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

[Wudang]

I already did as you say.
But people keep writing strawmen and I get tired..

I assure you this is not a personal attack but sincerely well-intentioned advice. You should get the book below.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872205525

 

[Mojo]

False
I am not saying that he should not face prosecution in general

You are clearly arguing that he should not face prosecution in this case. If you are not arguing that he should not face prosecution in general, you need a way of distinguishing between cases in which he should face prosecution and cases in which he should not face prosecution. Your criteria need to be related to the specific case, and not to his general circumstances which would apply to all cases.

So we're back to the question that you have been persistently unable to answer: how would you tell the difference, in this case, between a fair prosecution and a politically motivated prosecution?

 

[Border Reiver]

Fr example doing something more than a mild accusation against the US for their invasion of Iraq

Such as?

 

[Mojo]

And you should think more with your own head and avoid believe what your Government tells you.

What has Wudang's government told him about the Assange case?

 

[Watanabe]

You are clearly arguing that he should not face prosecution in this case. If you are not arguing that he should not face prosecution in general, you need a way of distinguishing between cases in which he should face prosecution and cases in which he should not face prosecution. Your criteria need to be related to the specific case, and not to his general circumstances which would apply to all cases.

So we're back to the question that you have been persistently unable to answer: how would you tell the difference, in this case, between a fair prosecution and a politically motivated prosecution?

The politically motivated prosecution is when the US applies pressure on Sweden to prosecute Assange

Such as?

Break military relationships, etc.

What has Wudang's government told him about the Assange case?

I was speaking in general

 

[Mojo]

The politically motivated prosecution is when the US applies pressure on Sweden to prosecute Assange

What evidence do you have that the Assange prosecution is the result of pressure applied by the US, or even that the US has applied pressure?

I was speaking in general

In that case your exhortation to "avoid believe what your Government tells you" is off-topic. This thread is about the Assange prosecution.

What has Wudang's government told him to believe about the Assange prosecution?

 

[Watanabe]

What evidence do you have that the Assange prosecution is the result of pressure applied by the US, or even that the US has applied pressure?

None.
I have evidence for suspecting that (i.e. Sweden did nothing against Bush)

In that case your exhortation to "avoid believe what your Government tells you" is off-topic. This thread is about the Assange prosecution.

OK sir

 

[Mojo]

None.

Then there is no reason for us to take seriously your claim that the prosecution is the result of US pressure, or that the US has put pressure on Sweden to prosecute.

Anyway, back to a question I raised earlier that you seem to have missed again (you have replied to more recent posts).

You claimed that you are "not saying that [Assange] should not face prosecution in general".

You are clearly arguing that he should not face prosecution in this case. If you are not arguing that he should not face prosecution in general, you need a way of distinguishing between cases in which he should face prosecution and cases in which he should not face prosecution. Your criteria need to be related to the specific case, and not to his general circumstances which would apply to all cases.

So we're back to the question that you have been persistently unable to answer: how would you tell the difference, in this case, between a fair prosecution and a politically motivated prosecution?

 

[Watanabe]

Then there is no reason for us to take seriously your claim that the prosecution is the result of US pressure, or that the US has put pressure on Sweden to prosecute.

Anyway, back to a question I raised earlier that you seem to have missed again (you have replied to more recent posts).

You claimed that you are "not saying that [Assange] should not face prosecution in general".

You are clearly arguing that he should not face prosecution in this case. If you are not arguing that he should not face prosecution in general, you need a way of distinguishing between cases in which he should face prosecution and cases in which he should not face prosecution. Your criteria need to be related to the specific case, and not to his general circumstances which would apply to all cases.

So we're back to the question that you have been persistently unable to answer: how would you tell the difference, in this case, between a fair prosecution and a politically motivated prosecution?

Looking at all the mails from US Government people to Sweden.

 

[Mojo]

Looking at all the mails from US Government people to Sweden.

Remember, if you are to distinguish between cases in which Assange should be prosecuted from cases where he shoudn't, you need to use criteria that relate to the specific case, not to the situation in general. Can you cite any "mails from US Government people to Sweden" that are concerned with this particular case?

ETA: can you cite any "mails from US Government people to Sweden" at all?

 

[Watanabe]

Remember, if you are to distinguish between cases in which Assange should be prosecuted from cases where he shoudn't, you need to use criteria that relate to the specific case, not to the situation in general. Can you cite any "mails from US Government people to Sweden" that are concerned with this particular case?

ETA: can you cite any "mails from US Government people to Sweden" at all?

I have no power to look in the inbox of Mrs. Clinton, why you ask ?

 

[Mojo]

I have no power to look in the inbox of Mrs. Clinton, why you ask ?

I ask because you suggested "looking at all the mails from US Government people to Sweden" as a way of distinguishing cases in which Assange should face prosecution from cases in which he shouldn't.

If you cannot look at these "mails", then you cannot use them as evidence.

 

[Watanabe]

I ask because you suggested "looking at all the mails from US Government people to Sweden" as a way of distinguishing cases in which Assange should face prosecution from cases in which he shouldn't.

If you cannot look at these "mails", then you cannot use them as evidence.

THis is why I have never claimed to have evidence that Assange is politically prosecuted

 

[Mojo]

So, back to the question: how would you distinguish between cases in which Assange should be prosecuted from cases in which he shouldn't?

 

[Watanabe]

So, back to the question: how would you distinguish between cases in which Assange should be prosecuted from cases in which he shouldn't?

Third case: Assange should be prosecuted fairly

 

[Mojo]

You just believe too much what your government tells you

My government hasn't told me anything about the Assange prosecution.

 

[Mojo]

Third case: Assange should be prosecuted fairly

Is that a case in which he should be prosecuted, or a case in which he shouldn't be prosecuted?

And how would you distinguish between cases in which he should be prosecuted and cases in which he shouldn't be prosecuted?

 

[Watanabe]

Is that a case in which he should be prosecuted, or a case in which he shouldn't be prosecuted?

And how would you distinguish between cases in which he should be prosecuted and cases in which he shouldn't be prosecuted?

He should be prosecuted fairly

 

[Mojo]

THis is why I have never claimed to have evidence that Assange is politically prosecuted

Why do you think that, in this case, Assange should not be prosecuted?

 

[Mojo]

He should be prosecuted fairly

How would you tell, in a particular case, whether or not he was being prosecuted fairly?

Remember, if you are to suggest factors that are not specific to the specific case, then you are arguing that he shouldn't be prosecuted in any case, something which you have denied arguing.