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

[Border Reiver]

Third case: Assange should be prosecuted fairly

How do you determine if he is being prosecuted fairly?

 

[Dancing David]

Snowden is off-topic

No it isn't, there are indictments be started against Snowden and then an extradition request will happen.

It is only off topic because you don't want to admit there are no grounds to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US.

 

[Dancing David]

Because there is the legimtimat suspicion of political prosecution

Except there are no grounds to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US.


What charges does Assange face in the US that Sweden would extradite him for?

Please answer this direct question as it pertains to the Assange case, if you fail to do so, it will pretty much demonstrate your whole concern about the alleged charges against Assaange and his possible trial moot.


Assange can not be extradited from Sweden to the US as he does not face charges in the US.

[iteration 2]

 

[Dancing David]

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

What charges does Assange face in the US that Sweden would extradite him for?

Please answer this direct question as it pertains to the Assange case, if you fail to do so, it will pretty much demonstrate your whole concern about the alleged charges against Assaange and his possible trial moot.


Assange can not be extradited from Sweden to the US as he does not face charges in the US.

[iteration 3]

 

[Watanabe]

Except there are no grounds to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US.


What charges does Assange face in the US that Sweden would extradite him for?

Please answer this direct question as it pertains to the Assange case, if you fail to do so, it will pretty much demonstrate your whole concern about the alleged charges against Assaange and his possible trial moot.


Assange can not be extradited from Sweden to the US as he does not face charges in the US.

[iteration 2]

The US does not need charges: Guantanamo

How do you determine if he is being prosecuted fairly?

If there is no political pressure

 

[Watanabe]

What, for example? And how does this relate to the Assange prosecution?

For example that the US Government is not behind it

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.

If the US Government made pressures on Sweden then it is not fair

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

I did not say this

 

[Mojo]

The US does not need charges: Guantanamo

Guantanamo is not in Sweden.

If there is no political pressure

How would you tell if there was political pressure for a prosecution in a particular case?

If you were able to establish that there was political pressure, how would you establish that the prosecution was the result of that political pressure, and not the normal procedures of the prosecuting authority?

 

[Mojo]

For example that the US Government is not behind it

My government has not told me that the US is not behind the Assange prosecution.

If the US Government made pressures on Sweden then it is not fair

How would you tell whether "the US Government made pressures on Sweden"? How would you tell, in a particular case, whether these alleged "pressures" had any bearing on whether the prosecution proceeded?

I did not say this

Do you think that, in the case under discussion, Assange should be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted?

 

[Watanabe]

My government has not told me that the US is not behind the Assange prosecution.

How would you tell whether "the US Government made pressures on Sweden"? How would you tell, in a particular case, whether these alleged "pressures" had any bearing on whether the prosecution proceeded?

Do you think that, in the case under discussion, Assange should be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted?

1 The US Government did
2 Checking emails of Hillary Clinton
3 In case there are guarantees that the process will be fair

 

[Watanabe]

Guantanamo is not in Sweden.




How would you tell if there was political pressure for a prosecution in a particular case?

If you were able to establish that there was political pressure, how would you establish that the prosecution was the result of that political pressure, and not the normal procedures of the prosecuting authority?

Irrelevant

Checking the emails of Hillary

You cant

 

[Mojo]

My government has not told me that the US is not behind the Assange prosecution.

How would you tell whether "the US Government made pressures on Sweden"? How would you tell, in a particular case, whether these alleged "pressures" had any bearing on whether the prosecution proceeded?

Do you think that, in the case under discussion, Assange should be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted?

1 The US Government did

No, it didn't, and in any case that is not my governement.

2 Checking emails of Hillary Clinton

You have allready said that you can't do this.

3 In case there are guarantees that the process will be fair

You're trying to reverse the burden of proof again. Sweden has a judicial system that is agreed to act fairly in other cases. Unless you can come up with some evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis that the Swedish judicial system is proceeding as normal will hold.

 

[Watanabe]

No, it didn't, and in any case that is not my governement.




You have allready said that you can't do this.




You're trying to reverse the burden of proof again. Sweden has a judicial system that is agreed to act fairly in other cases. Unless you can come up with some evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis that the Swedish judicial system is proceeding as normal will hold.

I think they did and it is irrelevant not your government

So what?

Other cases is irrelevant as we discussed

 

[Mojo]

Guantanamo is not in Sweden.




How would you tell if there was political pressure for a prosecution in a particular case?

If you were able to establish that there was political pressure, how would you establish that the prosecution was the result of that political pressure, and not the normal procedures of the prosecuting authority?

Irrelevant

You were the one who brought Guantanamo up.

Assange is being extradited to Sweden. If Guantanamo is not in Sweden, then Guantanamo is, as you say, irrelevant.

Checking the emails of Hillary

You have already said that you can't do this; you therefore can't use this as a means of telling if there was political pressure (or anything else).

You cant

If you can't establish that political pressure has any bearing on a particular case, then you can't use "political pressure" as a means of distinguishing between cases in which Assange should be prosecuted and cases in which he shouldn't.

You need to find some other criteria for determining whether a particular prosecution is unfair.

 

[Watanabe]

Irrelevant that guantanamo not in sweden

Not my fault I do not have access

You can have the legitimate suspicion

 

[Mojo]

Do you think that, in the case under discussion, Assange should be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted?

In case there are guarantees that the process will be fair

Do you think that there are guarantees that the process will be fair?

 

[Mojo]

I think they did and it is irrelevant not your government

When did they tell me anything about the Assange case?

So what?

If you can't access them, you can't use them as evidence.

Other cases is irrelevant as we discussed

You are trying to argue that a particular prosecution is unfair. If other prosecutions by the same authorities are fair, you need to show that the particular prosecution is different in that respect from the other prosecutions.

 

[Watanabe]

When did they tell me anything about the Assange case?




If you can't access them, you can't use them as evidence.




You are trying to argue that a particular prosecution is unfair. If other prosecutions by the same authorities are fair, you need to show that the particular prosecution is different in that respect from the other prosecutions.

They said in public

I can` t

not true

 

[Mojo]

Irrelevant that guantanamo not in sweden

Assange is being extradited to Sweden. If Guantanamo is not in Sweden, then the way prisoners in Guantanamo are treated is not relevant.

Not my fault I do not have access

Maybe not, but if you don't have access to them it was rather foolish to claim that you could use them as a way of distinguishing cases in which Assange should face prosecution from cases in which he shouldn't.

You can have the legitimate suspicion

Only if you have evidence for that suspicion.

And, if you are not saying that he should not face prosecution in general then your reason for saying that he should not face prosecution in this particular case needs to be something specific to this particular case, not vague and generalised suspicions of skullduggery.

 

[Mojo]

They said in public

Where, and when? And when did they tell me about it?

I can` t

Correct, you can't. So they are irrelevant to the question.

not true

If the prosecuting authority does not routinely bring unfair prosecutions, then you need to show that the particular prosecution you wish to be found unfair is being handled in a different way from all the prosecutions that are unfair.

 

[Dancing David]

The US does not need charges: Guantanamo

And were the Guantanamo prisoners extradited from Sweden?
[iteration 0]