John Mekki
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 535
Let me see if I can explain this in language you will understand.
Please do
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.
I have already replied extensively on this point
You cannot compare the Pinochet case to Assange's case BECAUSE they were tried under two DIFFERENT laws. Do you get it now?
I have already replied extensively on this point (see above)
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.
Any evidence that the outcome would be different apart from your deductions?
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 make the same point, you get the same answer:
I have already replied extensively on this point (see above)
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.
See above
No, but you sure as hell implied it with pretty much every post where you 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;
I completely understand that for you crimes do not matter.
However, for me and for a lot of other people crimes do 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.
See above
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.
Any evidence that the outcome would be different apart from your deductions?
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.
As said, your point, which is the same restated multiple times, has been already replied to by me few posts ago.