• 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:
You need to enforce them through the UNSC
Click to expand...

The need or not to enforce them throough the UNSC is a legal question. So to be able to talk about this one would have to have a modicum of legal knowledge.
 
Watanabe, here's a question I have already asked you twice, but which you have not answered. It is a point of vital importance to your argument, so you really need to address it.

How would you tell the difference, in this case, between a fair prosecution and a politically motivated prosecution?
 
Watanabe said:
?

How can the US keep people in Guantanamo without a trial
Click to expand...

Easy. The GOP subverts Obama's plan to close it by passing a law that says it stays open indefinitely.


Watanabe said:
Why are we presuming that Assange is lying?
Click to expand...

We're not. The place to work it all out is in a trial.


Watanabe said:
Why are we presuming that any trial against GWB would be politically motivated but that a trial against Assange would not be?
Click to expand...

Ah, so we find ourselves at an impasse.
 
zooterkin said:
What do you think you're achieving here, then? All the time you're here, you're not doing something useful about this huge injustice you perceive.
Click to expand...

Getting informed is useful.
But I start to think people here for other reasons..

Wudang said:
Burnside says: "even though questioning was the sole purpose of the warrant."

If you still do not know why this displays colossal ignorance of the case try reading:
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
Click to expand...

Always quoting that crap piece of right-wingish propaganda and not keeping attention to what Burnside says.
 
Mojo said:
Watanabe, here's a question I have already asked you twice, but which you have not answered. It is a point of vital importance to your argument, so you really need to address it.

How would you tell the difference, in this case, between a fair prosecution and a politically motivated prosecution?
Click to expand...

You can not tell.
What you can tell is about the legitimate suspect of politically motivated prosecution
In this case you can tell from the fact that the Government of the country where the Swedish Judiciary operates has not made pressure on the US..
 
Once again now in yet another way asked.

How would your ideal situation look like, where both Assange and the two women would have a fair trial?
 
Watanabe said:
Getting informed is useful.
But I start to think people here for other reasons..



Always quoting that crap piece of right-wingish propaganda and not keeping attention to what Burnside says.
Click to expand...

Because it shows Burnside is wrong. If you had read it, which it is plain you have not, you would understand why Burnside is self-evidently uninformed about the Swedish legal process and why the sentence I quoted demonstrates that. If you'd read the link and the references it cites and/or the explanations given by some of the Swedes you would know this.
Getting informed is indeed useful You should try it sometime.
 
erwinl said:
Once again now in yet another way asked.

How would your ideal situation look like, where both Assange and the two women would have a fair trial?
Click to expand...

The ideal situation would be when people would be forcing their governments to behave peoperly
 
Wudang said:
Because it shows Burnside is wrong. If you had read it, which it is plain you have not, you would understand why Burnside is self-evidently uninformed about the Swedish legal process and why the sentence I quoted demonstrates that. If you'd read the link and the references it cites and/or the explanations given by some of the Swedes you would know this.
Getting informed is indeed useful You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...

Which qualifications do you personally have to understand which is wrong and which is right?
 
Watanabe said:
The ideal situation would be when people would be forcing their governments to behave peoperly
Click to expand...

You assume that there is a universal and objective definition of proper behaviour. There are many factors which affect this including societal factors, the current situation and individuals' own opinions and mores.

Something that a conservative Afghan may consider proper behaviour may be considered oppression by a liberal Westerner whereas behaviour that Westerner thinks proper would may be considered lewd by the conservative Afghan. Something that may be proper under duress may not be proper at other times. Taking a life when you're in real fear of your own may be considered proper behaviour by many people but taking a life without provocation of any kind would not. Then again there are those people who could not countenance taking a life under any circumstances.

Animal welfare is a good example where there is a whole spectrum of what is proper. At one end of the spectrum there are people who consider the consumption of meat, use of animals and even the keeping of pets to be wholly unacceptable. At the other end of the spectrum there are people who view animals as a resource which can be used in whatever way humans want with no consideration for the animals' welfare. Most people are somewhere between these two extremes.

So even ignoring the difficulty of forcing the government to do something, there's no unanimity as to what the proper behaviour is.
 
Watanabe said:
You can not tell.
Click to expand...


You are claiming that the prosecution is politically motivated. If your claim is to have any basis, you need to be able to tell whether or not the prosecution is politically motivated.

What you can tell is about the legitimate suspect of politically motivated prosecution
In this case you can tell from the fact that the Government of the country where the Swedish Judiciary operates has not made pressure on the US..
Click to expand...


No, I said in this specific case, not any case involving someone allegedly unpopular with the US authorities.

If you can't say why this specific prosecution is politically motivated, then your claim that it is politically motivated has no evidence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom