• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

In one of the many posts that have been moved to AAH I provided a link to an academic study which assessed the degree of independence in three European countries, Germany, Italy and Sweden.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-u...ependence/judicial-independence-in-europe.pdf

In the posts consigned to AAH, Watanabe rejected this as evidence that the Swedish judicial system is politically independent on the grounds that there are academic studies that show that homoeopathy is effective.

Personally I think that the paper is informative.
 
Watanabe said:
Your claim: The judiciary power is independent
You are asking me to prove the negative: the judiciary power is not independent
But you cant prove a negative, as you say.
Click to expand...

In this case of course you can.

Just provide examples where the Swedish criminal justice system has yielded to political pressure. Ideally provide examples where the Swedish justice system has yielded to political pressure from a foreign power.
 
Watanabe said:
Your claim: The judiciary power is independent
You are asking me to prove the negative: the judiciary power is not independent
But you cant prove a negative, as you say.
Click to expand...

No we are asking you to show how in Sweden the political system effects the judiciary.

You make the claim the burden will always be yours, sophistry shall avail you not.

I asked specifically of political influence in a citizen alleging sexual assault.
 
Watanabe said:
Klimax said:
Illogical request, because you cannot generally prove negative, because it would require to prove everything is NOT controlled, which is not possible. That's why generally claimant of positive statement must prove it because it requires only one instance to be proven. (Here, it would be a case similar to the one under discussion that was influenced by politicians - like critic of government being silenced or something)

Illustrative example:
Claim: There is pink elephant. (just one at any location needed)
Negative claim: There is no pink elephant. (Requires to show that no pink elephant exists anywhere on planet.)
Click to expand...

Your claim: The judiciary power is independent
You are asking me to prove the negative: the judiciary power is not independent
But you cant prove a negative, as you say.
Click to expand...

Nice word play, but ineffective. Not even inversion will save you.

Provide evidence that Swedish courts are controlled by politics. That they are not independent!
 
The Don said:
In this case of course you can.

Just provide examples where the Swedish criminal justice system has yielded to political pressure. Ideally provide examples where the Swedish justice system has yielded to political pressure from a foreign power.
Click to expand...

Just provide examples where the Swedish criminal justice system has not yielded to political pressure. Ideally provide examples where the Swedish justice system has not yielded to political pressure from a foreign power.
 
The Don said:
In one of the many posts that have been moved to AAH I provided a link to an academic study which assessed the degree of independence in three European countries, Germany, Italy and Sweden.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-u...ependence/judicial-independence-in-europe.pdf

In the posts consigned to AAH, Watanabe rejected this as evidence that the Swedish judicial system is politically independent on the grounds that there are academic studies that show that homoeopathy is effective.

Personally I think that the paper is informative.
Click to expand...

A paper is not evidence of nothing

I can provide papers that homeopathy works
 
Watanabe said:
Why mine is inversion while yours isnt?
Click to expand...

You take your claim and make negative of it, hoping that it will fall into "cannot prove negative" category. That is wrong.

You have seen word "generally" in my post, haven't you? Your attempt at rewriting claim to suit your evasion was exact reason, why I included it.

You made inversion of both claims, failing to realize that categorization will get inverted too and thus your claim is once again in category "evidence for existence".

Just because you create "not independent", doesn't mean you are suddenly off hook for evidence.

Where is your evidence that courts are under control of politicians.
 
Watanabe said:
Since Sweden did not go much after GWB despite having strong relations with the US
Click to expand...

Because there was nothing to go after GWB for. There isn't even good cause to call him a "bad man". I've explained this before.

Watanabe said:
then there is the legitimate suspect that they are not interested in going after Assange for the sex abuse (alleged) either
Click to expand...

They won't prosecute a real crime because in the past they didn't even try to bring charges for imaginary crimes?
 
Watanabe said:
Any of them leaked thousands of secret cables?
Click to expand...

No, the Birthers deny the ability of the sitting president to assume that role.

Most government critics don't end up being prosecuted because of their criticism in the developed democracies.
 
Travis said:
Because there was nothing to go after GWB for. There isn't even good cause to call him a "bad man". I've explained this before.
Click to expand...

There is no point to discuss with you as you do not consider immoral a war that caused the death of 200000+ people.

Border Reiver said:
No, the Birthers deny the ability of the sitting president to assume that role.
Click to expand...

Do they create any issues in this sense to the President?

Border Reiver said:
Most government critics don't end up being prosecuted because of their criticism in the developed democracies.
Click to expand...

Most of them.
(unless they release embarassing cables?)
 
Last edited:
Klimax said:
You take your claim and make negative of it, hoping that it will fall into "cannot prove negative" category. That is wrong.

You have seen word "generally" in my post, haven't you? Your attempt at rewriting claim to suit your evasion was exact reason, why I included it.

You made inversion of both claims, failing to realize that categorization will get inverted too and thus your claim is once again in category "evidence for existence".

Just because you create "not independent", doesn't mean you are suddenly off hook for evidence.

Where is your evidence that courts are under control of politicians.
Click to expand...

You take your claim and make negative of it, hoping that it will fall into "cannot prove negative" category. That is wrong.

You have seen word "generally" in my post, haven't you? Your attempt at rewriting claim to suit your evasion was exact reason, why I included it.

You made inversion of both claims, failing to realize that categorization will get inverted too and thus your claim is once again in category "evidence for existence".

Just because you create "not dependent", doesn't mean you are suddenly off hook for evidence.

Where is your evidence that courts are independent politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom