By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 25 August 2012
Edit Thread
justinian said:
Kasz216 said:


Actually, the only lawyers i've seen not think the evidence was strong... was his lawyers.   Have you read the Swedish police reports?

Why would Sweden say that they wouldn't extradite him if faced with the death penalty if all this US extradition talk is nonsense?

Because he keeps using extradition to the US as a boogey man excuse to flee rape charges.  Obviously.

 

Either way, your entire arguement is full of illogical nonsense that disagrees with itself.   Let's examine your claims shall we? 

We'll only do one in this post so as to not miss anything.

Contradiction 1: A) Assange was in the UK, NOT to avoid his rape charges with both testimony and physical evidence.   But to avoid extradition to the USA under the death penalty.

B)Assange couldn't be extradited to the USA because under Euro law, you can't be extradited to face the death penalty.

Conclusion -  If  B is true, then A is false.     If A is true, and then B is false, it doesn't make any sense for him to flee to the UK, which has a MUCH stronger relationship with the USA... and MUCH stronger extradition treaty.

 

Since dropping of the death penalty is the big stopper here... and it's a uniform stopper in both the UK and the Sweden...

Why wouldn't the US request extradition on gurantee that they wouldn't give him the death penalty?  They aren't getting him either way, and in the UK to be extradited it has to be proven he has been involved in something that may break US law

While the Swedish extradition treaty requires the US show he may of done something that broke Swedeish law.

 


Also...

 

"The Swedish government has said through its ambassador in Australia that they won't extradite in circumstances that involve intelligence or the military. That they won't extradite where there is no comparable offence in Swedish law, and where there's a capital offence involved. I believe that the government of neutral, democratic, Sweden, a liberal democracy, is not part of some fully blown CIA conspiracy."

In otherwords, there is zero chance he will be extradited to the US from Sweden. 

 

Just because the only people you have come across who think the evidence is weak are Assange lawyers don't make it so. The world doesn't revolve around what you are aware of.

Assange has been big news in the UK all week and many BRITISH politicians, lawyers, Women's groups  etc, have had their say on TV and Radio. Many think the evidence is weak, but these two stand out - espeicially the second - for obvious reasons. 

1) British ambassador Craig Murray named one of the women making allegations against Assange and encouraged viewers to research her background on the Internet.

 

Murray labelled the allegations "dubious" and said they were part of a "political agenda".

2) Women Againt Rape (WAR) do not want him extradited to Sweden because from what the gathered from the alledged case think the evidence is weak and believe the pursuit of Assange is political.

As for the rest of what you wrote I couldn't be bothered to read it all. Forgive me.

With all due respect you strike me as an arrogant know-it-all so to carry on is pointless. Let's wave and leave it at that.

 


Oh, well if you listen to Craig Murray, and those women.

What you WOULD find, is that there were some allegations that she was there was a theory proposed by a holocaust denier and antisemite that had connections with wikileaks that a woman was a CIA agent because she happened to help organize rallys for a femnist group in Cuba that worked with another group that at one point knew people in the CIA.

And were people who made these claimes before the swedish police reports were leaked...  and never looked at the Swedish police reports.

In otherwords, people who are completely uninformed.

 

I noticed though you had no response to any of the actual logic in my arguement, which I'm going to take with your attempt to unilaterally leave the argument as an embarresed "I was wrong an have no actual way of argueing this conversation logically except relying on the words of an antisemtic holocost dening friend of Julian Assange who had about as much logic behind his theory as he did holocaust dening, or 9/11 truthers."

 

If I sound arrogant.  It's simply because the facts are extremly open and shut on whether he should return to face charges.  Much like whether the holocaust happened, or 9/11, or evoloution.

Those who argue otherwise simply just haven't done the research to properly be informed.  In reality, if I feel bad for linking any of those groups together it's the 9/11 truthers, even though there is 0 chance 9/11 was an indside job.  At least they try to put foward actual theroies with science, even if the science is pretty eaisly debunked by experts.

I mean good god.  It's Sweden.  Is there a more independent liberal Europeon country then Sweden?