The Wrong Argument ( Joseph Gibbons | The Yorker)

[struggle4progress]

Joseph Gibbons
August 23rd, 2012

... In insisting that the charges against Assange are politically motivated, Assange’s supporters are accusing the two Swedish women of lying, ostensibly at the behest of the US or Swedish government (not that there is any evidence of this). The argument then goes that, because of the political motives behind the accusations, Assange should not be extradited to Sweden to face investigation and possible trial over the issue. The problem is that this argument against extradition completely misunderstands criminal proceedings and does not justify obstructing the justice system of stable democracy dedicated to human rights.

Claims of a crime, especially a crime such as rape, have to be taken seriously regardless of a possible motive behind the accusation: just because there is a motive, that doesn’t mean the claim isn’t true. It is not up to Assange’s supporters or opponents to decide whether the claims are true or whether they constitute rape; that is the responsibility of a court in full possession of the facts of the case. Claims of a crime have to be properly investigated to decide the truthfulness of the claim and if the claim proves to be frivolous the claimant is generally punished for something like wasting police time. This is how the justice system works. If we decide that we can only investigate crimes when the accuser has no possible motive, we would shut down thousands of perfectly legitimate criminal cases because most accusations have an outside motive, such as revenge, compensation or simply ‘seeing justice done’. ‘You’re only accusing me to get monetary compensation’ is not an excuse that can shut down a hit-and-run case just as ‘you’re only accusing me because you’re complicit in the continuation of the USA’s global hegemony’ is not an excuse that can shut down a rape case.

There is no justifiable argument that Assange should not face Swedish questioning and potentially trial simply due to the potential motives of his accusers. The justifiable argument against his extradition would be that the Swedish justice system is too weak to prevent US manipulation to further extradite him to the US on some kind of espionage charge (again, not that there’s any evidence of this). This is also something that Assange hasn’t talked about. He’s very certain that it would happen, but not apparently on how it would happen.

If the US wanted to get hold of Assange from Sweden they would have to extradite him, the same process that has taken Sweden almost 2 years to get him from the UK. So would the US be able to extradite Assange from Sweden for espionage or threatening national security (or whatever he would be charged with, no one seems to be sure)? Actually no ...

http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/uk/12219

[OnyxCollie]

1. Obsess much?

[struggle4progress]

2. "... The first time I met Assange, he was convinced a sniper was targeting him through the windows

of a conference centre. A few hours later, he was happily typing in front of the same windows. I asked why he believed he was a target. "I can't tell you," he said. Then, five minutes later, he did ..."

Who is Julian Assange? By the people who know him best
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/who-is-julian-assange?newsfeed=true
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101639926