• 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?

theprestige said:
Ninja magic.
Click to expand...


:D:p

And in case anyone needs to know. This thread is just an attempt to create a place where certain people can voice opinions on the matter that would be off topic in the moderated thread.

This is not an attempt to run an end-around the moderated thread.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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...

While it has it's problems (where doesn't?) Sweden has an ostensibly independent judiciary. It is not the Swedish Government prosecuting Assange, it resulted from complaints by two women.
 
icerat said:
While it has it's problems (where doesn't?) Sweden has an ostensibly independent judiciary. It is not the Swedish Government prosecuting Assange, it resulted from complaints by two women.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it has nothing to do with Iraq.
 
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...

Okay, then let us explore that idea (which I contend is not really different than what I wrote).

How does the failure of the Swedish government to sufficiently (in your eyes) criticize the invasion of Iraq serve as evidence they wouldn't fairly prosecute Assange?

Now in my opinion Sweden criticized the invasion way too much so I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion they criticized it too little.
 
brodski said:
Who is Bush accused of raping?
Click to expand...

The Iraqi people.......indirectly

Although why a "crime" committed on a group of people in one country by a person in, and resident in, another country would be prosecuted in a third country (as opposed to the the ICC) is a mystery to me
 
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...

Have you ever heard of a constitutional principle called "separation of powers"? Look:

Do you WANT governments to prosecute individuals?
Do you WANT the judicial system to take cues from, or be dependent upon, governments?
Or do you WANT the judicial system to prosecute only in strict concordance with the government?
Or do you WANT the judicial system to voice opinions on the political and diplomatic decisions of governments without being concerned with the same in their line of duty?

If your answer to any of those three questions is "yes", then you may have a point.
I, on the other hand, believe that the judiciary system ought to be independent from governments, and thus anything a government said or didn't say does not touch upon my trust in the judiciary system.
 
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...

Except the Swedish Government did criticize the US for invading Iraq. What you actually mean is that they didn't do so to what you consider the right level of criticism, but then who are you to determine what is the right level?
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Except the Swedish Government did criticize the US for invading Iraq. What you actually mean is that they didn't do so to what you consider the right level of criticism, but then who are you to determine what is the right level?
Click to expand...

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
 
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...

So, unless a country rises to your naive idea of commitment, completely ruins their international reputation and severs bonds to the wealth of the west on a matter of (misguided) principle, they can't be trusted to prosecute Julian Assange?

That's pretty dumb.
 
Watanabe said:
This is how things should be.
I repeat: should
Click to expand...
Any evidence that the Swedish courts are not separate and independent from the Swedish government?
How do the decisions of the Swedish government on what to state publicly and what not 10 years ago affect the trustworthyness of Swedish courts today?

I think, if you look at the history of any government in the entire world, there will NEVER be one country and one year during which said government did not say something that you disagree with - or fail to say something you wish they would have said.
So leading this line of thinking to its logical end: How can you ever trust any court in any country at any time, ever, given that no government consults with you, personally, constantly, on absolutely every issue?

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...

Well, yes, and that would have changed - what? Except made some people mad at Sweden and retaliating diplomatically or economically?

And what has this got to do with the level of trust you put into Swedish courts?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom