, as there are people who fervently believe that Assange is a saint, those sluts are filthy liars, and everything is some kind of plot in spite of the evidence to the contrary. What would they actually have to do to convince you that this is actually a criminal trial about someone committing sex crimes and not about wikileaks, for example? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/111 "2016-02-10T20:36:16Z")
As far as I can see, the argument that these women were US stooges is predominantly based upon questioning why else someone would ever have slept with him. If I were Assange, I don’t think I’d appreciate this defence. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/112 "2016-02-11T01:11:24Z")
> [@XT](#): > > He hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. I don’t have any idea of what you mean by ‘something that had already been dropped’. Are you claiming both women and the state has dropped charges and just brought them back up at the behest of the US?? I think **BigT** to the fact that the Swedish prosecutors issued an arrest warrant shortly after the complaint was lodged. They withdrew it the next day, with the prosecutor saying he didn’t think there was sufficient evidence of rape. The two complainants then filed an appeal to another office in the Swedish prosecutorial service, and a week after the first prosecutor dropped the warrant, the second prosecutor re-instituted it. Personally, I don’t put much weight on this, for two reasons: 1. When a criminal investigation is in the early stages, it can be very fluid, with some uncertainty at first about how serious it is. 2. The complainants apparently exercised a right under Swedish law to appeal the dropping of the warrant, and presumably were further interviewed as part of that process. That may have provided additional information. So it’s not a case that charges were dropped and then re-instituted months later; it was an arrest warrant, re-instituted just a week later, after the complainants spoke again to the prosecutorial service. In the early stages of a criminal investigation, that doesn’t strike me as unusual. My personal reaction is that this ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/113 "2016-02-28T05:15:59Z")
An update: [Julian Assange: Swedish court asked to overturn arrest warrant after UN finding](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/22/julian-assange-swedish-court-asked-overturn-arrest-warrant-un-finding) > [@](#): > > Lawyers for Julian Assange have asked a Swedish court to overturn an arrest warrant for the WikiLeaks founder after a UN panel decided that his stay in Ecuador’s London embassy amounted to arbitrary detention. > … > “We consider that there have arisen a number of new circumstances which mean there is reason to review the earlier decision,” Thomas Olsson, one of Assange’s lawyers, said on Monday. > … > The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, said the UN working group on arbitrary detention’s non-binding finding had no impact on the case. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/114 "2016-02-29T16:25:07Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > An update: [Julian Assange: Swedish court asked to overturn arrest warrant after UN finding](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/22/julian-assange-swedish-court-asked-overturn-arrest-warrant-un-finding) Assange only has five more years (Sweden’s statute of limitations) of Ecuadorian hospitality and then he can then go back to allegedly molesting women. No means NO Assange! ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/115 "2016-02-29T16:44:43Z")
Wow, lot of Assange hate here. I don’t believe that it’s coincidental that these charges sprang into existence at a time when the US were after Assange’s blood. Frankly I don’t care what sort of asshat the guy is. I can’t and won’t forget the service he’s done us all by exposing government chicaneries. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/116 "2016-02-29T17:14:49Z")
Why can’t someone do us a service exposing government consipiracies and also sexually assault women? Bill Cosby had a 50 year entertainment career, he also sexually assaulted women. The comedy doesn’t negate the assault and the assault doesn’t negate the comedy. Of course I’m not saying that Assange is factually guilty, I have absolutely no way of determining that. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. The fact that he exposed government secrets that needed to be exposed has no bearing on that. People who do the sorts of things Assange does usually aren’t super-pleasant people to be around. They fight their fights not because they’re plaster saints, but because they’re pricks who get an ego boost by sticking it to the powers that be. Again, being a miserable prick doesn’t make someone wrong or right. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/117 "2016-02-29T17:26:36Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Why can’t someone do us a service exposing government consipiracies and also sexually assault women? Bill Cosby had a 50 year entertainment career, he also sexually assaulted women. The comedy doesn’t negate the assault and the assault doesn’t negate the comedy. > > Of course I’m not saying that Assange is factually guilty, I have absolutely no way of determining that. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. The fact that he exposed government secrets that needed to be exposed has no bearing on that. People who do the sorts of things Assange does usually aren’t super-pleasant people to be around. They fight their fights not because they’re plaster saints, but because they’re pricks who get an ego boost by sticking it to the powers that be. Again, being a miserable prick doesn’t make someone wrong or right. Unfortunately, it seems that most of Assange’s supporters do think Assange should get a pass because he’s the Wikileaks guy. In others words, laws should always be enforced, unless you’re trying to enforce them against someone I like. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/118 "2016-02-29T21:04:33Z")
Seems like in 5 years somebody could have shown up at the embassy (or made a simple phone call) to ask him the questions they want to ask him. He’s not wanted for questioning, they want him in their custody. And if they want me to take any of this seriously, they can charge him with a crime first. Until then he’s just a political refugee and I don’t think he needs to be locked up in Guantanamo, or the UK or Sweden’s equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/119 "2016-02-29T21:07:46Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > And if they want me to take any of this seriously, they can charge him with a crime first. Haven’t read this thread (and its summary of Swedish criminal procedure), eh? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210/120 "2016-02-29T21:19:56Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Seems like in 5 years somebody could have shown up at the embassy (or made a simple phone call) to ask him the questions they want to ask him. He’s not wanted for questioning, they want him in their custody. And if they want me to take any of this seriously, they can charge him with a crime first. > > Until then he’s just a political refugee and I don’t think he needs to be locked up in Guantanamo, or the UK or Sweden’s equivalent. This is an international criminal situation. International laws apply. Those take time settle. Lots of time. There are two women in Sweden who expect justice for what is a criminal matter. Assange, and Assange supports, believe Assange should be immune from criminal charges because he’s Assange. Sweden and Britain disagree with that assessment. I don’t believe anyone expects you to take any of this thread seriously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-assange-remember-him-update/745210.md?page=7)