• 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?

I still want to know what laws GWB violated while he was on Sweedish Soil?
Because that is the only type and location of crime that can be prosecuted by a foriegn country.
Just by existing, you, I, and just damn-near everyone in the US is violating a law somewhere else.
 
Watanabe said:
Thank you Travis, but the thread name does not reflect my question.

My question would rather be: how can we be sure that Sweden prosecution of Assange may not be biased when the Swedish Government did not do much to criticize GWB invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...

Short answer: Google Montesquieu. Sweden is not Iran or Zimbabwe, or any other form of dictatorship.

Slightly longer answer: The Swedish government cannot instruct or otherwise supervise the courts or the prosecuting authorities. If they want to change how a court operates, the parliament has to make a new law, which is not effective to prior cases.

(likewise, Swedish courts or prosecuting authorities don't criticise other states, or in any other way meddle with foreign policies, because they are not bat **** crazy)
 
rwguinn said:
I still want to know what laws GWB violated while he was on Sweedish Soil?
Because that is the only type and location of crime that can be prosecuted by a foriegn country.
Just by existing, you, I, and just damn-near everyone in the US is violating a law somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. For example in the UK you can be prosecuted for Paedophilia even if the crime takes place in a foreign country. I think that other crimes like genocide are prosecutable anywhere.
 
The Don said:
Not quite true. For example in the UK you can be prosecuted for Paedophilia even if the crime takes place in a foreign country. I think that other crimes like genocide are prosecutable anywhere.
Click to expand...

This holds true in some cases. But to find out if it's doable, you have to take it from the start.

As others have said, the question is first: What are the national laws (in Sweden in this case) GWB has broken - that he should be prosecuted by?
 
eirik said:
This holds true in some cases. But to find out if it's doable, you have to take it from the start.

As others have said, the question is first: What are the national laws (in Sweden in this case) GWB has broken - that he should be prosecuted by?
Click to expand...

Exactly, as I said in post #6:

The Don said:
I suppose the first question would be "What Swedish laws has GWB broken?"

The next question would be "Does the Sweden/USA extradition treaty cover whatever law(s) GWB has allegedly broken ?"

Another question would be "Would Sweden think it's worth the diplomatic fallout to pursue the extradition and charge of GWB ?"

The final question would be "Would Sweden think they would have a hope of finding a US judge to rule in their favour ?"


I believe the intended charge would relate to war crimes (given that IIRC GWB personally hasn't robbed a bank, passed a bed cheque or punched an elk in Sweden). I'm pretty sure that offering up a former President would set an unfortunate precedent.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
Not quite true. For example in the UK you can be prosecuted for Paedophilia even if the crime takes place in a foreign country. I think that other crimes like genocide are prosecutable anywhere.
Click to expand...
Not if you don't reside in (or visit) the UK...
I believe the same holds true for the US, BTW...
 
rwguinn said:
Not if you don't reside in (or visit) the UK...
I believe the same holds true for the US, BTW...
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right but I was trying to illustrate that a crime doesn't have to be committed in a country for that country to be able to prosecute.

You're 100% correct IMO, GWB has done nothing that could result in a prosecution in Sweden. Even if in some bizarro fantasy world he was indicted for war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, the ICC would be responsible for prosecuting the case, not Sweden.
 
The Don said:
Yes, you're right but I was trying to illustrate that a crime doesn't have to be committed in a country for that country to be able to prosecute.

You're 100% correct IMO, GWB has done nothing that could result in a prosecution in Sweden. Even if in some bizarro fantasy world he was indicted for war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, the ICC would be responsible for prosecuting the case, not Sweden.
Click to expand...
And I was pointing out that a country cannot arbitrarily prosecute the citizen of a 2nd country for crimes committed in the country of residence, or a 3rd country, unless that person either visits that first country or uses its ports/facilities to assist in committing or actually committing the crime
 
Are there any allegations that Swedish territory was used for the commission of any war crimes that were specifically authorized by GWB?
 
Watanabe said:
Thank you Travis, but the thread name does not reflect my question.

My question would rather be: how can we be sure that Sweden prosecution of Assange may not be biased when the Swedish Government did not do much to criticize GWB invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...

The thread is young and already you move the goal posts.
:D
 
This aught to be interesting. Logic however being twisted like it is, by a certain poster, is screaming in pain, and begging to be set free....
 
Watanabe said:
Thank you Travis, but the thread name does not reflect my question.

My question would rather be: how can we be sure that Sweden prosecution of Assange may not be biased when the Swedish Government did not do much to criticize GWB invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...

You can't be sure.

I can, because I'm confident that the Swedish judicial system isn't that idiotically corrupt. You need corruption everywhere and anywhere to match your world view. I don't.
 
Watanabe said:
I mean..
Did they really care about the Iraqi people (and the US soldiers sent to death) they could have publicly ask for the prosecution of Bush at the ICC or anywhere else, stop their military relations with the US and NATO, criticize the UK and Japan for their support and talk openly about the illegality of Iraq war at the UN
Click to expand...

You do realise that when it comes to international relations and keeping your country alive via exports and imports, what you are suggesting is bat crap crazy? Doing what you suggest would end up turning your country into a 3rd world one because no one. and I mean no one*, will trade with you again. This is why we have diplomats who, as Wikileaks revealed sooooo "shockingly" ( :rolleyes: ), say one thing to other Governments' faces and something entirely different behind their backs.




*With the possible exception of Venezuela.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Not quite true. For example in the UK you can be prosecuted for Paedophilia even if the crime takes place in a foreign country. I think that other crimes like genocide are prosecutable anywhere.
Click to expand...

This isn't quite so straight forward either. The theory behind it is that for a citizen to plan a trip and travel overseas for those sort of "holidays" that the planning for the trip was done in the country of orign and thus part of the crime was commited there, and so is prosecutable there.

I am pretty sure that if a German who had been on such a trip was passing through the UK that they would not be able to prosecute, they would have to leave it for the German Authorities. I am pretty sure these laws only apply to Citizens or Residents of the country enforcing the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom