| Kasz216 said: I mean, lets cover EVERY scenario. Even the far fetched. 1) The UK denies to send him to Sweden. Winners: Assange & Wikileaks 2) The UK sends him to Sweden, and he's let go. Winners: Assange & Wikileaks 3) The UK sends him to Sweden and he's put in jail. Winners: Assange & Wikileaks, even if he really is guilt, too many conspiracy theorests like you wouldn't believe it, so it only helps wikileaks and makes it look like they're persecuted. 4) The UK sends him to Sweeden and he is sent to the US and is found innocnet. Winners: Assange and Wikileaks. 5) The UK sends him to Sweeden, and to the US and he is put to death. Winner: Wikileaks. They have other members, and now they have a marytr who was killed under a law literally no legal expert said he would be found guilty over. This is their biggest win yet. 6) He is killed somewhere enroute. Winner: Wikileaks. Again, they have their own martyr.
Where in this was there the least bit of benefit for the US government or Sweden? People pretty much ALWAYS side with the accused on rape charges anyway, famous or not. It's like the WORST crime you could try and frame someone for because even most people who comit the crime get off and get a pat on their back.
|
The only way he couldn't win on this is if they get he himself on an espionage law, then transfer him into a military court, or set him at Gitmo with the rest of the "kinda/sorta combatants" that sit in their little legal hole, or at least that's what they could have done, but the Obama administration would look absolutely horrible if they did that to him (or anyone else new at this point)
It'd be really contrived and awkward, but possible, and then once he was inside that system they could work to secure that encryption key, but of course even that wouldn't work because they're held on a hair trigger, probably would go off as soon as his extradition order to the US went through, or sooner
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
