The point from all this is (if you bother to read it), the likes of David Allen Green have outspoken views on the fact that Assange should be prosecuted in Sweden. This, in the eyes of many makes them defenders of the alleged victims in the case. However David constantly fails to take any account of the complete failure of the Swedish police and media to follow due process in the prosecution.
In summary, he isn't arguing in the interests of providing the best case for possible prosecution and the defence of alleged sexual assault victim's rights. He is arguing solely for the prosecution of Assange, with acute interest to detail of due process on the defence side, and complete disregard for due process on the side of the prosecution.
Knowing that and reading the below, can you honestly find David Allen Green an unbiased and well informed commentator on the case against Assange? Can you honestly say he is acting in the defence of the alleged victims? I can't. I find him unable to answer simple questions, evasive and resorting to producing an argument entirely unrelated to the state of the Swedish prosecution to defend his lack of ability to explain himself.
For the sake of it, David's sole defence is that Assange's lawyer misled the court by claiming Assange made himself available for further interview before leaving Sweden. You might be stunned to find the main references to this go back to an article written by David Allen Green. Point one. It's clearly stated in other accounts that Assange did offer to attend interviews and was refused by Sweden. David describes this as a "scathing comment" on Assange's lawyer. In fact it appears no more than a simply stated finding that the magistrate in this case found the Swedish prosecution had made attempts to interview Assange. Yes they did. They also refused to accept the times that Assange could make himself available. So who's the winner on that point? The point all of David's defence of his position rests... Is tenacious at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment