• 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?

Watanabe said:
Do you have any evidence that this is the standard even when the accused is also the person behind one massive release of leaks?
Click to expand...

It's the standard when someone flees arrest in one country and an EAW is issued, as has been explained many times before.

You keep ignoring the fact that he's nothing special, he's just a publisher and PR guy who Manning chose to give the material to. A few years back it would have been the Guardian or Washington Post (c.f Watergate).

And special pleading noted : you ask for specific evidence, it's provided and you reject it because Assange is a special case. He's not.
 
Wudang said:
It's the standard when someone flees arrest in one country and an EAW is issued, as has been explained many times before.

You keep ignoring the fact that he's nothing special, he's just a publisher and PR guy who Manning chose to give the material to. A few years back it would have been the Guardian or Washington Post (c.f Watergate).
Click to expand...

How many of your "standard" cases involve being " just a publisher and PR guy who Manning chose to give the material to"

Wudang said:
And special pleading noted : you ask for specific evidence, it's provided and you reject it because Assange is a special case. He's not.
Click to expand...

Evidence that he is not?

How many of your "standard" cases involve being " just a publisher and PR guy who Manning chose to give the material to"
 
Dancing David said:
http://www.eurojewcong.org/sweden/3066-sweden-refuses-to-extradite-danish-neo-nazi.html
"A Danish neo-Nazi living in Sweden charged in Germany with distributing Australian White Power materials is indicative of the globalization of racist movements. Sweden refuses to extradite the man, saying that he has not committed any crime under Swedish law."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...osxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UqoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1272,3654142

Sweden refuses to extradite russian hijacker
Click to expand...

None of the two apply, sorry!
 
Watanabe said:
And where is the evidence that the law is respected when it comes to big leaks?
Click to expand...
It has in 100% of the cases where an Australian responsible for publishing one of the biggest leaks stands accused of sexual related crimes, so I'd say it's looking good.

Of course if you actually have any evidence to the contrary, I'm sure there's quite a number of people that are interested in seeing that evidence.
 
Watanabe said:
Do you have any evidence that this is the standard even when the accused is also the person behind one massive release of leaks?
Click to expand...

Nothing special about him. We are all equals before law, regardless who or what we are. Who he is to be above law?
(ETA: That we is for Swedish justice. My country has problem with "equality". If you want to see properly botched justice take a look at Czech Republic..)
 
Watanabe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here you go. Having a CIA officer defect to the opposition is pretty embarrassing, and potentially far more damaging than anything revealed by WikiLeaks. It's true he isn't Julian Assange. But it's pretty apparent by the pattern of your shifting goalposts that you're engaging in special pleading.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-27/news/mn-6899_1_norden

LA Times article said:
He could not be extradited from Sweden to the United States because Swedish law regards espionage as a political crime. He had been detained by Swedish police last week after his temporary residence permit expired.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Klimax said:
Nothing special about him. We are all equals before law, regardless who or what we are. Who he is to be above law?
(ETA: That we is for Swedish justice. My country has problem with "equality". If you want to see properly botched justice take a look at Czech Republic..)
Click to expand...

We are all equals before law, regardless who or what we are We should be all equals before law, regardless who or what we are

Evidence: did GWB went in jail for lying to the American people?
 
Last edited:
Watanabe said:
We are all equals before law, regardless who or what we are We should be all equals before law, regardless who or what we are

Evidence: did GWB went in jail for lying to the American people?
Click to expand...

Lying is not against a law. (Exception: Lying to court. maybe few more could be found.)
 
Watanabe said:
Wikileaks was much worse than this
Click to expand...

A non-sequitur. You asked for examples of the Swedish criminal justice system not yielding to political pressure. A request for extradition is, by its nature, political. An honest person would say "Thank you for providing evidence supporting your position."
A dishonest person would try to distract from this fact.

TjW said:
Watanabe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here you go. Having a CIA officer defect to the opposition is pretty embarrassing, and potentially far more damaging than anything revealed by WikiLeaks. It's true he isn't Julian Assange. But it's pretty apparent by the pattern of your shifting goalposts that you're engaging in special pleading.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-27/news/mn-6899_1_norden

LA Times article said:
He could not be extradited from Sweden to the United States because Swedish law regards espionage as a political crime. He had been detained by Swedish police last week after his temporary residence permit expired.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Watanabe said:
Evidence that the prosecution was not politically motivated?
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the second half of my post:

Here_to_learn said:
Of course if you actually have any evidence to the contrary, I'm sure there's quite a number of people that are interested in seeing that evidence.
Click to expand...

You see, there is a traditional aphorism, often quoted here that says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". However, if you read on the wiki page for Evidence of absence, you can find the the following quote:

Irving Copi said:
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
Click to expand...

It can always be discussed if this is one of those circumstances, which is exactly why I said what I said above - it you can provide evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated, we don't have to rely on absence of evidence to come to a conclusion. So far you have not done this, and as far as I have seen, neither has anyone else.
 
Watanabe said:
We are all equals before law, regardless who or what we are We should be all equals before law, regardless who or what we are

Evidence: did GWB went in jail for lying to the American people?
Click to expand...

Even if true (and there would need to be some evidence for this) lying isn't a crime unless you do it under oath in court.

So by not arresting GWB equality before the law is being upheld.
 
Jeez, just stop trying, guys. This one can't be reasoned with.
 
Here_to_learn said:
I guess you missed the second half of my post:



You see, there is a traditional aphorism, often quoted here that says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". However, if you read on the wiki page for Evidence of absence, you can find the the following quote:


It can always be discussed if this is one of those circumstances, which is exactly why I said what I said above - it you can provide evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated, we don't have to rely on absence of evidence to come to a conclusion. So far you have not done this, and as far as I have seen, neither has anyone else.
Click to expand...

you can provide evidence that the prosecution is politically independent, we don't have to rely on absence of evidence to come to a conclusion. So far you have not done this, and as far as I have seen, neither has anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom