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

[Klimax]

It's simple logic. If USA are interested, then they file extradition request. No matter where they are.

Yes, same for the inmates of Guantanamo and their trial.
La-la land..

Detainees in Guantanamo aren't criminals, they were caught as illegal enemy combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq where combat operations were conducted and they were members of designated terrorist organizations. They are treated under different international and USA laws.

No such thing for Sweden or Ecuador. No such thing for Assange. (He is not designated terrorist nor member of such organization)

So far La-la is your shouting to keep you invalid ideas from being destroyed by not listening us...

ETA: I see you intentionally missed rest of my post. Why was that?

 

[zooterkin]

You can` t keep people in jail for long time without due process.

So you have no problem with people following due process?

 

[Watanabe]

Detainees in Guantanamo aren't criminals, they were caught as illegal enemy combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq where combat operations were conducted and they were members of designated terrorist organizations. They are treated under different international and USA laws.

No such thing for Sweden or Ecuador. No such thing for Assange. (He is not designated terrorist nor member of such organization)

So far La-la is your shouting to keep you invalid ideas from being destroyed by not listening us...

ETA: I see you intentionally missed rest of my post. Why was that?

Of course you can find a legal excuse for everything, even for keeping hundreds of people in jail for years without a due process.

I am sure the American people are unsophisticated enough to believe what their Government tell them as true no matter what.

 

[Watanabe]

So you have no problem with people following due process?

When did I?
If it is a fair one..

 

[Mojo]

In case there were no legitimate suspicion of political prosecution, yes

What are the reasons that you have what you describe as "legitimate suspicion of political prosecution"?

Are these reasons specific to this case, or would they apply to any case in which Assange was extradited to Sweden for trial?

 

[Watanabe]

As I have explained multpile times, they went great lenghts to go after Assange but just a mild accusation against Bush

 

[Mojo]

As I have explained multpile times, they went great lenghts to go after Assange but just a mild accusation against Bush

That would apply to any case in which Sweden prosecuted Assange. Since your objection to Sweden prosecuting Assange applies to any prosecution, then your position contradicts your statement that Assange should not get a "free pass".

 

[Watanabe]

That would apply to any case in which Sweden prosecuted Assange. Since your objection to Sweden prosecuting Assange applies to any prosecution, then your position contradicts your statement that Assange should not get a "free pass".

If Sweden behaved decently there would be no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes

 

[Mojo]

If Sweden behaved decently there would be no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes

What?

 

[Watanabe]

Went after Bush as well, for example

 

[Mojo]

If Sweden behaved decently there would be no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes

What?

Went after Bush as well, for example

Why would going after Bush mean that they are not "after Assange for the sex crimes"? What would they be after Assange for?

This looks remarkably like a claim that if they "went after Bush as well" that would mean that they were "after Assange" for some reason other than the alleged crimes that they are extraditing him for.

 

[Mojo]

And you now seem to be redefining "behaving decently" as "doing what Watanabe wants them to do". Do you have any evidence that the Swedish authorities are not behaving "decently" in the sense of the word that everyone else uses?

 

[Mojo]

Went after Bush as well, for example

For what? What crimes has Bush allegedly committed within Sweden's jurisdiction?

 

[Watanabe]

For what? What crimes has Bush allegedly committed within Sweden's jurisdiction?

Strawman

 

[Mojo]

Strawman

That isn't a criminal offence in Sweden, so they can't prosecute Bush for it.

 

[Watanabe]

That isn't a criminal offence in Sweden, so they can't prosecute Bush for it.

Strawman. Didnt say prosecute Bush

 

[Mojo]

Your statment that they should go "after Bush as well", posted in the context of their "going after" Assange, suggests analogous situations.

In what way should they "go after" Bush?

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, why would Sweden "going after" Bush mean that "there would be no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes"? If Sweden "went after" Bush, what would they then be "after" Assange for? You still haven't explained this.

 

[Watanabe]

Anyway, why would Sweden "going after" Bush mean that "there would be no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes"? If Sweden "went after" Bush, what would they then be "after" Assange for? You still haven't explained this.

If they went after Bush, it would mean that they are a decent Government and they their system can be trusted

 

[Mojo]

If they went after Bush, it would mean that they are a decent Government and they their system can be trusted

But if there was, as you claim there would be if they went after Bush, "no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes", then they must be "after" assange for some reason other than the crimes for which they claim to be extraditing him. That would mean that the prosecution had secret and improper motives.