Forum menu
What? The reason for bringing the person to trial is not important....you sure?
The reason is important, but it is also exceedingly simple -- he has been accused of breaking the law. It is up to the court to decide whether than accusation is valid. If it is not valid, that fact will come out very quickly.
Why discuss the mechanism rather than the details of the case?
There are a couple reasons for that.
[list]
[*]The details of the case, for now, are just a lot of spin. Even though I have no idea what they are, it's inevitable in a case of this profile. You won't know what the facts of the matter are until they come out formally in court, and that's the irony, since you use spun 'facts' to argue against finding out what the real facts are.[/*]
[*]By taking issue with this particular case, you and millions of other people are implying that the way we administer justice is flawed. Although there is no doubt that this is to some degree true, to argue this based on information which is incomplete and no doubt skewed is dangerous. And THIS issue is both more important and more interesting than the details.[/*][/list]
If the Swedish prosecutors let themselves be bullied into [s]dropping[/s] prosecuting a [s]viable[/s] pointless case, it would be a failure of justice, and shame on them.Surely both of these statements are true and the only way to decide whihc is happening is to discuss the reason not just say the system is better than Trial by Ordeal?
You don't really know what the reason is, so you're discussing nothing. If you would let the case run its course, the real facts would come out, and only at that point, having all information, will it be appropriate to discuss whether this case was a politically motivated sham or not.
It offends me that, given that one of the two main purposes of the justice system is to find the TRUTH about an event, people are against using it on the basis of the mistaken notion that they already know the truth because they read a newspaper. They don't. You don't.
It's dangerous.
Your argument is that Assange has been tried in the court of public opinion, found innocent, so we don't need to go to a real court in this case.
Is next week going to be TheyEye has been tried in the court of public opinion, found guilty, so we don't need to go a real court in this case?
Screw that.
Once again, for the hard of thinking--
You: "let's not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is"
Me: "the hell you do!"
am sure you can think of other examples of abuse of power if you try really hard I assume in [b]other non third world countries[/b] - do only they have "bad" justice?
Ermmm, UK anyone
In the words of the (banned) song...
There were six men in Birmingham
In Guildford there's four
That were picked up and tortured
And framed by the law
And the filth got promotion
But they're still doing time
For being Irish in the wrong place
And at the wrong time
In Ireland they'll put you away in the Maze
In England they'll keep you for [s]seven [/s] [b]twenty eight[/b] long days
God help you if ever you're caught on these shores
The coppers need someone
And they walk through that door
No leaks on US - Israeli relations...
... as said, probably because of higher internal security classification...
.
.
.
.
.
.
but Mossad are likely more effective / less restrained than the CIA????
Words of banned song should read
'We got the wrong people but the murderers still walk free'? 🙄
[EDIT] the alleged murderers become politicians [/EDIT]
Once again, for the hard of thinking--
You: "let's not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is"
Me: "the hell you do!"
Not really - it's more like "we already have some cause to doubt that the truth will emerge and be acted upon, so we feel uncomfortable gambling someone's freedom on the chance that we are wrong"
Words of banned song should read'We got the wrong people but the murderers still walk free'?
Quite right - but that is the often overlooked element of mis-carriage of justice, surely?
Apply political pressure - whether it be direct, or just indirect pressure on the Police [b]*[/b] to get results, and the whole thing is liable to go tits up.
There were a string of faulty convictions in the UK through the 70s and 80s (and not just terrorist / politcally sensitive ones) - but I well remember the Gov't of the day being arrogant, condescending and patronising regarding those cases - a question of [i]"who on eartth should question or criticise our system of justice..."[/i]
Shedding light on the politically murky can only be a good thing
ETA - [b]* [/b] or insert "Swedish prosecutor"
JA says he's scared about going to Sweden. Fair enough, but until he faces this complaint, he's not going to be able to clear his name which will hobble his ability to operate Wikileaks.
I guess what he is hoping is that he can undertake the discussion with the Swedes while in the UK. It should become clear, again, then that there is no prosecution because there has been no crime.
I am puzzled by JA's obvious cagyness over the two women - something went on that he is hiding. But what?
Clearly you can wrongly accuse someone of a crime and try them if you dont want to look at the claim to see if it has any merit [whilst deciding to let "justice be seen to be done" then that is your choice.
Your argument is that Assange has been tried in the court of public opinion, found innocent, so we don't need to go to a real court in this case.
i can articulate my own argument thank you.
NO this is not my case at all i cant say more as It would require you reading about the claim and you refuse.
Once again, for the hard of thinking--
You: "let's not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is"
Me: "the hell you do!"
you seem bright and articulate but disagreeing with your view does not make someone hard of thinking.
you say I dont want to find the truth when you dont know any details of the charge and refuise to think for yourself on this issue such rich irony whilst you accuse me of being hard of thinking
Yor points are valid if the charge s had any weoght as they have very little weight indeed it is is not that relevant
rkk01 - agreed. There was some pretty shoddy convictions which ultimately played into the hands of terrorists rather than convicting the right people. So much for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
Assange - surely a video link from London to a Swedish court would be cheaper, more cost effective and better all round; or is that too dangerous a precedent?