In England its literally Rule 1.1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.
Eh? That’s not what it says at all. To quote directly:
Sure, it’s not just a semantic difference between “do whatever is necessary to convict!” and “give a detailed and reasonable analysis of the reasons to prosecute, based on the merit of the evidence in the case at hand.”
But once a Prosecutor has looked at the evidence, determined which crimes seem reasonable to prosecute, and what the sentencing guidelines are for that, it’s not unreasonable to say, “Here’s what we’re planning to prosecute, and here’s what we’re trying to convince the court is the correct sentence for those crimes.”
Sure, but that’s a case-by-case approach, based on the prosecutor’s overall assessment of the facts and the law.
That’s quite different from representatives of the Prime Minister saying that the goal is to convict two people, and that little things like a lack of evidence shouldn’t allow someone to walk free.
Why wouldn’t they extradite him to Sweden instead? It’s that extradition request that led Assange to flee to the Ecuadorian embassy. If Trump gets him and pardons him, I’m sure that Sweden would request his extradition from the US, and it would look pretty bad for Trump, who breaks up families of asylum seekers because he says their rapists, to grant asylum to an actual person fleeing rape charges. (not that these sorts of contradictions stopped him before.)
Sweden dropped the investigation last year is why.
Based on a more recent Lawfare post, it seems that the US doesn’t actually have any criminal charge assigned to Assange, and potentially he’s saved from anything by First Amendment laws, so the whole question may be irrelevant. There are some options to try and get him, but none is a slam dunk and there’s no knowing whether we’ll actually try to charge him at the moment.
Only because the suspect was no longer available for questioning. Swedish law permits the investigation to be reopened once Assange becomes available (i.e., extraditable).
Quite. The whole palaver over the possibility of his being extradited to the US has only ever come from his own imagination, AFAIK.
Bumped.
Assange is now officially the worst. houseguest. EVER: Julian Assange sues Ecuador for 'violating his rights' | CNN
My favorite part:
So is the cat pooping on the carpets?
He has to empty his cat’s litter boxes?!?
Just one more example of man’s inhumanity to man.
Benjamin Franklin: "Fish and houseguests begin to stink after [del]three days[/del] [del]three weeks[/del] [del]three years?!?[/del] pray God, make it stop !!!
I’m a cat fancier and I’d enjoy a London vacation. How about I replace the nutter for a couple of weeks.
I think we’d all enjoy a chat with him. I say Muffin goes in and Assange comes out.
Actually, it would be an Ecuadorian Embassy vacation. I think you would exhaust the sight-seeing possibilities in a few hours.
I wonder if London is now considered a hardship posting by the Ecuadorian Foreign Service?
I’ll go. I could use some “me” time.
I’m not entirely sure why, but it surprises me that Baltasar Garzón (judge of the Spanish Court that indicted Pinochet), is representing Assange. I would think he’d have better things to do with his time.
Granted, genuine issues of asylum are involved, the cat notwithstanding. Under international law, asylum claimants must have freedom of speech.
When I’m in charge of a group, I figure I should do the stuff no one else wants to do.
The cat is probably peeing on the carpet. How does a guy hiding out in an embassy acquire a cat? :dubious: