Skip to main content

View Diary: Assange Just Wants To Clear His Name In Sweden! (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, a prosecuting attorney is now a (0+ / 0-)

    "judicial authority".

    and a claim of "rape" for which there is absolutely no precedent whatsoever in the entire history of the UK is now "rape" under UK law.

    It's fun how both those things work (when the accused person's name is Julian Assange).

    But whatever LibDem. Get back to dismantling the NHS and concocting justifications for more "regime change" adventures in the Middle East for your Tory bosses. For the time you spend here trying to ruin Assange's life you could be ruining so many more closer to home.

    •  Are you being serious? (0+ / 0-)

      If you don't think the prosecutor's office is the body empowered with deciding to file criminal charges, who on earth do you think is?  The Justice League?

      Please defend your "absolutely no precedent whatsoever" claim.  The law is 100% unambiguous and two British courts came to the same conclusion.

      •  "unambiguous" (0+ / 0-)

        then show a precedent in the UK.

        You can't.

        And you won't.

        There is NO precedent in UK history for a "crime" like those claimed here.

        None. Zero. Nada. Ever, in the history of the world.

        That is why the bald, baseless assertions of "two British courts" look like the ridiculous, biased stitch-ups that they are.

        As always, you are a despicable, disgusting person.

        •  My god, do you need cliffs notes on this one? (0+ / 0-)

          Prosecutor:  

          As an elected or appointed official, the prosecutor is the most powerful official in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors exercise unfettered discretion, deciding who to charge with a crime, what charges to file, when to drop the charges, whether or not to plea bargain, and how to allocate prosecutorial resources. In jurisdictions where the death penalty is in force, the prosecutor literally decides who should live and who should die by virtue of the charging decision.
          It is the job of the prosecutor's office to file charges.  That's what the office is there for.  

          And I already showed  you the law in the UK, which is 100% unambiguous.  A Sleeping Person Cannot Consent In The UK, Period.  Nor in pretty much any other first-world nation.  Even without access to a case law database,  I also showed you a wide range of cases on the topic of consent, including a much more extreme one in Canada where the subject consented to be strangled during sex, passed out, came to, and explicitly re-consented to continuing the sex, but the couple minutes where she was out was declared to be rape.

          You're just ignoring that because you can't accept the fact.  Because to you, it's clearly a-okay to fuck a sleeping person.  And anyone who believes that, I hope they die of a horrible, painful chronic illness.

      •  A judge of course (0+ / 0-)

        "If you don't think the prosecutor's office is the body empowered with deciding to file criminal charges, who on earth do you think is?  The Justice League?"

        Very dishonest statement, as usual. We're talking about issuing a warrant. The body empowered to do this is of course the JUDICIARY.

        The "prosecutor's office" is a biased interested-party aligned by definition to one side of the case. That is why prosecuting attorneys in any legitimate legal system don't decide when and how warrants can be issued, and a body that is supposed to be impartial like a judge (a JUDICIAL AUTHORITY) is supposed to do that.

        I shouldn't be surprised that you have no clue about even the basic principles of elementary justice. Liars who worship injustice usually don't.

        •  The warrant was issued after the Svea court. (0+ / 0-)

          Oh, wait, you didn't realize that there was also a court hearing in Sweden?

          Any way, the implementation of the EAW empowers each state to declare which office is a "judicial authority" for the purpose of granting warrants.  And in Sweden, that is the prosecutor's office.  This is hardly the first case, nor the first country, to have someone other than a judge be declared to be an EAW judicial authorty.  Which you would know had you - after all of this time pontificating in these threads - actually read the damn rulings.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (165)
  • Community (76)
  • 2016 (49)
  • Environment (48)
  • Elections (46)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Culture (41)
  • Republicans (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Media (33)
  • Education (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (29)
  • Labor (28)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Law (25)
  • Congress (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Spam (24)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site