How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?

[Elizabeth I]

Maybe your ability to read English is warped
I have never said this
Of course Assange should be prosecuted if there s enough evidence taht he may have committed crimesHowever, the fact that Sweden did nothing (almost) against Bush and spends so much energy for Assange is reason to suspect that the whole thing may just be political prosecution

How can you be serious? Look at all the other egregious things Sweden has never prosecuted anybody for. I listed several of them here.

How you can make this connection is beyond me. George Bush ≠ Julian Assange. They are two completely separate and different cases. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. They are connected in no way. If George W. Bush had never lived, or if he were the reincarnation of Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, Julian Assange should STILL be prosecuted for rape if there's evidence to show he committed rape.

By the way, the highlighted area above is the first time I have ever seen you even suggest that Assange may not be a persecuted pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent. So far you have seemed to think that he is a beacon of light in a world of rapidly gathering gloom.

And you know what? This argument is not worth wasting any more time with. I don't believe that anyone who can scramble issues up in his (or her, but I think you are male) head like you can has much chance of ever learning to think clearly. I don't know who taught you that 1+1 = devil's food cake, but you should go to them and ask for your money back.

 

[Metullus]

By Watanabe logic as long as America does anything bad, he can ignore all those other countries because America is held up as a good place by some so until the USA is truly perfect all the other countries get a pass.

This makes perfect sense to me.

 

[trustbutverify]

Why do people like you keep lying and misrepresenting?

You mean why do people keep telling the truth and accurately represent statements you've made?

 

[The Don]

This thread is about Assange, please do not go off topic

Actually it's about Sweden and your assertion that Sweden cannot fairly try Assange for rape because (well I'm not sure but it's something like)....

• Sweden has not attempted to try GWB for war crimes (even though we cannot work out how the charge would be brought or why Sweden would bring it)
• Sweden, although it made a number of statements against the war in Iraq, has not been sufficiently vociferous to satisfy Watanabe
• Sweden is merely the US's catspaw and this is just a ruse to allow the US to extradite Assange from Sweden

I'm sure that this is all very insulting to Swedes who I'm sure consider their legal system to be both fair and independent from the Swedish government. My personal opinion is that Assange would receive a fair trial in Sweden and there is no chance whatsoever that he will be extradited. Even if the charges themselves are "trumped up" and the alleged victims have only come forward at the behest of the Swedish (or worse the US) government, I think that the Swedish legal system would be able to establish this and acquit.

If the charges are not trumped up and Assange is indeed a rapist or sexual predator then I'm confident that the Swedish legal system would be able to determine that too.

 

[Watanabe]

How can you be serious? Look at all the other egregious things Sweden has never prosecuted anybody for. I listed several of them here.

Why do you say such stupid things about Julius Ceasar?
Do you really want a serious conversation?
GWB invasion of Iraq happened just a few years ago when Sweden is an ally of the US

How you can make this connection is beyond me. George Bush ≠ Julian Assange. They are two completely separate and different cases. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. They are connected in no way.

Like me and you, for example
But if we both commit two different crimes and you get prosecuted while I do not, there has to be a reason for it, do not you think so?

If George W. Bush had never lived, or if he were the reincarnation of Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, Julian Assange should STILL be prosecuted for rape if there's evidence to show he committed rape.

Yes.
But there would be the question why Sweden would go so much after Assange while they say almost nothing about Bush.

By the way, the highlighted area above is the first time I have ever seen you even suggest that Assange may not be a persecuted pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent. So far you have seemed to think that he is a beacon of light in a world of rapidly gathering gloom.

Then you did not read my comments well, dear

And you know what? This argument is not worth wasting any more time with. I don't believe that anyone who can scramble issues up in his (or her, but I think you are male) head like you can has much chance of ever learning to think clearly. I don't know who taught you that 1+1 = devil's food cake, but you should go to them and ask for your money back.

This is an insult, but I will get over it
If you want to believe anything your Government tell you, I believe you are (very much) naive, but please go ahead

 

[Watanabe]

Corrected for you ..

• Sweden has not attempted to try GWB for war crimes (even though we cannot work out how the charge would be brought or why Sweden would bring it) Sweden has not attempted to even ask for prosecution of GWB despite he was guilty by the Swedish Government own words (and I mean, surely guilty) of starting an unnecessary war that led to the death of 200000+ people and that Sweden considered illegal. Why Sweden did not ask for GWB to be tried then?
• Sweden, although it made a number of statements against the war in Iraq, has not been sufficiently vociferous to satisfy Watanabe Sweden, although it made one or few mild condemnation about US unnecessary invasion of Iraq, they did not do anything more and not even tried to ask for GWB to be tried. But at the same time they went great lenghts to prosecute Assange. If Bush was guilty of starting a war which was outside the UN legality, as Sweden herself said, why they did not ask for a prosecution of Bush? Illogical! Assange, even if guilty, would have been guilty of sex crimes, which we will agree is vastly minor if compared of starting a war outside the UN legality, which is what Sweden accused the US of having done
• Sweden is merely the US's catspaw and this is just a ruse to allow the US to extradite Assange from Sweden Sweden has a lot of economic and military interests with the US and going too far in the condemnation could be risky

 

[The Don]

Corrected for you ..

Not corrected at all....

• Sweden has not attempted to try GWB for war crimes (even though we cannot work out how the charge would be brought or why Sweden would bring it) Sweden has not attempted to even ask for prosecution of GWB despite he was guilty by the Swedish Government own words (and I mean, surely guilty) of starting an unnecessary war that led to the death of 200000+ people and that Sweden considered illegal. Why Sweden did not ask for GWB to be tried then?

Ask whom ?

Could you please provide the Swedish Government's own words.

• Sweden, although it made a number of statements against the war in Iraq, has not been sufficiently vociferous to satisfy Watanabe Sweden, although it made one or few mild condemnation about US unnecessary invasion of Iraq, they did not do anything more and not even tried to ask for GWB to be tried. But at the same time they went great lenghts to prosecute Assange. If Bush was guilty of starting a war which was outside the UN legality, as Sweden herself said, why they did not ask for a prosecution of Bush? Illogical! Assange, even if guilty, would have been guilty of sex crimes, which we will agree is vastly minor if compared of starting a war outside the UN legality, which is what Sweden accused the US of having done

This is beginning to sound like a new version of a legal non-sequitor, the Chewbacca prosecution.

You still have not demonstrated why Sweden failing to prosecute GWB for war crimes means that they are not competent to prosecute Assange for sex crimes unless you are adopting the position that Sweden shouldn't prosecute anyone of anything less than war crimes until they attempt to prosecute GWB for war crimes.

• Sweden is merely the US's catspaw and this is just a ruse to allow the US to extradite Assange from Sweden Sweden has a lot of economic and military interests with the US and going too far in the condemnation could be risky

So far you have provided no evidence for a reasonable suspicion that Sweden would allow the US to extradite.

 

[The Don]

Like me and you, for example
But if we both commit two different crimes and you get prosecuted while I do not, there has to be a reason for it, do not you think so?

Well here's three reasons for starters:

• GWB has not done anything prosecutable, he has committed no crime
• Even if he had committed a crime, Sweden has no jurisdiction to bring charges
• Even it if brought charges there is no reasonable hope of a conviction, they would merely be wasting Swedish taxpayer's money and ruining Sweden's international reputation

 

[Travis]

I'd love for Watanabe to outline the supposed case the Swedish prosecutors would need to make in order to convict GWB.

What about it Watanabe? What is the evidence that prosecutors would use to get their conviction?

 

[erwinl]

I'd love for Watanabe to outline the supposed case the Swedish prosecutors would need to make in order to convict GWB.

What about it Watanabe? What is the evidence that prosecutors would use to get their conviction?

I don't think you will get that.
He/she has still not shown any knowledge about what specific laws actually state. Or even which ones are appliccable.

 

[WildCat]

If I may interject ...

'Travis' you may not be aware of this fact, but since the USA has signed on to various UN Charters/Treaties which, among other things, forbid member states from engaging in wars of agression and torture. Therefore, since the Iraq War can be considered to be a war of agression by the USA and things like waterboarding can be considered to be torture which was done by the USA, therefore the responsible parties (like George W. Bush and his various flunkies) can be prosecuted accordingly.

However, I seriously doubt that such a thing will ever happen.



There were many other ways of dealing with Saddam besides going to war. However, George Bush and the pro-war people were far too stupid to use them.

You keep saying "George Bush", as if the US was a Bush dictatorship. You really should say "the US government", because that's who brought us to war in Iraq. The government is Bush, the Congress, and the People of the United States who elected them and who they represent.

You cannot hold a single person responsible for the actions of a democratic state.

 

[Watanabe]

Ask whom ?

Make a public statement that GWB is guilty (at least, freom a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths

Could you please provide the Swedish Government's own words.

This is beginning to sound like a new version of a legal non-sequitor, the Chewbacca prosecution.

You still have not demonstrated why Sweden failing to prosecute GWB for war crimes means that they are not competent to prosecute Assange for sex crimes

I never spoke about being incompetent to prosecute Assange
They certainly are.
The suspect is that they are very much biased.
Why?
As they did not say much and do much against muych worse artocities, such as GWB` s invasion of Iraq

So far you have provided no evidence for a reasonable suspicion that Sweden would allow the US to extradite.

The suspicion is the same about Sweden` prosecuting Assange

 

[Watanabe]

Well here's three reasons for starters:

• GWB has not done anything prosecutable, he has committed no crime
• Even if he had committed a crime, Sweden has no jurisdiction to bring charges
• Even it if brought charges there is no reasonable hope of a conviction, they would merely be wasting Swedish taxpayer's money and ruining Sweden's international reputation

******** all over

1) legally speaking, if you cant use the word "crime", please use the word "atrocity", "wrongdoing", "immoral action", "war not morally justified"
2) Sweden could have severed their coperation with the US, issued a formal statement that they considered the US and the allies morally responsible for the deaths and much more
They did not do much
3) I do not think Sweden reputation would be harmed by denouncing a war which is largely impopular all around the world. Sweden interests may have been harmed

 

[Watanabe]

I'd love for Watanabe to outline the supposed case the Swedish prosecutors would need to make in order to convict GWB.

What about it Watanabe? What is the evidence that prosecutors would use to get their conviction?

Make a public statement that GWB(*) is guilty (at least, from a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths

(*) along with all the people not denouncing an immoral war, including members of this forum and of my family

And here is the evidence of what people are guilty of

http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=24iraq_death.jpg

Please be careful: strong images

 

[uke2se]

I never spoke about being incompetent to prosecute Assange
They certainly are.
The suspect is that they are very much biased.
Why?
As they did not say much and do much against muych worse artocities, such as GWB` s invasion of Iraq

You just don't get what separation of powers is, right? The Swedish judicial system isn't the same thing as the Swedish government.

Add to that that the Swedish government right now isn't the same government as when the Iraq war started.

 

[Noztradamus]

I heve never heard the words "internal aggressor"

So by being on the JREF board you have learned something

Definition (at least according to me): A ruler waging war against a large identifiable segment of his subjects
Eg Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussain. Mullah Omar.

Couldn't do anyhing about the first, but the others eventually slipped up.

You mean that Saddam was not a psychopath when he was murderning Kurds with gas in the 80s?

Yeah he was, and while I agree with Travis on the desirability of his removal, the principle of non-interferance in another nation's internal affairs should create a barrier.

That barrier is overcome if said psychopath gives another nation a Casus belli . In such case the other nation is morally justified in taking action to not only rectify the specific Casus belli , but rectifying the psychopath entirely.

And to be quite clear, I believe Tanzania, Vietnam, the United Nations, the United States had both the legal and the moral justification for action in the cases I refered to.

 

[Watanabe]

So by being on the JREF board you have learned something

Definition (at least according to me): A ruler waging war against a large identifiable segment of his subjects
Eg Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussain. Mullah Omar.

Couldn't do anyhing about the first, but the others eventually slipped up.



Yeah he was, and while I agree with Travis on the desirability of his removal, the principle of non-interferance in another nation's internal affairs should create a barrier.

That barrier is overcome if said psychopath gives another nation a Casus belli . In such case the other nation is morally justified in taking action to not only rectify the specific Casus belli , but rectifying the psychopath entirely.

And to be quite clear, I believe Tanzania, Vietnam, the United Nations, the United States had both the legal and the moral justification for action in the cases I refered to.

You again miss the point completely.
Why the US supported a genocidal psychopath then?

 

[uke2se]

You again miss the point completely.
Why the US supported a genocidal psychopath then?

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

You need to learn a thing or two about politics. It's not pretty, and it doesn't fit into your naive view of what the world should be, where evil Americans are punished and where brave international whistleblowers can't be prosecuted for rape.

 

[Noztradamus]

You again miss the point completely.
Why the US supported a genocidal psychopath then?

They needed him to beat Hitler.

 

[Travis]

Make a public statement that GWB(*) is guilty (at least, from a moral point of view) of some 200000+ deaths

(*) along with all the people not denouncing an immoral war, including members of this forum and of my family

And here is the evidence of what people are guilty of

http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=24iraq_death.jpg

Please be careful: strong images

He's guilty "from a moral point of view" for war crimes?

That is not the way it works.

As for morality, Saddam had on average 26,000 of his citizens summarily executed every year. That means that if Saddam had been left in power 260,000 Iraqis would have died by his hands from 2003 to now.

Is it moral to let that happen?