London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Dear old Butch, confident again, and back to his bully-boy best; loving being the thread gatekeeper: Top Boy.
The one where i quoted the processes of extradition under various conditions from sweden yes. If you're going to use that example it's like saying oh yes, the hmrc like they're going to tell you about paying tax.
You are shit.
I made no such argument. I said that the basis on which he would be legally extradited from sweden is the same as from the UK and would only happen with the UK's permission. You haven't read this statement of law. Do read things, it helps.Wow, you are actually going to pursue this argument? Your argument that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the US is because it goes against what it says on their website? Either you are incredibly naive, or you are knowingly scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.
It is how Assange's supporters can possibly maintain their line of argument that he is seeking to avoid extradition to Sweden because that would somehow, in some nebulously unspecified way, put him on the fast track to extradition to the USA.
For this argument to be convincing, it must be the case that it is easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK.
Therefore if this is not the case, Assange's supporters' main justification for their stance is completely undermined.
Dear old Butch, confident again, and back to his bully-boy best; loving being the thread gatekeeper: Top Boy.
I disagree: I don't see what the UK has to do with it. It is not obvious that Assange would still be in the UK had he not been under house arrest. And it would be easy (easier) for the US to extradite him if he was charged or convicted there.
I made no such argument. I said that the basis on which he would be legally extradited from sweden is the same as from the UK and would only happen with the UK's permission. You haven't read this statement of law. Do read things, it helps.
Oh now you've read. Thank you so much smudge, that you deign to do what other people did before posting and before slagging off people for posting what you now take as gospel.Yes I read it. It's not clear, but is it the case that this still applies even though Assange is not a UK national?
Thing is, I have no problem with believing that the US grand jury intends to issue extradition proceedings, charges/indictment, etc. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't. The thing I fail to understand is why him being in Sweden somehow gives the US any kind of advantage.
He's been here in Britain for ages. We have a favourable extradition arrangement with the US. If they want him, they can come and get him anytime they like - surely?
Oh now you've read. Thank you so much smudge, that you deign to do what other people did before posting and before slagging off people for posting what you now take as gospel.
Post it and ask. What does it say?
He has predictably been in the UK because he has been under an arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Why would the US then come in and then issue another warrant for his extradition? He's not going anywhere. And they will probably gain support if they wait because he will be charged if not convicted eventually.
Sweden aren't going to come under any fire for extraditing a criminal or suspected criminal. And, given their relationship with the US, it is unlikely that they would turn down an extradition order to send Assange to the US.
This is it, pure i think this and i think that? Why is he is in the UK art all? Have you asked yourself that? The US haven't issued an extradition warrant in sweden either. Please do, i can't emphasise this enough, read some stuff on this.He has predictably been in the UK because he has been under an arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Why would the US then come in and then issue another warrant for his extradition? He's not going anywhere. And they will probably gain support if they wait because he will be charged if not convicted eventually.
Sweden aren't going to come under any fire for extraditing a criminal or suspected criminal. And, given their relationship with the US, it is unlikely that they would turn down an extradition order to send Assange to the US.
So how does it benefit him to avoid going to Sweden, if the US are going to extradite him anyway?
Your argument is that, if he somehow avoids extradition to Sweden and remains in Britain, the US will then apply to extradite him from Britain. And Britain is just as likely to extradite him as Sweden is.
So where's the benefit in staying in Britain?
Other than that he wouldn't have to face those nasty rape claims, of course. Which is obviously not what this is about at ALL.
I think it's likely that story about a grand jury is a plant - one email from a security firm - and Hillary is bluffing.
It appears the USA may not currently have enough on Assange, and they are hoping Bradley Manning can be convinced to do a deal that lands Assange in the shit. At least if he's in Sweden, they can still get to him if they break Manning.
You would read an official swedish outline of what the warrant he us under and what this means as regards extradition outside of the the EU if you thought this had anything to do with extradition between sweden and the US? But not now. Wow.I would if I thought it had any relevance to anything that might actually happen between the US and Sweden regarding Assange.
You're not arguing very much here at all to be totally honest. Give it a go.I'm not arguing that he would remain in Britain.
Sweden aren't going to come under any fire for extraditing a criminal or suspected criminal. And, given their relationship with the US, it is unlikely that they would turn down an extradition order to send Assange to the US.
I'm not arguing that he would remain in Britain.
The various legal layers and courts within Europe don't seem to factor much in your thinking do they? He would have an opportunity to take matters to courts that aren't Swedens own if it came to it.
I'm going to bed now. Here's a clue for you - the only way I can see in which your argument would work is if it's not legally possible for the UK to extradite someone to the US if they are already facing an extradition request from another country (Sweden, in this case). If that were to be legally the case, then the US would HAVE to wait until Assange was deported from the UK (and thus Sweden's extradition request was fulfilled) before they could file an extradition request in Sweden.
In that case, Assange's reluctance to go to Sweden makes more sense.
You're not arguing very much here at all to be totally honest. Give it a go.
Not much, because I doubt they factor much in America's thinking either.
Can you not see what the US would gain from waiting until Assange goes to Sweden? He's most likely going to be up on rape charges. Why would they stop that?
I did. Many times. This isn't a parlour game, it not xmas at yours.Oh no, you first, I insist.
Not much, because I doubt they factor much in America's thinking either.
It's easily used mugs idiocy. I thought smuude just got some sort of phd or something as well?Oh yeah right, people considering using the legal process to serve their ends don't consider the details of the legal process in the relevant countries do they?
What level of idiocy is this?
Oh yeah right, people considering using the legal process to serve their ends don't consider the details of the legal process in the relevant countries do they?
What level of idiocy is this?