Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[nathan]

The truly brilliant plan evolves such that nobody thinks that there was any plan at all.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

 

[John Mekki]

Do you have any actual legal arguments? What did the UK courts get wrong in the Assange case?

Do you have any strictly legal argument that the laws using the Moscow Trials were misapplied for sending thousands to death?

you're comparing apples to oranges there.

Why apples to oranges?
It is the same country dealing with extradition issues in both cases.

you're attempting to justify Assange's actions by saying, "look, this person did something much worse! Why wasn't he punished?"

I have never said this

Nitpick: The House of Lords is unelected. In the Pinochet case, they approved extradition (overturning a lower court's decision).

They never approved extradition to Spain, where he was wanted for crimes against humanity
They let him come back to Chile for health issues as he had immunity there

FAILURE TO EXTRADITE PINOCHET = BAD
FAILURE TO EXTRADITE ASSANGE = ALSO BAD.

If I may..
Forcing sex without condom when asked to use it = BAD
Ordering the killings of thousansd = ALSO BAD
Maybe the second case is slightly more serious?

 

[BenBurch]

Just because one vile person got away with it, all vile persons henceforth should?

That IS what you are saying, John.

 

[John Mekki]

The law should be about the law.

This comes as news to me.
I thought the law was about defining what behaviour is acceptable and what is not in a public society, or somethiong like that

My point is that the law is a good law, and it is being applied in a good and proper way in the Assange case. Do you disagree with this point?

Not necessarily.
My point is why the laws were applied in one way in one case and in another way in another case

Do you have any evidence that laws were made, changed, or interpreted especially to achieve the result in the Assange case?

Not necessarily.
My point is why the laws were applied in one way in one case and in another way in another case

I have plenty of problems with that.

Good that you have.
Now, do you have any evidence that the laws were misapplied in those cases?

Does the application of Swedish law to Assange violate his human rights? No.
Does the application of UK law to Assange violate his human rights? No.

Maybe not.
Unless of course then Sweden extradites Assange to the US where he may face death penalty (or life in prison) for having leaked confidential documents

Again: It's not the same laws. The laws were changed in 2004. And the government has been changed incrementally throughout the intervening years between the two cases, as well.

I see.
So you are suggesting that there has been a revolution in the UK laws about extradition so that before the change they denied the extradition of a person accused of crimes against humanity and after they seeked with force the extradition of a person wanted fopr crimes about sex?
Interesting opinion

The fact is, you have no idea what laws were in effect in 1998 when Pinochet was arrested. You have no idea what jurisdiction the UK had to judge Pinochet. You have no idea what authority the UK government had to impose its will on Pinochet. You have no idea what authority Spain had to request his extradition, or to put him on trial. You have no idea if Pinochet was treated fairly, or if the law that was applied to him was good or bad.

Since you know all this, please explain to me

And the fact is, you want the two cases--about which you know nothing--to be similar, when they are actually quite different on every point you consider important.

I see.
I know they were different, as I consider Pinochet case much more serious than Assange` s

And if Spain actually had jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals in foreign countries, I'm sure the UK would honor Spanish extradition requests for those foreign nationals.

According to the Spanish Audiencia Nacional, Spain had

Garzón argued that Spain had universal jurisdiction over the alleged crimes, that the alleged offences fell within the Spanish legal definitions of genocide, terrorism and torture, and that the domestic amnesties in Argentina and Chile did not preclude an investigation in Spain, as Spain does not recognize general amnesties and also because the amnesty laws violated the international obligations of the countries concerned to investigate and prosecute the alleged crimes.

[..]

In short, by endorsing a broad interpretation of genocide, the Audiencia Nacional provided crucial backing for Garzón’s efforts to arrest Pinochet in London and extradite him to Spain.

http://abacus.bates.edu/~bframoli/pagina/garzon.pdf

But, as I said, and as I repeat, laws can be interpreted in one way or another according to the will of who holds the power of interpreting the laws.
You can send a person to jail for six months for insult to public officier and let a mafia boss who killed tens of people free.
All this formally respecting the law in both cases.

It seems like you are questioning Assange's extradition because the UK didn't completely ignore its own laws (which you agree are not bad laws) and enforce lawless vigilante justice on Pinochet.

Let alone that I did not enter in discussing whether UK laws are good or bad in abstract terms, I find it cute that you consider "vigilante justice" the desire to bring a person accused of crimes against humanity to trial.

Cute.

Not really. They're not surrounding the embassy for a sex-related crime. They're surrounding the embassy for a legitimate extradition subject, who is fleeing from justice.

While Pinochet was brought to justice.

You've repeatedly acknowledged that UK and Swedish law is not similar to these other horrible laws that you keep bringing them up.

I do not necessarily disagree with this, but where did I acknowledge this?

If Swedish and UK law is not unjust or inhumane, then there is no objection to seeing Swedish and UK law applied. I will ignore all further references to irrelevant unjust laws.

No.
What you are and keep ignoring is that laws are not "good" or "bad" in absolute terms, interpretation and willi to apply them in the right way also matter

Assange sought refuge in the embassy to avoid legitimate extradition. Do you think the effort to retrieve him is out of proprotion to his actions?

Can you please name me another case where the UK (or any other western government) threatens to invade a foreign embassy space to take a person who stands accused of not putting a condom on when he should have?

 

[The Big Dog]

If I may..
Forcing sex without condom when asked to use it = BAD
Ordering the killings of thousansd = ALSO BAD
Maybe the second case is slightly more serious?

Yes you may!

Both serious, both should be extradited! Great points!

Nailed it, and thank god the UK has learned their lesson!

Now if you want to discuss the finer points of Pinochet, I'd suggest that you start a shiny new thread in the appropriate forum.

Thanks BRO!

 

[trustbutverify]

Heh, and he could have avoided the whole mess if he'd stayed in the condom instead of distancing himself from it. Or by distancing himself from the bedroom instead of staying in it.

ETA: And I guess now the UK wants him to distance himself from the Ecuadorian embassy, but he's staying in it.

I guess it remains to be seen if John Mekki will distance himself from the thread or stay in it...

I know you're just kidding here, but the co-founder of Wikileaks wrote that Assange had a goal of impregnating women all over the world. Some kind of power trip/dominance type of deal.

 

[trustbutverify]

Can you please name me another case where the UK (or any other western government) threatens to invade a foreign embassy space to take a person who stands accused of not putting a condom on when he should have?

Assange is accused of physically forcing a woman to have sex under conditions she refused to accept. That's a tad more serious than not putting a condom on when he should have.

 

[theprestige]

This comes as news to me.
I thought the law was about defining what behaviour is acceptable and what is not in a public society, or somethiong like that

That's part of it, sure. But another part is defining what limits are on the government and its use of force against people.

Just because someone stands accused of a crime--even a heinous crime--that doesn't mean the government automatically has the right to impose its will on them. That's why it's important to consider both the legality of the alleged crime and the legality of the government's response.

My point is why the laws were applied in one way in one case and in another way in another case

Probably because the cases were different, and almost certainly because the laws were different. Since you're the one who's interested in this question, you should probably investigate these differences to find the answers.

For those of us interested in the merits of the Assange case on its own terms, you'll need those answers to support your insistence that the two cases should be compared.

Good that you have.
Now, do you have any evidence that the laws were misapplied in those cases?

It's a moot point. Since the laws were bad laws, I don't care whether they were misapplied. That they were applied at all is bad enough for me.

Maybe not.
Unless of course then Sweden extradites Assange to the US where he may face death penalty (or life in prison) for having leaked confidential documents

It's a good thing that's not a part of applying UK and Swedish law to Assange in this case, then.

I see.
So you are suggesting that there has been a revolution in the UK laws about extradition so that before the change they denied the extradition of a person accused of crimes against humanity and after they seeked with force the extradition of a person wanted fopr crimes about sex?
Interesting opinion

There were legitimate questions about Spain's authority to seek extradition of Pinochet. There were legitimate questions about the UK's authority to comply with Spain's extradition request. The questions were discussed at length by the governments involved, and the answers they arrived at are a matter of public record.

There were legitimate questions about Sweden's authority to seek extradition of Assange. There were legitimate questions about the UK's authority to comply with Sweden's extradition request. The questions were discussed at length by the governments involved, and the answers they arrived at are a matter of public record.

If you have problems with the questions or the answers in these cases, state them clearly here. Put up or shut up.

Since you know all this, please explain to me

Nope, that's your job: You want us to consider the Pinochet case, you'll have to explain all this. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I see.
I know they were different, as I consider Pinochet case much more serious than Assange` s

Clearly.

And if you'd actually studied the Pinochet case, you'd know that the British House of Lords at the time agreed with you: They found that Pinochet's alleged crimes were so serious that even though British law does not usually have jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals in foreign lands, in this case the British government did have jurisdiction.

Why haven't you actually studied the Pinochet case?

According to the Spanish Audiencia Nacional, Spain had

Garzón argued that Spain had universal jurisdiction over the alleged crimes, that the alleged offences fell within the Spanish legal definitions of genocide, terrorism and torture, and that the domestic amnesties in Argentina and Chile did not preclude an investigation in Spain, as Spain does not recognize general amnesties and also because the amnesty laws violated the international obligations of the countries concerned to investigate and prosecute the alleged crimes.

[..]

In short, by endorsing a broad interpretation of genocide, the Audiencia Nacional provided crucial backing for Garzón’s efforts to arrest Pinochet in London and extradite him to Spain.

http://abacus.bates.edu/~bframoli/pagina/garzon.pdf

Good for you, you found out what Spain had to say. Should the UK have simply accepted Spain's decision and complied with Spain's demand? Or should the UK have considered the matter for itself? And isn't that what actually happened?

Why haven't you actually studied the Pinochet case?

But, as I said, and as I repeat, laws can be interpreted in one way or another according to the will of who holds the power of interpreting the laws.
You can send a person to jail for six months for insult to public officier and let a mafia boss who killed tens of people free.
All this formally respecting the law in both cases.

If you have problems with the interpretation of the law in Assange's case, state them clearly here. Put up or shut up.

Let alone that I did not enter in discussing whether UK laws are good or bad in abstract terms, I find it cute that you consider "vigilante justice" the desire to bring a person accused of crimes against humanity to trial.

It's vigilante justice when you ignore the law.

I do not necessarily disagree with this, but where did I acknowledge this?

Every time you've brought up a bad law, I've asked you if you thought UK and Swedish law was similarly bad, and you've said no. There's probably at least one example in every exchange you and I have made in the past two pages of this thread. Clearly you don't think Assange is the victim of bad laws. Neither do I. So at least we agree on that.

No.
What you are and keep ignoring is that laws are not "good" or "bad" in absolute terms, interpretation and willi to apply them in the right way also matter

I would be most pleased if you were to study how the laws were interpreted and applied in these two cases, rather than bringing up irrelevant examples of bad laws. It's what I've been asking you to do for the last two pages of this thread. Will you do it?

If you have problems with how the laws were interpreted and applied, state them clearly here. Put up or shut up.

Can you please name me another case where the UK (or any other western government) threatens to invade a foreign embassy space to take a person who stands accused of not putting a condom on when he should have?

People accused of sex crimes are frequently extradited between EAW nations. It's not at all unusual that Assange, having been accused of a sex crime, should be extradited.

It's not at all unusual for governments to pursue people who flee extradition, and to demand their surrender when they seek asylum.

The fact that this particular combination of alleged crimes, fleeing extradition, and seeking asylum is irregular doesn't mean that the problem is irregular, or that the UK is behaving irregularly in this case.

Your over-valuing of the UK's statements on the limits of diplomatic immunity is disingenuous. If you have problems with what the UK actually said, state them clearly here. Put up or shut up.

Your under-valuing of the nature of the crimes Assange stands accused of is disgusting. Other people may keep responding to it, but I won't.

 

[John Mekki]

Assange is accused of physically forcing a woman to have sex under conditions she refused to accept. That's a tad more serious than not putting a condom on when he should have.

And a tad less serious than being accused of crime against humanity, that is, ordering the slaughter of thousands of people, a kind of crime that does not seem to cause much concern to you, for some reasons.

 

[Wudang]

And a tad less serious than being accused of crime against humanity, that is, ordering the slaughter of thousands of people, a kind of crime that does not seem to cause much concern to you, for some reasons.

And once again if you can establish any reason why the one has a bearing on the other feel free to mention it.

 

[John Mekki]

And once again if you can establish any reason why the one has a bearing on the other feel free to mention it.

I have the old-school opinion that a legal system, especially within the same country, should be applied somehow consistently among similar cases.
Comparison between different legal cases regarding similar issues (issues of extradition, for example) are common practice in any legal system

 

[theprestige]

And a tad less serious than being accused of crime against humanity, that is, ordering the slaughter of thousands of people, a kind of crime that does not seem to cause much concern to you, for some reasons.

Feel free to start a thread about Pinochet any time you like. Meanwhile, you may have noticed that in this thread we're also not discussing Genghis Khan, Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Henry Kissinger, Silvio Berlusconi, George W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, or that horrible person in Avatar who wanted to kill all those nice blue alien cat-people.

Feel free to start a thread about Pinochet any time you like, and discuss your concerns about him there. Alternatively, feel free to make Pinochet relevant to this thread any time you like.

 

[John Mekki]

Just because someone stands accused of a crime--even a heinous crime--that doesn't mean the government automatically has the right to impose its will on them. That's why it's important to consider both the legality of the alleged crime and the legality of the government's response.

Absolutely.
However, as I have tried to explain to you, sticking to formal "legality" alone you can put a person in jail for shouting to a police officer and leave a mafia boss free.
Would we agree on this?

Probably because the cases were different, and almost certainly because the laws were different. Since you're the one who's interested in this question, you should probably investigate these differences to find the answers.

I am the one just asking a questions.
If you know any decisive point, not connected to legal formalities alone, please explain

For those of us interested in the merits of the Assange case on its own terms, you'll need those answers to support your insistence that the two cases should be compared.

Comparison between different legal cases with similarities to each other is an usual thing, I do not see why you are creating much scandal about this.

It's a moot point. Since the laws were bad laws, I don't care whether they were misapplied. That they were applied at all is bad enough for me.

They were not necessarily bad laws.
Some of the people (most of them) sent to death in the Moscow Trial were sent to death for betraying their country and conspiracy against the state, which would require a serious punishment in any country of the world.
So the laws were not necessarily bad.
It was the interpretation "conspiracy against the state" meaning "being against Stalin` s will" which is maybe questionable, but this was not written in the laws, it was the way they were interpreted

It's a good thing that's not a part of applying UK and Swedish law to Assange in this case, then.

Formally, it was not.

There were legitimate questions about Spain's authority to seek extradition of Pinochet. There were legitimate questions about the UK's authority to comply with Spain's extradition request. The questions were discussed at length by the governments involved, and the answers they arrived at are a matter of public record.
(..)

Exactly.
There were opinions in favor of the legality of extraditing Pinochet and opinions against.
There were opinions in favor of the legality of extraditing Assange and opinions against.
And I bet that you can, from a formal point of view, find that Pinochet should have extradited and you can also find that he should not been extradited.
In the same way that you can find that sticking to formal "legality" alone you can put a person in jail for shouting to a police officer and leave a mafia boss free.
And everything with formal respect of the law.
This is why I am saying that you should look not only at the formal respect of the laws.
Unless it is OK for you to put a person in jail for six month as he has shout to an officer.

Nope, that's your job: You want us to consider the Pinochet case, you'll have to explain all this. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I am not asking you specifically anything.
I am asking why the UK seeks extradition for Assange going as far as threatening to enter a foreign embassy while the same country prevented the extradition of a much more serious criminal (Pinochet).
If you know the answer (rather than: the law was formally respected and that is it), please let me know

Clearly.

And if you'd actually studied the Pinochet case, you'd know that the British House of Lords at the time agreed with you: They found that Pinochet's alleged crimes were so serious that even though British law does not usually have jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals in foreign lands, in this case the British government did have jurisdiction.

Great.
Then why Pinochet was not extradited?

Good for you, you found out what Spain had to say. Should the UK have simply accepted Spain's decision and complied with Spain's demand? Or should the UK have considered the matter for itself? And isn't that what actually happened?

And why the UK, after much consideration by itself, came to the decision not to extradite Pinochet?

If you have problems with the interpretation of the law in Assange's case, state them clearly here. Put up or shut up.

I have some questions not with the interpretation of the laws, but with their outcome.

It's vigilante justice when you ignore the law.

And saying that a person accused of crimes against humanity should be brought to justice means "ignoring the law"?

Every time you've brought up a bad law, I've asked you if you thought UK and Swedish law was similarly bad, and you've said no.

Saying that I do not think that UK and Swedish laws are equally brutal and perverse to one particular law that you quoted few passages ago does not mean that I do think that UK and Swedish laws are necessarily better than all the laws I have quoted.
As explained to you, most laws used in the USSR to incarcerate and execute thousands were formally not "bad" laws.
It was the way they have been used that maybe you can find questionable

I would be most pleased if you were to study how the laws were interpreted and applied in these two cases, rather than bringing up irrelevant examples of bad laws. It's what I've been asking you to do for the last two pages of this thread. Will you do it?

I am asking you a question and you reply to my question asking me to study non better defined laws applied in two cases.
If you have some point to make to reply to my answer please feel free to do it.
I am here listening.

If you have problems with how the laws were interpreted and applied, state them clearly here. Put up or shut up.

If you are talking about the legal formalities about the two cases, I am not much interested as, as I told you several times, you can find that sticking to formal "legality" alone you can put a person in jail for shouting to a police officer and leave a mafia boss free.
If you are talking about the substantial aspects of the case, please let me know why of the difference in outcome between the two cases.

People accused of sex crimes are frequently extradited between EAW nations. It's not at all unusual that Assange, having been accused of a sex crime, should be extradited.

Could you quote me here one example when the UK went as far as threatening to enter a foreign embassy to do so for a sex-related crime?

It's not at all unusual for governments to pursue people who flee extradition, and to demand their surrender when they seek asylum.

Could you quote me here one example when the UK went as far as threatening to enter a foreign embassy to do so for a sex-related crime?

The fact that this particular combination of alleged crimes, fleeing extradition, and seeking asylum is irregular doesn't mean that the problem is irregular, or that the UK is behaving irregularly in this case.

As I have tried to tell you multiple times, I have never said that it was formally irregular, nor that the law was not formally respected.

Your over-valuing of the UK's statements on the limits of diplomatic immunity is disingenuous. If you have problems with what the UK actually said, state them clearly here. Put up or shut up.

I have no problems.
I am telling you that the UK government threatened "to lift the embassy's diplomatic status to fulfil a "legal obligation" to extradite the 41-year-old"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623
Can you please quote me here a similar case where the UK threatened to lift an embassy` s legal status to extradite someone else for a sex-related crime?

Your under-valuing of the nature of the crimes Assange stands accused of is disgusting. Other people may keep responding to it, but I won't.

I do not think that saying that Assange` s crimes are (much) less serious than the massacre of thousands of people means "under-valuing of the nature of the crimes Assange stands accused"
Or maybe it is you that do not care anything about the lives of thousands of poor people sent to death by Pinochet, as apparently you are not from Chile.
Who knows..

 

[theprestige]

I have the old-school opinion that a legal system, especially within the same country, should be applied somehow consistently among similar cases.
Comparison between different legal cases regarding similar issues (issues of extradition, for example) are common practice in any legal system

So when are you actually going to compare them?

Other people in this thread have compared the Assange case to several other recent sex-crime extradition cases between EAW nations. Have you read their comparisons? Did you find that Assange's case is being handled differently than similar cases?

The UK has honored over 3,000 EAW extradition requests since signing on to the agreement in 2004. Have you compared the Assange case to any of those? Did you find that Assange's case is being handled differently than any of those?

And, of course, have you actually compared Assange's case to Pinochet's case? So far, all you've done is point out that the two cases exist, and have different outcomes. When will you actually study the details of the two cases, and see whether the results were appropriate or not?

ETA: What if it turns out that the UK had good reasons to extradite Assange, and good reasons to not extradite Pinochet? I guess you won't know unless you actually study the cases. And until you do, there's no reason to judge one outcome by the other.

 

[Joey McGee]

I know you're just kidding here, but the co-founder of Wikileaks wrote that Assange had a goal of impregnating women all over the world. Some kind of power trip/dominance type of deal.

The co-founder too eh? The extradition court heard from one the alleged victims that he told her "‘Sweden is a good country to have kids in". And a museum worker said "He said things, like he wanted to get women pregnant. He said he preferred virgins because it meant he would be the first to impregnate them." Going around telling everyone, even the help at museums, that you are obsessed with impregnating women in a cynical and egotistical manner, then later force women to have sex with you without a condom, then claim that the entire thing was orchestrated by the pentagon, you're a nut, you're a joke, in this case more like an exhibit at a zoo than anything else...

 

[trustbutverify]

And a tad less serious than being accused of crime against humanity, that is, ordering the slaughter of thousands of people, a kind of crime that does not seem to cause much concern to you, for some reasons.

If you're not pulling my leg here, and I suspect you are, then you're ill-equipped and unprepared for this type of debate. These "arguments" just don't fit together.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have the old-school opinion that a legal system, especially within the same country, should be applied somehow consistently among similar cases.
Comparison between different legal cases regarding similar issues (issues of extradition, for example) are common practice in any legal system

SIMILAR CASES???????

I give up, I've reported this god damn off topic nonsense.

 

[John Mekki]

So when are you actually going to compare them?

It is about two pages that I am talking only actually comparing the two cases, something that you apparently do not like much, since you have invited me to open a thread about Gengis Khan

Other people in this thread have compared the Assange case to several other recent sex-crime extradition cases between EAW nations. Have you read their comparisons? Did you find that Assange's case is being handled differently than similar cases?

It would be great if you could offer me another example of when the UK threatened to lift the status of a foreign embassy to bring the alleged sex-criminal to justice, as I asked you

The UK has honored over 3,000 EAW extradition requests since signing on to the agreement in 2004. Have you compared the Assange case to any of those? Did you find that Assange's case is being handled differently than any of those?

It would be great if you could offer me another example of when the UK threatened to lift the status of a foreign embassy to bring the alleged sex-criminal to justice, as I asked you

And, of course, have you actually compared Assange's case to Pinochet's case? So far, all you've done is point out that the two cases exist, and have different outcomes. When will you actually study the details of the two cases, and see whether the results were appropriate or not?

I have examined the two cases in quite detail I assume.
But if you think there are other points of concern I may have missed, please feel free to tell me, as I have already asked you multiple times.
Why Pinochet` extradition was denied and Assange` s extradition was seeked?

ETA: What if it turns out that the UK had good reasons to extradite Assange, and good reasons to not extradite Pinochet?

I see that you know much more about the two cases than me.
Great!
You are then in a position to teach me and finally reply to the question I am asking since days ago and to which so far you did not answer.
Why, a part from legal formalities, Pinochet` extradition was denied and Assange` s extradition was seeked?

 

[trustbutverify]

The co-founder too eh? The extradition court heard from one the alleged victims that he told her "‘Sweden is a good country to have kids in". And a museum worker said "He said things, like he wanted to get women pregnant. He said he preferred virgins because it meant he would be the first to impregnate them." Going around telling everyone, even the help at museums, that you are obsessed with impregnating women in a cynical and egotistical manner, then later force women to have sex with you without a condom, then claim that the entire thing was orchestrated by the pentagon, you're a nut, you're a joke, in this case more like an exhibit at a zoo than anything else...

Wow, I wasn't aware of this information. Illuminating.

 

[Sabrina]

Why apples to oranges?
It is the same country dealing with extradition issues in both cases.

Let me see if I can explain this in language you will understand. You are talking about two entirely separate cases that were assessed under TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF LAWS. The law in the UK that was in effect while Pinochet was present in the late nineties, and the SUBSEQUENT law which REPLACED the earlier law that is NOW in effect when Assange is undergoing extradition proceedings. You cannot compare the Pinochet case to Assange's case BECAUSE they were tried under two DIFFERENT laws. Do you get it now? This is why it's apples to oranges; an entirely different set of laws was in effect in the late nineties when Pinochet's extradition was requested, therefore you can't point to that case as a comparison because it is entirely likely that, were the Pinochet case to be tried TODAY, it would end up with a similar outcome to Assange's. Similarly, you cannot compare Assange's case to Pinochet's, because we cannot go back in time and conduct Assange's extradition proceedings under the law that was in effect during the Pinochet hearing. Assange's case was dealt with using the current laws in effect, and was held to be a legitimate extradition request using THOSE criteria.

You do understand that laws can be amended and even replaced, yes? That a law which may have affected one case in a particular way will not even apply to another case if the law in question was amended or replaced, AS IS THE CASE HERE? Thus far, the only thing these two cases have in common is that they are both extradition cases; otherwise, they are WORLDS apart due to the fact that more or less the entire British government has been replaced in the intervening years, AND the laws which affect extradition proceedings have been completely replaced with a NEW set of laws.

I have never said this

No, but you sure as hell implied it with pretty much every post where you whined about the fact that Pinochet wasn't extradited and Assange was put under an extradition order.

No one is arguing that Pinochet was an alleged genocidal dictator, and that if found guilty that he would deserve to pay for his crimes. What you are failing to understand, in my estimation, is that THE CRIME DOES NOT MATTER; ALL extradition cases are treated the same under the current set of laws in the UK. The details of the crime are immaterial, so long as the country submitting the extradition request meets the CURRENT standards set out in the EAW for extraditing a person back to their country. Sweden has met those requirements, according to the British courts; therefore, Assange is legally bound to return to Sweden and face the accusations against him. If Pinochet were alive today and the extradition request were filed today rather than over a decade ago, and the country requesting the extradition met the standards of the EAW, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because Pinochet would either be evading arrest like Assange or would be on his way to face up to the accusations against him.

This is why no one thinks you have a leg to stand on, John; you're attempting to conflate cases tried under two different governments and two different sets of laws, and failing miserably to do so despite your rather desperate cries of "Pinochet broke the law too!"

Did you try that intellectual exercise I asked you to do? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the CURRENT law in effect and find a similar case that isn't over a decade old to compare Assange to.