Re: @Malcolm Weir
"I think you're confusing the resolution of an armed conflict in which a compromise was made towards political prisoners (yes, I know you probably don't classify them as political prisoners, just like I don't, but that was the status they claimed), with common and garden law breaking, as is the case with Mr Assange."
And I think you're really clutching at straws here. All those found guilty in Northern Ireland were found guilty of civilian offences in a civilian court of law. They were never treated as soldiers (indeed, they couldn't have been prosecuted if they were in most cases), so they are no more a special case than Assange. Anyone could claim political status and Assange has quite a good case for arguing that (and he already sort of has), but that doesn't mean they should be treated as such.
"What that 'compromise' has to do with the Swedish Government I don't understand, unless you believe that the Government of Sweden has to offer such compromises just because the government of a.n other country has done so in the past, even if the circumstances of the crimes in that case are/were different from the one the Swedish Government is having to deal with."
Simple. People are commenting that compromise agreements either weren't done or weren't possible. I simply quoted one such agreement, but in reality, they are commonplace. Plea bargaining is effectively a compromise agreement and is a case of non-judicial people effectively overriding the judicial process. So, as in other cases, I am merely correcting other peoples factual errors. As they were saying Assange shouldn't treated specially or compromised with as nobody else was, I have shown that the precedent already exists and is actually in pretty widespread use.
"As far as I can see what Mr Assange is accused of is common or garden rapes allegation, of the kind dealt with by many law enforecment agencies in many countries."
Just like in Northern Ireland, they were accused of common or garden murder etc. So, no difference there then. In fact, anyone who believes Northern ireland has been a political issue for decades has never understood it. For a long time now, it has really been about criminal gangs going around protecting their 'turf' and making a huge amount of money in the process. The true 'causes' of the troubles have been lost for decades. It's about big criminal business.
"No civilised nation has politicians interfering in due process of such allegations, yet so many of you all seem to think Mr Assange should be a special case, and that politicians should be interfering in the due process surrounding the allegations made against him."
No,I have given cases of politicians interfering in due process on quite a large scale. I have never said that Assange should be a special case, simply that he could be and that far from setting a precedent, the precedent has been set for many years and is actually quite commonplace.
"How far are you willing to extend this ideal of allowing politicians to get involved in due process of criminal allegations?"
I would rather they didn't, but bearing in mind they do, why shouldn't Assange be treated as a special case like other people? After all, if murders in Northern Ireland can be treated as a special case, why shouldn't someone being pursued for a minor rape (as Sweden see's it and as they've stated themselves...not my words) also get special treatment? Is it only really heinous crimes that deserve special treatment?
"How about domestic cases, would you accept politicians interfering in say something like a murder enquiry? Offering guarantees to people that if they co-operate with the police the politicians will protect their arses from any legal proceedings about "those other matters"? How does that sound? Reasonable?"
I would rather it didn't happen, but it happens in this country all the time. It's called plea bargaining. If you plead guilty to one charge, others are forgotton about etc. It's even more common in the US. Getting shorter sentence for pleading guilty early (and avoiding the cost of a full trial) is another example. Admitting additional crimes voluntarily and getting a discount is another. They're all political interference in the administration of justice, normally and often for cost saving reasons!!
"And lets not bother pissing around with plea bargining comparisons made between alleged criminals and the criminal justice systems of various countries... those are deals stuck and agreed by the prosecuting authorities. Lets just stick to discussing the idea of politicians striking deals with alleged criminals offering to excuse other criminal proceedings."
Again, a lamentable lack of knowledge. Prosecutors in the US are often voted into position (at least the top ones) and are effectively political positions. In the UK, prosecutors are employed by the CPS, which is a department of the government and therefore is totally political. In fact, the whole department reports to the Attorney General and guess who employs and selects him.........the government and politicians!! So, all the people and groups you've mentioned are all political and therefore deals struck with them are political interference!!
I think I've proven my point beyond question. There is established precedent for everything I've said. I've never said Assange should or should not be offered guarantees or deals or whatever, but people talking about judicial independence and compromises never occurring and guarantees never happening etc.etc. are just totally and utterly wrong. They happen all the time. So, if they're good for some, why not him? And they're not all done for lofty aspirations, such as stopping the fighting in Northern Ireland. A load of them are for simple cost cutting reasons, such as plea bargaining etc.etc.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
