Whether or not Assange is guilty, the Swedish legal system has some questions to answer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

As far as I can see, the Swedes were not pressing for Assange's extradition until the wikileaks release; immediately after it, they began to do so.

Now, it's by no means impossible that this is a coincidence*, but the timing is such to at least raise questions.

Now, I don't know whether a) Assange is guilty or innocent (I have nothing but contempt for those who've been blackening the names of his accusers and assuming he didn't do it without full knowledge of the facts) or b) what evidence the Swedes have to that effect.

But the timing is such as to make it look not unlikely that the wikileaks release was a factor in their decision to press for extradition.

And if that was the case, then even if he's as guilty as sin and they have proof positive of that, or even if he's completely innocent and they don't have a shred of evidence, or anything in between, they've been doing *something* wrong - not proceding when they should have or proceding when they shouldn't are both bad, as is allowing a political concern to influence decision making.








*This disclaimer is not just empty words - I genuinely think it's not all *that* unlikely that the prosecutors did just change their minds for other reasons.

[FreakinDJ]

1. I don't have contemp for those releasing the 1 name

I feel the evidence towards CIA connections is quite strong, mostly from her own statements which she choose to put in print for all to see.

[Arctic Dave]

2. How about change the title to

"Assange is innocent until proven guilty. However, they Swedes have some explaining to do".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Innocent until proven guilty is a maxim for the courts, not for general usage.

The legal system should treat someone as innocent until/unless proven guilty. The rest of us shouldn't, necessarily - that's the safe side to err on, but it's by no means an absolute.

If I think someone is guilty of a crime then I will, and should, treat them as such to the extent permitted by law, in my private capacity. However, if I'm an official of the law then even if I know damn well that someone did it then I should treat them as innocent until/unless they get convicted.

In Assange's case, "innocent until proven guilty" isn't really the issue, though - the case isn't yet at the trial stage, the Swedes are still trying to get him to come to trial - and there obviously is not a right not to be arrested and tried without having been convicted, just to be released if you're acquitted.

[Luminous Animal]

5. The Swedes are not trying to get him to come to trial. He's not even yet been formally charged

of any crime. The Swedes want him for questioning only.

[bemildred]

3. Well, the Borgstrom guy does appear to be a real piece of work.

If you know what I mean, so I think it is possible that he is just thrashing around on his own, in pursuit of attention, or wrapped up in his own issues, exploiting and augmenting the already existing media circus.

[TorchTheWitch]

6. they've been answered

Not hard to find either.