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

[TjW]

If you have better idea, please propose

Prosecute anyone breaking Swedish law to the full extent allowed by Swedish law.

Regardless of past history of the alleged offender, or the past history of political leaders.

That wasn't so hard.

 

[BStrong]

And this is a person you don't think should have been removed from power?




Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany. Was Finland guilty of all Nazi crimes?



Technically it was my OP. Granted I was trying to divine his objection to Sweden prosecuting an accused rapist. But it was still mine.

Hell, W doesn't let provable facts get in the way of his roll, I'm just going with the flow.

 

[Border Reiver]

Never said that Sweden was

No, you said they should sever all ties with NATO. Given that they are not part of NATO and do not participate in NATO exercises, it is rather challenging to think of what ties they can sever.

Dunno.
Still they did not stop diplomatic activity

You do realize that even countries at war generally have a level of diplomatic activity? Cutting off diplomatic activity really limits your options for dealing with issues. What pressing Swedish national issue would have been served by doing so?

It would be a denounce

A denouncement and $1.45 will get you an extra large coffee at Tim Hortons (and you don't need the denouncement ). A denunciation with no action attached to it is worthless.

Maybe nothing
But they would not be accomplice
Not doing this, they became complice
Therefore, their behaviour is suspect

Sweden is not an accomplice - an accomplice is someone who assists another with a criminal action. Not denouncing someone you think may be responsible for a crime to the satisfaction of a third party is not the same.

 

[Noztradamus]

Prosecute anyone breaking Swedish law to the full extent allowed by Swedish law.

Regardless of past history of the alleged offender, or the past history of political leaders.

^^
Wins thread.

 

[Travis]

Maybe in 1982 or in the early 80s, when you were supporting him

Wait, you only think Saddam should have been removed from power when the USA was giving him some token assistance?

Why?

You do realize that even countries at war generally have a level of diplomatic activity? Cutting off diplomatic activity really limits your options for dealing with issues. What pressing Swedish national issue would have been served by doing so?

Also, cutting off diplomatic ties with another democracy because the other nation actually wants to get rid of a murderous tyrant will always look not so good in history books.

If Iraq keeps itself together—and becomes the prosperous secular democracy it can be—there will be some questions down the road why this or that nation stood on the side and tried to stop the actions that led to the elimination of the tyrant.

Sweden is not an accomplice - an accomplice is someone who assists another with a criminal action. Not denouncing someone you think may be responsible for a crime to the satisfaction of a third party is not the same.

And, keep in mind, we haven't even established that were any crimes here. Just because Watanabe thinks the war was bad does not mean the war was bad.

 

[Watanabe]

No, you said they should sever all ties with NATO. Given that they are not part of NATO and do not participate in NATO exercises, it is rather challenging to think of what ties they can sever.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52535.htm

You do realize that even countries at war generally have a level of diplomatic activity? Cutting off diplomatic activity really limits your options for dealing with issues. What pressing Swedish national issue would have been served by doing so?

No Swedish national issue

A denouncement and $1.45 will get you an extra large coffee at Tim Hortons (and you don't need the denouncement ). A denunciation with no action attached to it is worthless.

I beg to disagree

Sweden is not an accomplice - an accomplice is someone who assists another with a criminal action. Not denouncing someone you think may be responsible for a crime to the satisfaction of a third party is not the same.

Sweden is, as they have relationship with NATO, and they did not do much to prevent the war.
Japan` s position is far worse

 

[Watanabe]

Wait, you only think Saddam should have been removed from power when the USA was giving him some token assistance?

Why?

Cart-and-horse inversion
THe real question is: why did the US support Saddam when he was using chemical weapons againsst civilians
And why you are not denouncing such actions today?

Also, cutting off diplomatic ties with another democracy because the other nation actually wants to get rid of a murderous tyrant will always look not so good in history books.

Outside of UN legality, as Sweden said

If Iraq keeps itself together—and becomes the prosperous secular democracy it can be—there will be some questions down the road why this or that nation stood on the side and tried to stop the actions that led to the elimination of the tyrant.

200000+ people have already died thanks to the US.
They will not be brought back
And the responsibility of such deaths is not (only) on the tyrant, but on the people who invaded the country and the people who are not denouncing the invasion

And, keep in mind, we haven't even established that were any crimes here. Just because Watanabe thinks the war was bad does not mean the war was bad.

However, like many other European governments, Sweden opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, reasoning that the invasion was a breach of international law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden–United_States_relations

 

[Wudang]

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52535.htm

Ah so they shouldn't have agreed to work with NATO to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya and so on? I mean, seriously, did you read past the first 2 lines?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52535.htm

So actual reading is not something yu do?

"Swedish cooperation with NATO is based on a longstanding policy of military non-alignment and a firm national consensus. From this basis, Sweden selects areas of cooperation with NATO that match joint objectives."

It says that Sweden will pick and chose when to cooperate, so the null positions is what?

That it does not cooperate with NATO, so by taking no action its default is, NOT cooperating with NATO.

Therefore Sweden's default is to not do anything with NATO.

So this proves that Sweden's default position is to not cooperate with NATO.

So what exactly does this have to do with your conspiracy theory again?

"Sweden chooses not to work with NATO, therefore they are not condemning GWB"

"By not cooperating with NATO, Sweden supports GWB"

It is apparent you just assert your positions and have yet to examine them.

 

[Travis]

Cart-and-horse inversion
THe real question is: why did the US support Saddam when he was using chemical weapons againsst civilians
And why you are not denouncing such actions today?

Why do you presume I have not?

Outside of UN legality, as Sweden said

200000+ people have already died thanks to the US.
They will not be brought back
And the responsibility of such deaths is not (only) on the tyrant, but on the people who invaded the country and the people who are not denouncing the invasion

And yet many more lives might have been saved by doing so. Something you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge.

However, like many other European governments, Sweden opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, reasoning that the invasion was a breach of international law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden–United_States_relations

No. Wrong. Sweden, like so many other European nations, saw it to be politically advantageous to denounce the invasion. Clearly they did not think of the larger picture and what would be the greater good for the people of Iraq or they would have supported it. But, since that wasn't advantageous, they denounced it at the time instead.

They didn't care to do anything about what Saddam was doing to his people in the same way none that marched against the war did. They were cowards then and they are cowards now.

 

[Watanabe]

Why do you presume I have not?

Please provide evidence

And yet many more lives might have been saved by doing so. Something you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge.

Please provide evidence that there would have been more than 200000+ deaths with Saddam in power and that there was absolutely no way to contain Saddam otherwise

No. Wrong. Sweden, like so many other European nations, saw it to be politically advantageous to denounce the invasion. Clearly they did not think of the larger picture and what would be the greater good for the people of Iraq or they would have supported it. But, since that wasn't advantageous, they denounced it at the time instead.

They didn't care to do anything about what Saddam was doing to his people in the same way none that marched against the war did. They were cowards then and they are cowards now.

Good.
Can this be also the reason why they are after Assange?

 

[Watanabe]

So actual reading is not something yu do?

"Swedish cooperation with NATO is based on a longstanding policy of military non-alignment and a firm national consensus. From this basis, Sweden selects areas of cooperation with NATO that match joint objectives."

It says that Sweden will pick and chose when to cooperate, so the null positions is what?

That it does not cooperate with NATO, so by taking no action its default is, NOT cooperating with NATO.

Therefore Sweden's default is to not do anything with NATO.

So this proves that Sweden's default position is to not cooperate with NATO.

So what exactly does this have to do with your conspiracy theory again?

"Sweden chooses not to work with NATO, therefore they are not condemning GWB"

"By not cooperating with NATO, Sweden supports GWB"

It is apparent you just assert your positions and have yet to examine them.

Sweden is collaborating with Nato. Period.

 

[Border Reiver]

Sweden is collaborating with Nato. Period.

By that analogy, so is Russia and every other nation not lining up to charge GWB. The list of non-complicit nation states is quite small using the criteria you've established and by extension you are as well. Regardless of your present position or actions you were complicit then, and therefore equally guilty.

 

[qayak]

If Iraq keeps itself together—and becomes the prosperous secular democracy it can be—there will be some questions down the road why this or that nation stood on the side and tried to stop the actions that led to the elimination of the tyrant.

The other side of your argument is that if Iraq doesn't hold itself together, and devolves into the blood bath it has become and another tyrant comes to power, and one will, you will denounce Bush, and America, as the war mongers they are and urge for him to be prosecuted on war crimes and crimes against humanity and that America pay restitution to the victims in Iraq, and their families.

Note:Canada stood on the side and the majority of Her citizens couldn't be happier about it.

 

[Travis]

Please provide evidence

What evidence would suffice?

Please provide evidence that there would have been more than 200000+ deaths with Saddam in power and that there was absolutely no way to contain Saddam otherwise

You think he would just stop?

The other side of your argument is that if Iraq doesn't hold itself together, and devolves into the blood bath it has become and another tyrant comes to power, and one will, you will denounce Bush, and America, as the war mongers they are and urge for him to be prosecuted on war crimes and crimes against humanity and that America pay restitution to the victims in Iraq, and their families.

Note:Canada stood on the side and the majority of Her citizens couldn't be happier about it.

Nope. It would be a case of wanting to help, trying and failing. Those that stood on the side clearly just never cared in the first place. They get no right to claim moral superiority just because an attempt to right a wrong fell short.

An analogy: I intervened and stopped that man from kicking his wife. Had I failed in doing so (say he punched me out) then resumed kicking his wife the guys standing on the sideline denouncing me as an instigator don't get to claim the high ground. They still stood by doing nothing while he was kicking a woman on the ground.

Maybe I failed but at least I cared enough to try.

 

[Watanabe]

What evidence would suffice?

Ah OK

You think he would just stop?

He wasnt killing so many people in the 2000s and having any evidence that he could not be contained?

 

[Watanabe]

By that analogy, so is Russia and every other nation not lining up to charge GWB. The list of non-complicit nation states is quite small using the criteria you've established and by extension you are as well. Regardless of your present position or actions you were complicit then, and therefore equally guilty.

I completely agree, with a caveat.
I understood I was wrong, and then amended my position.
You and other people here did not.
Therefore, still guilty

 

[Border Reiver]

You miss the point that the Swedes did denounce the Iraqi invasion at the time it happened, just not strongly enough to suit you.

As for "being an accomplice to the US invasion of Iraq because they are not now calling for the trial of GWB" most of the world does not live in a realm of absolute moral certainty and need to temper their desired actions against what is practical and able to be achieved.

Does Sweden have a law on the books to try someone for being the head of state of a nation that carries out a war of aggression?
If so, does it apply to foreign nationals for actions that did not happen in Sweden?
Does the prosecutor have sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Is the accused within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Sweden or does it have an extradition treaty with the country where the accused is resident?
Would the charges be best laid in a separate jurisdiction - ie. would justice not be better served by such a trial happening in Iraq or in the US?

Those are some of the factors that would need to be considered before even spending time writing an indictment, let alone proceeding.

In a compare and contrast with the Assange matter:

Sweden has a law against sexual assault;
There is evidence that the offence took place within Sweden;
The prosecutor has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial where it's sufficiency will be weighed in its proper context;
The accused was in a country with an extradition treaty with Sweden; and
There is no compelling reason to have the trial heard elsewhere.

 

[Watanabe]

You miss the point that the Swedes did denounce the Iraqi invasion at the time it happened, just not strongly enough to suit you. so good work !

Sweden is the country who went great lenghts to prosecute Assange for a sex crime.
If they thought that the Iraq invasion was illegal, why not doing more than a mild statement of denounce?

As for "being an accomplice to the US invasion of Iraq because they are not now calling for the trial of GWB" most of the world does not live in a realm of absolute moral certainty and need to temper their desired actions against what is practical and able to be achieved.

By absolute morality you mean that a sex crime can be worse than a war which caused more than 200000+ deaths and that Sweden herself called as illegal ?

Does Sweden have a law on the books to try someone for being the head of state of a nation that carries out a war of aggression?

Never said that Sweden should try GWB by herself

Those are some of the factors that would need to be considered before even spending time writing an indictment, let alone proceeding.

In a compare and contrast with the Assange matter:

Sweden has a law against sexual assault;
There is evidence that the offence took place within Sweden;
The prosecutor has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial where it's sufficiency will be weighed in its proper context;
The accused was in a country with an extradition treaty with Sweden; and
There is no compelling reason to have the trial heard elsewhere.

Which Swedish law would have prevented to severe all the collaborations bewtween Sweden and NATO?

 

[BStrong]

Not quite true. For example in the UK you can be prosecuted for Paedophilia even if the crime takes place in a foreign country. I think that other crimes like genocide are prosecutable anywhere.

It would depend on the criminal code of the nation involved- I know the USC - United States Code has a genocide statute, but as to others nations, I have no clue.