• 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:
Assuming that the US Government is interested in playing fair.
Prove it
Click to expand...

I'm guilty here of presenting an argument from incredulity but I prefer to think o fit as applying Occam's razor.

The US government has a much better relationship with the UK than it does with Sweden (after all the UK was its lapdog and have supported all of its Middle Eastern adventures) and the UK/US extradition treaty is so asymmetrical that it is ridiculously easy for the US to obtain extraditions fro the UK without even having to disclose the evidence to support the accusations. So here comes the argument from incredulity....

If you were the US and you wanted to extradite someone so that you could prosecute them for releasing secret materials would you......

Bring charges that you actually want to bring and then attempt to extradite that person from a country who has backed you all the way on Iraq and with whom you have a extradition treaty and who have demonstrated their willingness to co-operate with extraditions and in particular with security based extraditions.

OR

Get another country with whom you have a much more prickly relationship and who have a judiciary which has hitherto demonstrated that it will not bow to political pressure to bring false unrelated charges of a sexual nature which will allow that country to extradite Julian Assange from the UK and then you can extradite him from Sweden.
 
Probably already been addressed, but if the US wanted to extradite Assange from Sweden, couldn't they have just applied to do that before the sexual assault charges?
 
icerat said:
Probably already been addressed, but if the US wanted to extradite Assange from Sweden, couldn't they have just applied to do that before the sexual assault charges?
Click to expand...

Yes they could and would have.

It is now more clear than ever that this thread belongs in CT. Watanabe is using nothing but conspiracy thinking and logical fallacies. It's amazing to watch the amount of fallacies coming from a single person in every single post.
 
Watanabe said:
Unproven that Assange raped anyone
Click to expand...
Which is why it is an alleged charge until he faces a magistrate in Sweden.
Sweden is an ally of the US still did not do much against GWB
But went all the way to the UK to prosecute Assange.

Which is suspicious.
Click to expand...

Sweden has gone out of its way, how?

By asking fro Assange to be extradited?

How is that going out of its way?
 
Last edited:
Watanabe said:
While GWB may not have been legally accused of sexual assault, he could have been properly marginalized for starting a useless war based on lies.
Funny enough, he was not.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the right of a swedish citizen to file a police report about an alleged sexual assault?
But it is well within the power of the fair Swedish Government, which is the Government of the country where the Swedish Judiciary system happens to operate.
Funny enough, the Government only issued a mild statement
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the swedish judiciary wishing to meet with Assange?
Exactly.
While Bush, who started an unnecessary war which the Swedish Government itself deemed as illegal, was just mildly criticized.
And nothing else
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the right of a swedish citizen to file a police report about an alleged sexual assault?
No, it's your claim. You provide evidence to support your assertion that the Swedish judiciary is independent
Click to expand...
Sophistry shall avail you not.
 
The Don said:
I'm guilty here of presenting an argument from incredulity but I prefer to think o fit as applying Occam's razor.

The US government has a much better relationship with the UK than it does with Sweden (after all the UK was its lapdog and have supported all of its Middle Eastern adventures) and the UK/US extradition treaty is so asymmetrical that it is ridiculously easy for the US to obtain extraditions fro the UK without even having to disclose the evidence to support the accusations. So here comes the argument from incredulity....

If you were the US and you wanted to extradite someone so that you could prosecute them for releasing secret materials would you......

Bring charges that you actually want to bring and then attempt to extradite that person from a country who has backed you all the way on Iraq and with whom you have a extradition treaty and who have demonstrated their willingness to co-operate with extraditions and in particular with security based extraditions.

OR

Get another country with whom you have a much more prickly relationship and who have a judiciary which has hitherto demonstrated that it will not bow to political pressure to bring false unrelated charges of a sexual nature which will allow that country to extradite Julian Assange from the UK and then you can extradite him from Sweden.
Click to expand...

In the above, you present a lot of speculations about matters that neither you nor I know well enough
 
The Don said:
No, the initial claim was yours, that the Swedish justice system has yielded to political pressure from the US to charge Julian Assange.
Click to expand...

There is the legitimate suspect that the Swedish justice system may have yielded
 
Watanabe said:
And what could they have used as excuse?
Click to expand...

When asking that a person be extradicted from one country to another, it is tradition that the country requesting extradition have charged the person to be extradicted with an offence. And that the person to be extradicted be physically in the territory of the country that one requests the extradition from.

The US could not have requested Assange's extradition from Sweden because:

a. Assange was not in Sweden when the leak happened; and
b. Assange has not been charged with an offence under US law (there was a lot of noise that he should have been, but that's come to extactly sweet-and/or bugger all).
 
Border Reiver said:
When asking that a person be extradicted from one country to another, it is tradition that the country requesting extradition have charged the person to be extradicted with an offence. And that the person to be extradicted be physically in the territory of the country that one requests the extradition from.

The US could not have requested Assange's extradition from Sweden because:

a. Assange was not in Sweden when the leak happened; and
b. Assange has not been charged with an offence under US law (there was a lot of noise that he should have been, but that's come to extactly sweet-and/or bugger all).
Click to expand...

You think the US Government is short at excuses for keeping people in jail or throw them without even a trial?

Guantanamo..
 
Watanabe said:
There is the legitimate suspect that the Swedish justice system may have yielded
Click to expand...

I cannot see how. The Swedish legal system has behaved exactly as it should.

  • It received complaints of sex crimes
  • It conducted an initial investigation and found that there was a case to answer
  • The suspect had fled/left the country and was resident in the UK
  • It issued an EAW and requested extradition of the subject
 
Watanabe said:
In the above, you present a lot of speculations about matters that neither you nor I know well enough
Click to expand...

I disagree, I based my argument from ignorance (or application Occam's Razor if you're being kind) on previous examples of the UK's reaction to US extradition requests. The UK has time and again shown that it is willing to comply to US requests for extradition whether it's bankers, businessmen, IT professionals or terrorists. Indeed, the UK has shown itself to be willing to be complicit in extraordinary rendition so if the US has just wanted to snatch Julian Assange off the street, going on past behaviour the UK would have gone along with it.
 
The Don said:
I cannot see how. The Swedish legal system has behaved exactly as it should.

  • It received complaints of sex crimes
  • It conducted an initial investigation and found that there was a case to answer
  • The suspect had fled/left the country and was resident in the UK
  • It issued an EAW and requested extradition of the subject
Click to expand...

It is the Swedish Government that has not behaved in a similar way with GWB. Funny.
 
Watanabe said:
It is the Swedish Government that has not behaved in a similar way with GWB. Funny.
Click to expand...

As has been explained to you several times in this and other threads.

The Swedish Judicial System is independent from the Swedish Government. The Swedish Justice Systems attempts to bring Julian Assange to trial on sex offences have nothing to do with the Swedish Government.

Even if the Swedish Government decided that they wanted to prosecute GWB, the lack of a suitable law to do it under and the independence of the Swedish Judicial System would prevent them from doing it.
 
Watanabe said:
Klimax said:
Unproven that he knew it was false. As for impeachment, you'd need to ask in USA Politics. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6) Not much of topic here.
Click to expand...

Unproven that Assange raped anyone
Click to expand...
That's why there are trials. To determine guilt/innocence. That's job for courts, nobody else.

Klimax said:
Anyway, what does it have to do with Assange?
Click to expand...

Sweden is an ally of the US still did not do much against GWB
But went all the way to the UK to prosecute Assange.

Which is suspicious.
Click to expand...
How are they ally? Nowhere near Iraq, nowhere near Afghanistan and nowhere near Libya...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom