Mojo
Mostly harmless
You still haven't answered the question: how should the Swedish criminal justice system "go after Bush"?
How can Sweden fairly prosecute Assange when they don't prosecute GW Bush?
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
You still haven't answered the question: how should the Swedish criminal justice system "go after Bush"?
Wudang
BOFH
You keep using that word. It does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Watanabe, you still haven't produced any evidence that the prosecuton is unfair. We have three court decisions in the UK, going right up to the Supreme Court, that have found in favour of extradition.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.pdf
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.pdf
Your irrelevant stuff about Bush hasn't even been brought up in them. While the defence did bring up political motivation, their argument was nothing to do with Bush; it was that "the issue of sexual offences is very political in Sweden." In any case, this argument was rejected.
Do you have any evidence that this particular prosecution is politically motivated or unfair?
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.pdf
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.pdf
Your irrelevant stuff about Bush hasn't even been brought up in them. While the defence did bring up political motivation, their argument was nothing to do with Bush; it was that "the issue of sexual offences is very political in Sweden." In any case, this argument was rejected.
Do you have any evidence that this particular prosecution is politically motivated or unfair?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I must admit, initially this thread was frustrating, to the extent that I was going to block it. Now, it is comedy gold watching our protagonist flail about desperately seeking some justification for a futile unfounded argument. To quote "This AO is lost". (extra internets for anyone who spots that).
Watanabe, Bush is accused of nothing in Sweden's jurisdiction, nothing. Not only are there no grounds for any legal moves, there are no grounds to even so much as point an accusing finger. Morally? That is a different question, but has no legal standing. It is merely opinion.
Assange does, in fact, stand accused of a crime under Swedish law, accused by Swedish citizens of a crime committed on Swedish soil. No amount of foot stamping on your part will change that.
Watanabe, Bush is accused of nothing in Sweden's jurisdiction, nothing. Not only are there no grounds for any legal moves, there are no grounds to even so much as point an accusing finger. Morally? That is a different question, but has no legal standing. It is merely opinion.
Assange does, in fact, stand accused of a crime under Swedish law, accused by Swedish citizens of a crime committed on Swedish soil. No amount of foot stamping on your part will change that.
I am getting tired.
You are not reading what I write and keep making strawman after strawman
I have never said that you can prove anyway that the prosecution is unfair.
You can` t prove it that it is politically motivated unless you can have access to Hillary` s mail box.
I have told you over and over and you leep missing the point
Or you are testing my patience and playing stupid.
I do not know.
I have told you that even a blind person can see that it likely that the whole prosecution is politically motivated
And it is up to the tribunal to have evidence that they are behaving fair, not up to anyone else to prove that they are not.
In this specific case there are obvious suspicions (not PROOFS!) that the whole issue is politically motivated.
Hence Assange is right in staying where he is
I would say that many leaders in South America and everywhere else have said it openly.
Other people choose to believe what their Governments told them.
Good luck to them!
Of course the UK favours extradition, the UK has been the puppet of the US in the last 100 years.
Didnt they go to Iraq with the US?
Do you really believe that the Swedish Government is after Assange for the sex crimes?
You have all the rights to
If you want to believe that the moon is made of cheese and that institutions are good and working for the people, please be my guest.
I have better things that do social service to people.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Um that is personalization, so which prisoner for Guantanamo was extradited from Sweden.
If it is a strawman then it is your strawmen as I am reposnding to your post.
Therefore your use of sophistry becomes transparent.
I state that the concern that Assange would be extradited from Sweden is moot because there are no charges in the US to base an extradition upon.
You brought up Guantanamo.
I responded asking which prisoner at Guantanamo was extradited from Sweden?
You state this is a strawman.
Since you brought up Guantanamo you have just stated that you created a strawman.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Begging the question. Without access, you can't know that access to Hilary's mail box would prove anything, and yet you are making this a premis of your argument. You can't know that there is even anything relevant in Hilary's mail box unless you have access to it.
You have told us all sorts of things, but you haven't got anything to back up your assertions.
They have satisfied the UK courts that there are adequate reasons for extradition.
Your suspicions and personal opinions are are worthless unless you can back them up with evidence.
If the US wants Assange, why have they not just asked the UK to hand him over, then? Why all the messing about with Sweden?
That is their declared reason for extraditing him, and they have been able to satisfy the UK courts that this is the case. you have provided no evidence to the contrary. The evidence is therefore strongly against you.
And they have also satisfied one of your own criteria for believing that they are after Assange for the sex crimes. You posted, "if Sweden behaved decently there would be no suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes", and then defined "behaving decently" as "going after Bush". If they had gone after Bush, then by your argument there would be no reason to suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes. Since they have not gone after Bush, then by your own argument you can still legitimately suspect that they are after Assange for the sex crimes.
Back to the personal attacks, eh? You have yet to specify a single lie that the Swedish and US governments have told me.
Further personal attacks are evidence of nothing beyond the fact that you have run out of rational arguments.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
You can until teh end of teh war. And how extactly does theis apply to Assange?
Say, what was that?
How exactly does this apply to Assange?
Or is it just another false dichotomy?
How does it apply to Assange?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
The use of the 'you' is personalization again, BR has not stated their support or lack thereof, we are discussing the US governments detention at Guantanamo. Not BR's personal opinions.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Wow, now you are bordering on irrational, Ecuador is not a colony of the US, but extradition agreements with the US may or may not exist.
Sweden is not a colony of the US either.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I can see how it might be tiring to maintain such a fantasy.
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Except where you claimed there could be no fair trial for Assange. Are you retracting that claim? Are you now admitting that there can be a fair trial?
Correct. So you will no longer relying on Hillary's inbox yourself, right?
Difficult to hit the point when you continue to fail to have one. You started with Sweden should prosecute Bush, backed off to Sweden should say "He's a very naughty boy" and came full circle to Sweden should prosecute him again, all the while throwing Assange right left and centre. It's now impossible to know what your point is.
Do yourself the simple service of assuming a consistent position.
By definition, a blind person cannot see anything. Analogy fail.
Correct. Have you any evidence that it is not fair?
Nope. YOU have suspicions, unfounded ones since you are unable to provide any foundation for those suspicions of yours.
Avoiding justice.
What?
No, really, WHAT?
Surely you can't be serious.
Off topic. Take the Iraq crackpottery to an Iraq thread thank you very much.
Yup.
The US is not seeking Assange for anything. It is disinterested in this matter. Sweden, on the other hand, is interested since some of it's citizens have laid allegations of grievous assault at Assange's door. Are you suggesting that said allegations should be swept under the rug by Sweden?
Yeah, because those chicks totally deserved it, didn't they? All rape victims should be ignored, right?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
False dichotomy, right there.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I help people all day at work and home, this is another false dichotomy on your part.
Good.
You keep your opinions that Governments are there to help people out.
I keep mine.
And in case you need a bridge..
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
The lack of ability on your part to make coherent arguments in your responsibility, the endless creation of false dichotomies and loose associations is your doing as well.
You still have no evidence that the charges of sexual assault against Assange are politically motivated,
There are no charges that Assange faces in the US to be extradited from Sweden for.
So what is your concern in the first place?
A government condemning the Iraq War does not mean that a governments courts are unbiased.
You have stated that it the government of Sweden had issued some strong condemnation of GWB and divorced itself from the US this would some how make the trial of Assange more transparent, which is just silly.
Then you get frustrated because people don't just agree with you, perhaps it is your lack of using critical thinking skills which is the source of your frustration.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Good.
You keep your opinions that Governments are there to help people out.
I keep mine.
And in case you need a bridge..
Clearly, you have some to spare.
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
I have never said that
And round and round we go..
Wudang
BOFH
The you must have defended Radovan Karadzic against extradition to the Netherlands as they said even less against Bush? If not, why not? Explain why the same principle does not apply.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Again, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Why Hillary's? Frankly, the idea that the sort of shenanigans you want to attribute to the US here is going to be reduced to writing in whatever form is rather naive. Any instructions from the US to Sweden along the lines of "charge Assange with an offence, get him extradited to your country so we can get him, or we don't buy any more lingonberry juice." Is going to be delivered verbally by an ambassador, not the Sec of State.
What you keep saying over and over again makes no logical sense (that Sweden should have "gone after" GWB as well to prove their charging Asssange wasn't politically motivated). What we keep pointing out is that, if the US wanted Asssange it would have been much simpler to extradict him from the UK to the US (after laying charges of course).
You have yet to produce any credible evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated, just speculation.
The Null Hypothesis. Learn it.
Sweden's justice system is independent, and gives fair trials. Barring evidence to the contrary, that is the assumed state. You need to provide actual evidence, not speculation.
Funny, an accused criminal saying "I was framed. This is all a ploy to discredit me." Obviously, the US government made him have sex with those two women under duplicitous circumstances.
Because proving that something isn't happening cannot be done and Assange can always claim "secret US pressure" would mean that he never has to answer for his alleged crime.
So you'll accept what South American leader says, but not what the Swedish ones say - somewhat selective aren't you?
To Sweden
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.
Yes, they still aren't extradicting Assange to the US, the request is from Sweden.
Yes
Lovely rant.
In a similar vein, you may continue to believe what Assange is trying to sell you, that the US convinced two Swedish nationals to file charges of sexual assault with a Swedish prosecutor, to get Assange extradited from the UK to Sweden so that the US can "get him."