Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[theprestige]

No.
My argument is that in one case the "much less evil" criminal is being (will be?) extradited and in the other the "much more evil" criminal has not been extradited.
Why?

Probably because the laws governing extradition don't use "relative evil" as a standard.

The laws governing extraditions in the UK should be the valid in both cases.

Of course. Now all you have to do is show that both cases meet the extradition requirements governed by those laws. Do you know what those requirements are?

And why the same law did not apply for Pinochet?

Probably because the people demanding his extradition couldn't meet the legal requirements. Do you know what those requirements are?

I am not saying that the law does not apply in Assange case.
If the law applies in Assange` case, why it did not apply in Pinochet` s case?

Probably because the people demanding Pinochet's extradition couldn't meet the legal requirements. Do you know what the legal requirements for extradition are? Do you know if they were met in Pinochet's case?

They are both extraditions cases under the UK law system
Why the law applies in one case and not in the other?

Do you know what the legal requirements for extradition are? Do you know if they were met in Pinochet's case?

As it is the same country, the UK, is willing to extradite Assange because he was involved in some "I did not put the condom on and being rude with women, etc." but not willing to extradite Pinochet for much wore crimes.
If the law was correctly applied in Assange case, then they should have extradited Pinochet the very same day Argentina asked for it.

Do you know what the legal requirements for extradition are? Do you know if they were met in Pinochet's case?

It seems to me so evident.

Since you obviously have no idea what the legal requirements for extradition are, and you have no idea if the requirements were met in Pinochet's case, what seems evident to you doesn't really matter.

Nobody, except maybe some fanatical supporter of the US, will not be able to understand that the underlying problem is just that he was involved in Wikileaks and the US just want to punish him as an example for everyone not to disclose secret documents anymore, same they are doing with Bradley Manning.

I bet you can't support this claim without being entirely circular: "We know the rape case is bogus because we know the US is persecuting Assange, and we know the US is persecuting Assange because we know the rape case is bogus."

Motive and opportunity aren't evidence of a crime. You have to show a crime actually happened, first, with evidence, before you can start talking about the motives and opportunities of the alleged criminal.

In this case, you've guessed at a motive for the US, and I'm sure you've imagined all sorts of opportunities, but you have no evidence at all.

You think "Pinochet" is your evidence, but it's really just your ignorance.

 

[John Mekki]

Probably because the laws governing extradition don't use "relative evil" as a standard.

I absolutely agree.
Apparently, the "evilness" of your actions is a thing that does not come into play when deciding if someone should or should not be extradited.

Do you know what those requirements are?

Being a dictator that killed thousands is apparently not one of them

I bet you can't support this claim without being entirely circular: "We know the rape case is bogus because we know the US is persecuting Assange, and we know the US is persecuting Assange because we know the rape case is bogus."

I did not say that the rape case is bogus

Motive and opportunity aren't evidence of a crime. You have to show a crime actually happened, first, with evidence, before you can start talking about the motives and opportunities of the alleged criminal.

The fact that there were thousands of families crying for their desaparecidos is not evidence enough?

You think "Pinochet" is your evidence, but it's really just your ignorance.

Then please explain the UK was not willing to extradite Pinochet while is willing to extradite Assange.
If you know of any valid reason please explain.

 

[The Big Dog]

I
Then please explain the UK was not willing to extradite Pinochet while is willing to extradite Assange.
If you know of any valid reason please explain.

I'm thinking, confidentially of course, that the UK KNOWS that they really screwed the pooch in not extraditing Pinochet, so the very next time someone asked the UK to extradte someone, they were all like:

"Whoa, lets slap that ********** on the plane toot sweet!"

I mean because the UK has only obviously dealt with extraditing two guys ever, right?

Thanks, great logic puzzle, bro.

 

[theprestige]

I absolutely agree.
Apparently, the "evilness" of your actions is a thing that does not come into play when deciding if someone should or should not be extradited.

Apparently not. In Assange's case, for example, it was the lawfulness of his actions that came into play. Actual evidence was presented, actual legal arguments were made, the actual law in question was reviewed, and a legal conclusion was reached about these things. This has been discussed at length and repeatedly in this thread.

Being a dictator that killed thousands is apparently not one of them

Not that you would know one way or the other, right? Instead of actually looking at the legal requirements and seeing if they were met, you're appealing to emotion and hoping I'll fall for it.

I did not say that the rape case is bogus

That's a relief. The validity of the rape case has been discussed at length and repeatedly in this thread. The UK's extradition of Assange, and Sweden's prosecution of him for rape are substantially justified in fact and law. It's good to hear you're not disputing any of that.

The fact that there were thousands of families crying for their desaparecidos is not evidence enough?

It's probably more than enough, if extraditions were decided based on appeals to emotion. It's obvious you want that to be the basis for extraditions, because that 's the only way you can bring Pinochet in as support for your conspiracy theory.

Then please explain the UK was not willing to extradite Pinochet while is willing to extradite Assange.
If you know of any valid reason please explain.

Pinochet isn't my problem, he's yours. The legal justification for extraditing Assange to Sweden and trying him there is well established, and you don't dispute it.

If you want to bring in Pinochet as a counter-example, it's up to you to show that his case has a similar legal basis, and is suitable for comparison. Until you do, there's no reason to consider him in connection with the Assange case.

 

[theprestige]

I'm thinking, confidentially of course, that the UK KNOWS that they really screwed the pooch in not extraditing Pinochet, so the very next time someone asked the UK to extradte someone, they were all like:

"Whoa, lets slap that ********** on the plane toot sweet!"

I mean because the UK has only obviously dealt with extraditing two guys ever, right?

Thanks, great logic puzzle, bro.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/extradition-review?view=Binary

Logical page 462 of that document lists the arrests and surrenders by the UK, under the EAW, from 2004 to the first half of 2011 (when the report was written).

4325 arrests.

3107 surrenders.

John Mekki, would you like to apply your Pinochet Test to some of those extraditions? I mean, that's over three thousand people the UK has extradited just since 2004! But they didn't extradite Pinochet!

Great buffoonery brings to mind the famous words of a great buffoon: "You can't explain that."

But I can: The US isn't persecuting Assange. Instead, Sweden has a legal case to prosecute against him, and the UK has a legal basis for extraditing him to Sweden.

 

[John Mekki]

Apparently not. In Assange's case, for example, it was the lawfulness of his actions that came into play.

While it is “lawful” to kill or order to kill thousands of people?

Not that you would know one way or the other, right? Instead of actually looking at the legal requirements and seeing if they were met, you're appealing to emotion and hoping I'll fall for it.

So having thousands of people killed is just “emotion”?
Nothing to do with human rights, law and such things?
I fail to see where you are heading to..

That's a relief. The validity of the rape case has been discussed at length and repeatedly in this thread. The UK's extradition of Assange, and Sweden's prosecution of him for rape are substantially justified in fact and law. It's good to hear you're not disputing any of that.

I did not say that I did not dispute either.
I am saying that it is not the point I am talking about.

It's probably more than enough, if extraditions were decided based on appeals to emotion. It's obvious you want that to be the basis for extraditions, because that 's the only way you can bring Pinochet in as support for your conspiracy theory.

So killing thousands of people has nothing to do with law and human rights, just with “emotion”?

Pinochet isn't my problem, he's yours. The legal justification for extraditing Assange to Sweden and trying him there is well established, and you don't dispute it.

If you want to bring in Pinochet as a counter-example, it's up to you to show that his case has a similar legal basis, and is suitable for comparison. Until you do, there's no reason to consider him in connection with the Assange case.

Pinochet is the point of the discussion I am making.
He was not extradited by the same country that now tries to extradite Assange in all ways.
Why such a difference in treatment by the UK Government?

 

[theprestige]

While it is “lawful” to kill or order to kill thousands of people?

You tell me: Under what law did Spain request Pinochet's extradition? Did Spain meet the UK's legal requirements for extradition?

So having thousands of people killed is just “emotion”?

The way you're using it, yes.

Nothing to do with human rights, law and such things?
I fail to see where you are heading to..

How about just paying attention to where I am?

I've been telling you that the difference between the treatment of Assange and the treatment of Pinochet is probably in the law: What were the legal requirements for extraditing Assange to Sweden? Did Sweden meet those requirements? We already have a pretty good idea of the answers to those questions.

What were the legal requirements for extraditing Pinochet to Spain? Did Spain meet those requirements? If you want us to consider Pinochet's case, you'll need to answer those questions.

I did not say that I did not dispute either.
I am saying that it is not the point I am talking about.

Seems to me you're not talking about the legal case against Assange because it doesn't support your conspiracy theory. The point you're talking about is a bogus point. You should probably either shore it up with actual research and evidence, or move on to disputing the legalities of the Assange case.

So killing thousands of people has nothing to do with law and human rights, just with “emotion”?

The way you're using it, yes. You want it to be about the law, make it about the law. That's all I ask.

Under what law did Spain request the extradition of Pinochet. Did Spain's request meet the UK's legal requirements for extradition?

Pinochet is the point of the discussion I am making.
He was not extradited by the same country that now tries to extradite Assange in all ways.
Why such a difference in treatment by the UK Government?

Probably because of the laws governing extradition.

Under what law did Spain request the extradition of Pinochet? Did Spain meet the UK's legal requirements for extradition?

And, again, here's a UK government report on extradition policy and practice in that country:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...ew?view=Binary

The UK has extradited over 3,000 people since 2004, when their extradition laws changed. So you're wrong to say that Pinochet and Assange are under the same law. They're not. They're also not under the same government. You're trying to ignore all the different factors between the two cases, so that you can pretend they're identical except for your conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, the UK has extradited over 3,000 people in the last 8 years. I think it would make more sense for you to compare Assange's case to those cases (which do actually fall under the same law, unlike Pinochet's case).

Other people have previously shown in this thread that Assange's case is being handled in a way that is pretty usual for sex crimes cases under the EAW agreement. The only irregularities have been introduced by Assange for his own benefit.

The UK has extradited 3,000 people in the past 8 years, but Assange's case is unusual because Pinochet was not extradited under old laws before the EAW went into effect?

 

[John Mekki]

You tell me: Under what law did Spain request Pinochet's extradition? Did Spain meet the UK's legal requirements for extradition?

So, your point is that extradition application procedures are more important than thousands of people killed?
Saddam Hussein` s slaughter of the Kurds was perfectly right under the Iraqi laws (hey, he was the President of Iraq and he made the laws).
Does this “it is according to the law” principle make Saddam Hussein` s action any better?

The way you're using it, yes.

I am not using anything.

I've been telling you that the difference between the treatment of Assange and the treatment of Pinochet is probably in the law:

And I have repeated to you that you are right.
In fact, any government can twist any law in the way they choose, if they are willing to.
Iranian persecution of gays is absolutely OK under their law. Do you support that as well as it is OK by the law?
But on which moral (not formal) ground is it “fair” to say that it was OK not to extradite Pinochet and it is “fair” to extradite (or try to) Assange?

What were the legal requirements for extraditing Pinochet to Spain? Did Spain meet those requirements? If you want us to consider Pinochet's case, you'll need to answer those questions.

You are talking about formalities.
I am talking about the substance.
Process of Moscow in the USSR that send thousands to death met the legal requirements of the USSR.
Do you support them?

Seems to me you're not talking about the legal case against Assange because it doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

Is it a conspiracy theory that the UK Government is willing to extradite Assange?
Is it a conspiracy theory that the same government was not willing to extradite Pinochet?
Which is the conspiracy theory you are talking about?

The way you're using it, yes. You want it to be about the law, make it about the law. That's all I ask.

And here we go again..
See above.
In the 800` s laws supported slavery in many countries.
Would this make slavery OK to your eyes?
What about witch burning? It was legal few centuries ago..

 

[theprestige]

So, your point is that extradition application procedures are more important than thousands of people killed?
Saddam Hussein` s slaughter of the Kurds was perfectly right under the Iraqi laws (hey, he was the President of Iraq and he made the laws).
Does this “it is according to the law” principle make Saddam Hussein` s action any better?

Not at all.

Are you saying that the UK legal requirements for extradition are similarly cruel and unjust?

I am not using anything.

I'll make you a deal: you stop saying it over and over again to support your point, and I'll stop saying you're using it.

And I have repeated to you that you are right.
In fact, any government can twist any law in the way they choose, if they are willing to.

Are you saying the UK has twisted the law in Assange's case? Are you saying the UK is even willing to do so?

Iranian persecution of gays is absolutely OK under their law. Do you support that as well as it is OK by the law?

Not at all. Are you saying the UK extradition laws are similarly stupid and wrong?

But on which moral (not formal) ground is it “fair” to say that it was OK not to extradite Pinochet and it is “fair” to extradite (or try to) Assange?

Your switch from formal to moral grounds is moving the goalposts (more on that in a moment).
And nobody's saying was fair to not extradite Pinochet. If you think it wasn't fair, fine. Start a thread and present your evidence, and I might even agree with you. Right now, I don't know enough about the Pinochet case to have an opinion one way or the other. So what?

In Assange's case, the UK received a legal request for extradition, and complied, just like they've done over 3,000 times in the past 8 years. There's nothing unfair about that, just like there's nothing unfair about the previous 3,000+ EAW extraditions from the UK.

If Assange's case is being treated fairly, then it's being treated fairly, regardless of what happened in a different case over ten years ago under different laws and a different government.

You are talking about formalities.
I am talking about the substance.

We're talking about the state's use of force to imprison and punish people. The formalities are the substance.

Process of Moscow in the USSR that send thousands to death met the legal requirements of the USSR.
Do you support them?

Of course not. Are you saying the UK extradition laws are similarly brutal and perverse?

Is it a conspiracy theory that the UK Government is willing to extradite Assange?
Is it a conspiracy theory that the same government was not willing to extradite Pinochet?
Which is the conspiracy theory you are talking about?

I'm talking about this one right here:

If the law was correctly applied in Assange case, then they should have extradited Pinochet the very same day Argentina asked for it.
It seems to me so evident.
Nobody, except maybe some fanatical supporter of the US, will not be able to understand that the underlying problem is just that he was involved in Wikileaks and the US just want to punish him as an example for everyone not to disclose secret documents anymore, same they are doing with Bradley Manning.

The second half is the conspiracy theory. The first half is your legal argument in support of the conspiracy theory:

"If the law was correctly applied in Assange case, then they should have extradited Pinochet the very same day Argentina asked for it."

So there you are, talking about the "formalities", but here you are now insisting that it's about the "substance".

I disagree. Let's talk about the formalities. Let's talk about your claim about the law.

If you said simply, "It's not right that the UK should extradite Assange and over 3,000 other alleged criminals under the EAW, but would not extradite Pinochet", I would probably agree, and that would be an end to the question.

But if you say, "it's not fair that the UK should extradite Assange under pressure from the US, because if they were fair they would have extradited Pinochet as well", then I would say that's a conspiracy theory unless you can provide evidence for at least the following:

1. The UK is treating Assange unfairly.
2. The US is influencing the UK in this.
3. That Assange and Pinochet should have received the same treatment under the law.

So far you've avoided 1 and 2. As for 3... Well, we know different laws were in effect before 2004, so it's unlikely that Assange and Pinochet would have received the same treatment regardless.

So I don't see how Pinochet's case supports your conspiracy theory about Assange's case.

And here we go again..
See above.
In the 800` s laws supported slavery in many countries.
Would this make slavery OK to your eyes?
What about witch burning? It was legal few centuries ago..

Of course not. Are you saying the UK extradition laws are similarly primitive and inhumane?

 

[Korren]

Apparently, the "evilness" of your actions is a thing that does not come into play when deciding if someone should or should not be extradited.

Here's your argument, translated to another situation:

"Since O. J. Simpson was found not guilty, the guilty verdict against Allen Stanford is suspect and Allen Stanford is innocent."

 

[John Mekki]

Are you saying that the UK legal requirements for extradition are similarly cruel and unjust?

No

I'll make you a deal: you stop saying it over and over again to support your point, and I'll stop saying you're using it.

I am not much into deals.
May I ask you why saying that killing thousands is bad is appeal to emotions for you?

Are you saying the UK has twisted the law in Assange's case? Are you saying the UK is even willing to do so?

I am saying that the UK Government makes UK laws, so they can do (almost) anything they want with them.

Not at all. Are you saying the UK extradition laws are similarly stupid and wrong?

No

Your switch from formal to moral grounds is moving the goalposts (more on that in a moment).

When did I say that, from a strictly formal point of view, Assange` s arrest may not be justified?
On the opposite, I have provided examples that, from a formal point of view, witch burning was completely legal.
Do you support witch burining as well?

And nobody's saying was fair to not extradite Pinochet.

Good.
Then may I ask you why they did not?

In Assange's case, the UK received a legal request for extradition, and complied, just like they've done over 3,000 times in the past 8 years. There's nothing unfair about that, just like there's nothing unfair about the previous 3,000+ EAW extraditions from the UK.

In how many of such cases did UK officials surround a foreign Embassy with lots of police and even threaten to enter a foreign Embassy, something completely unheard of so far.
And all this for an unused condom and some rough behaviour with women?

If Assange's case is being treated fairly, then it's being treated fairly, regardless of what happened in a different case over ten years ago under different laws and a different government.

If Assange` s case is being treated fairly, then what shall we say about Pinochet` s case?
As if is the same country behaving accoridng to the same set of laws in both cases.

We're talking about the state's use of force to imprison and punish people. The formalities are the substance.

Here I beg to differ.
Formalities are not the substance
Many mafia bosses in the US and Italy have been released because of very minor formal errors of procedures.
Even if it was proven that they slaughtered many people.
Does this make their verdict of acquittal fair for you?

Of course not. Are you saying the UK extradition laws are similarly brutal and perverse?

No

The second half is the conspiracy theory. The first half is your legal argument in support of the conspiracy theory:

Maybe my opinion, not a theory.
And in no case the central point of discussion here, which is why the UK government devoted so much effort in trying to arrest Assange, and even threatened to enter Ecuador` s embassy while the same government protected Pinochet who massacred (or ordered to) thousands.
This is the point I am making.

 

[theprestige]

May I ask you why saying that killing thousands is bad is appeal to emotions for you?

Because it's an emotional appeal that you're making, in place of actually studying the legal requirements in each case. You want to have a legal argument, but you don't, so you pretend you do, and when pressed, you make appeals to emotion to distract us from your missing legal argument.

I am saying that the UK Government makes UK laws, so they can do (almost) anything they want with them.

Okay, so what are the UK laws for extradition? What are they doing with them in the Assange case?

When did I say that, from a strictly formal point of view, Assange` s arrest may not be justified?

So Assange's arrest and extradition are justified by current law? So what's the problem?

On the opposite, I have provided examples that, from a formal point of view, witch burning was completely legal.
Do you support witch burining as well?

Of course not. Are you saying that UK extradition law is similarly evil and unjust?

No? Then why are you concerned that the UK is justly applying UK extradition law to Assange?

Then may I ask you why they did not?[extradite Pinochet]?

You may. But why should I have the answer? Why are the details of the Pinochet case even relevant to the Assange case?

In how many of such cases did UK officials surround a foreign Embassy with lots of police and even threaten to enter a foreign Embassy, something completely unheard of so far.

I don't know; in how many of those cases did the extradition subject seek refuge in a foreign embassy after UK courts justly ruled that they should be extradited?

Like I said, it's Assange that is introducing irregularities, not the UK.

And all this for an unused condom and some rough behaviour with women?

The things Assange is accused of are considered crimes in Sweden. They're considered crimes in the UK, too. Sweden met the UK's standards for pursuing an investigation. Sweden met the UK's standards for extradition. What's the problem?

If Assange` s case is being treated fairly, then what shall we say about Pinochet` s case?

We'll say whatever we want about Pinochet's case. The two still have nothing to do with each other.

As if is the same country behaving accoridng to the same set of laws in both cases.

Actually, it's a different set of laws in each case. The extradition laws changed in 2004--after Pinochet, but before Assange.

Here I beg to differ.
Formalities are not the substance
Many mafia bosses in the US and Italy have been released because of very minor formal errors of procedures.
Even if it was proven that they slaughtered many people.
Does this make their verdict of acquittal fair for you?

I value a government that is bound by what you call "formalities" to restrain its use of force against its citizens. That this means its citizens are sometimes able to escape justice is a price I am willing to pay for this binding of my government.

Maybe Pinochet's case was treated unfairly. What does this have to do with Assange?

Maybe my opinion, not a theory.

Call it what you like. You're still trying to advance a legal argument based on the Pinochet case, to support your "opinion" of the Assange case. Or are you now withdrawing that argument? Or are you now withdrawing that opinion?

And in no case the central point of discussion here, which is why the UK government devoted so much effort in trying to arrest Assange, and even threatened to enter Ecuador` s embassy while the same government protected Pinochet who massacred (or ordered to) thousands.
This is the point I am making.

Why this point? What do the two even have to do with each other? First, there have been several elections in the UK since the Pinochet case, so it's hardly true that it's the "same government".

Second, how much effort has the UK actually devoted to arresting Assange? Leaving aside the embassy thing, which Assange introduced, did the UK devote any more effort to Assange than the law required? Any more effort than they devoted to any of the other 3,000+ extradition subjects since 2004?

Third, how much effort should the UK devote to a fugitive from justice who seeks asylum in a foreign embassy, after formal and substantial justification to extradite him has been established? Should the UK give up its commitment to justice, and its obligations to Sweden under the EAW, simply because Assange is making it difficult?

 

[John Mekki]

Double post

 

[John Mekki]

Because it's an emotional appeal that you're making, in place of actually studying the legal requirements in each case. You want to have a legal argument, but you don't, so you pretend you do, and when pressed, you make appeals to emotion to distract us from your missing legal argument.

You say that legal arguments should not consider the killing of thousands?
What then should the law be about?

Okay, so what are the UK laws for extradition? What are they doing with them in the Assange case?

They are using them to extradite (or try to) Assange?
And your point is..??

So Assange's arrest and extradition are justified by current law? So what's the problem?

You can justify anything based on laws, especially if you are the one making the laws.
You can change them or interpret them according to the situation.
Even children know this.
So, the massacre of the Kurds was OK as it was based on Iraqi laws?
No problem with that?

Of course not. Are you saying that UK extradition law is similarly evil and unjust?

I have already replied on this

No? Then why are you concerned that the UK is justly applying UK extradition law to Assange?

And why the same UK Government was not applying the same just UK extradition laws to Pinochet?
It is the same laws and the same country

You may. But why should I have the answer?

Maybe you should think about the answer a little bit.

Why are the details of the Pinochet case even relevant to the Assange case?

It is the same extradition issue and the same country

I don't know; in how many of those cases did the extradition subject seek refuge in a foreign embassy after UK courts justly ruled that they should be extradited?

I agree that you do not know, but just try to think about it yourself.
In how many cases the UK sent tens of policemen to surround a foreign Embassy for a sex-related crime?

The things Assange is accused of are considered crimes in Sweden. They're considered crimes in the UK, too. Sweden met the UK's standards for pursuing an investigation. Sweden met the UK's standards for extradition. What's the problem?

While killing thousands is not considered a crime in the UK?

We'll say whatever we want about Pinochet's case. The two still have nothing to do with each other.

It is the same country dealing with the same issue of extradition in both cases.

Actually, it's a different set of laws in each case. The extradition laws changed in 2004--after Pinochet, but before Assange.

So you are suggesting there has been a revolution in the UK extradition laws so that before they did not extradite a potential murderer of thousands and then they went as far as surrouding an Embassy for just a sex-related crime?
Interesting opinion

I value a government that is bound by what you call "formalities" to restrain its use of force against its citizens. That this means its citizens are sometimes able to escape justice is a price I am willing to pay for this binding of my government.

OK.
So since “formalities” were respected, the Moscow Trials justly sent thousands to death?

Maybe Pinochet's case was treated unfairly. What does this have to do with Assange?

It is the same country dealing with the same issue of extradition in both cases.

Call it what you like. You're still trying to advance a legal argument based on the Pinochet case, to support your "opinion" of the Assange case. Or are you now withdrawing that argument? Or are you now withdrawing that opinion?

No

Why this point? What do the two even have to do with each other? First, there have been several elections in the UK since the Pinochet case, so it's hardly true that it's the "same government".

So you are suggesting there has been a revolution in the UK extradition laws so that before they did not extradite a potential murderer of thousands and then they went as far as surrouding an Embassy for just a sex-related crime?

Second, how much effort has the UK actually devoted to arresting Assange? Leaving aside the embassy thing, which Assange introduced, did the UK devote any more effort to Assange than the law required? Any more effort than they devoted to any of the other 3,000+ extradition subjects since 2004?

The UK Government sent tens of policemen to surround the Embassy of Ecuador to get Assange or prevent him to leave.
Can you please name some other extradition case where we can see the same zealous effort for a sex-related crime?

Third, how much effort should the UK devote to a fugitive from justice who seeks asylum in a foreign embassy, after formal and substantial justification to extradite him has been established? Should the UK give up its commitment to justice, and its obligations to Sweden under the EAW, simply because Assange is making it difficult?

If the UK is so committed to justice, why did the UK protect Pinochet, accused of killing thousands?

 

[Joey McGee]

It's pretty much the same argument as "9/11 was nothing. What about sudan/vietnam/the american indians?" it's literally intellectual projectile vomit. Pinochet went home to Chile and they failed at prosecuting him. That's Chile's fault. No one let a murderer go what an embarrassing fantasy

They surround the embassy because it isn't a good precedent to allow anyone wanted of a crime to escape through embassies. Vomit inducing. Julian also thinks that the us gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies by not demanding the us abandon the law and ask britain to abandon the law... How are you able to think this stuff through without your brain exploding?

 

[trustbutverify]

It's pretty much the same argument as "9/11 was nothing. What about sudan/vietnam/the american indians?" it's literally intellectual projectile vomit. Pinochet went home to Chile and they failed at prosecuting him. That's Chile's fault. No one let a murderer go what an embarrassing fantasy

They surround the embassy because it isn't a good precedent to allow anyone wanted of a crime to escape through embassies. Vomit indicing.

Yea- holding a women down and penetrating her while refusing her demands to use a condom isn't really a serious crime and even if it was, some powerful people get away with murder so WTF?!

It's getting pretty wild out there in "anti-imperialist" land.

 

[John Mekki]

Yea- holding a women down and penetrating her while refusing her demands to use a condom isn't really a serious crime and even if it was, some powerful people get away with murder so WTF?!

It's getting pretty wild out there in "anti-imperialist" land.

Complete strawman.

 

[Wudang]

And why the same UK Government was not applying the same just UK extradition laws to Pinochet?
It is the same laws and the same country

If you had troubled to read the answers you would see the above statement is not true. UK extradition laws were changed in 2004 when the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision came into effect in the UK. We change governments regularly.

 

[trustbutverify]

Complete strawman.

Nope.

 

[John Mekki]

If you had troubled to read the answers you would see the above statement is not true. UK extradition laws were changed in 2004 when the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision came into effect in the UK. We change governments regularly.

Country is same (UK).
And I do not see any evidence that the changes in UK foreign policy were so radical that moved from:
a) protecting a person who allegedly killed thousands from extradition
to:
b) surrounding an embassy for the extradition of a guy accused of sex crimes
But even assuming for a second that changes were so radical, did the UK Government then apologize to the desaparecidos for not having extradited Pinochet when requested to?
If now the UK is so keen to bring people to justice, then the UK should then apologize for not having done so for a serious criminal like Pinochet only a few years ago..