Luckily, criminals (and innocents) don't get to dictate the process and legal rules of criminal investigations (and extraditions).
We call it rule of law. You may have heard of it.
back
1 comments
I'd suggest against using the word "lucky" to describe any situation in which innocent people can be forcibly extradited for "questioning" despite volunteering to be questioned locally, over the telephone/Internet, or even agreeing to traveling abroad if given a guarantee they won't be packed up and shipped to a third-country with a history of extrajudicial torture.
Your insistence that this case is following "the process and legal rules of criminal investigations" is laughable and only shows you know next to nothing about how said rules are usually interpreted and applied.
It's easy to gin up outrage by trying to reframe basic mechanisms of the justice systems of pretty much every modern country as abnormal or abusive. For instance, the notion that you can be extradited to face charges seems banal, until you introduce the notion that someone might want to "face their charges" in a totally different country over video link.
Fact check: Assange does not face charges.
No, he doesn't, because under Swedish law he can't be indicted until he's confronted by prosecutors.
I do not see where I actually commented on the merits of the case or the extradition request. Maybe you can enlighten all of us?