Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assange to face extradition

I may have noticed this as well, but post a link if it's no bother. What I'm talking about, though, is elected politicians.
Why? Why should an elected politician say that they guarantee that the Swedish state will not extradite assange? They can make no such guarantee, they have no power to make such a guarantee. Are you really saying that what this situation requires is a politician grandstanding? What do you want to happen here?

Have you really not seen any elected politicians saying that the swedish state has legal obligations that it must fulfill and that this may lead to the state deciding not to extradite him?
 
Why? Why should an elected politician say that they guarantee that the Swedish state will not extradite assange? They can make no such guarantee, they have no power to make such a guarantee. Are you really saying that what this situation requires is a politician grandstanding? What do you want to happen here?
An elected politician could draw attention to the existing legal fact that no US extradition could happen. It would be simple, and so simple that it would probably be done for the benefit of a dissident from a country like Iran or Belarus.
 
An elected politician could draw attention to the existing legal fact that no US extradition could happen. It would be simple, and so simple that it would probably be done for the benefit of a dissident from a country like Iran or Belarus.
First off, it's not true that no legal extradition could happen. Secondly, this is exactly what loads of people have been saying - that there is constitutional guarantees that make his extradition harder from sweden than the UK. How would an elected politician jumping on the back change anything? What do you or chomsky think this would do?
 
When people in government speak out, people tend to listen. They think that this government is what runs the state.
 
When people in government speak out, people tend to listen. They think that this government is what runs the state.
What does it matter if someone prominent if govt talks out about guaranteeing that the Swedish state will not extradite assange if what they say is nonsense, if what they say is untrue, if they have no power whatsoever to ensure that what they say will not happen will not happen? You've taken a wrong turning here.
 
What does it matter if someone prominent if govt talks out about guaranteeing that the Swedish state will not extradite assange if what they say is nonsense, if what they say is untrue, if they have no power whatsoever to ensure that what they say will not happen will not happen? You've taken a wrong turning here.
They could simply draw attention to the existing legal safeguards Assange would have. It's about making a point.
 
They could simply draw attention to the existing legal safeguards Assange would have. It's about making a point.
Is that the point chomsky was making? That there are legal protections in sweden that would mean that assange would be less likely to be extradited from there and so should go to sweden forthwith? Or was he suggesting that they have not said or done anything like this because they want to extradite him and have already secretly signed up for it?
 
Is that the point chomsky was making? That there are legal protections in sweden that would mean that assange would be less likely to be extradited from there and so should go to sweden forthwith? Or was he suggesting that they have not said or done anything like this because they want to extradite him and have already secretly signed up for it?
Here's his counterfactual: "Sweden would not hesitate to pursue its sole announced concern, accepting the offer to interrogate Assange in London. It would declare that if Assange returned to Sweden (as he has agreed to do), he would not be extradited to Russia, where chances of a fair trial would be slight."

It doesn't seem to me that he's saying Sweden is in on it. Whether Chom thinks this or not, it still stands to reason that the politicians, in Sweden and the UK, who've been loudly talking about Assange's legal process, would also be saying things in his defence if he was being threatened by politicians and pundits in Russia or Iran.
 
Here's his counterfactual: "Sweden would not hesitate to pursue its sole announced concern, accepting the offer to interrogate Assange in London. It would declare that if Assange returned to Sweden (as he has agreed to do), he would not be extradited to Russia, where chances of a fair trial would be slight."

It doesn't seem to me that he's saying Sweden is in on it. Whether Chom thinks this or not, it still stands to reason that the politicians, in Sweden and the UK, who've been loudly talking about Assange's legal process, would also be saying things in his defence if he was being threatened by politicians and pundits in Russia or Iran.
The implication is quite clear - sweden is not doing this (and this article talks about something other than making an announcement) because it has an agenda other than strict legality which it is working towards.
 
The implication is quite clear - sweden is not doing this (and this article talks about something other than making an announcement) because it has an agenda other than strict legality which it is working towards.
I'm happy to take Chomsky's article at face value. Hoping he's not lost it.
 
Oh I just read that Chomsky article. He didnt mention Iran in conjunction with Assange or Sweden at all, purely Russia.

Given the point it looks like he was making, it may be useful to note what William Hague said just the other day, trying to give reassurances that the UK would do its bit if the US was trying to extradite Assange into a situation incompatible with our human rights laws in regards things like the death penalty. If it were Russia rather than the USA, such stuff would have been heard sooner and been delivered with a lot more gusto. But then the entire politics and some of the legal situation would likely have been quite different too, not to mention that Russia often takes a different approach to dealing with its enemies.

I dont think Chomsky has lost it, but even if he were not as old as he now is its somewhat inevitable that his focus tends towards a set of familiar and well-trodden themes. The wikileaks story has too many of the usual attractions for Chomsky to expect him to explore the other stuff in any depth, sadly. I'd rather he did, and remembering to briefly acknowledge the sex crime justice aspect using slightly ambiguous language is less than I would hope for, but no shock. He put his name to that letter some months back that demonstrated well what the priorities were, and they were nothing to do with rape. Many people cant help themselves but to make the propaganda that suits them out of this story.

I'm not sure Chomsky would be happy with you taking his article at face value, analysis is king ;)
 
Given the point it looks like he was making, it may be useful to note what William Hague said just the other day, trying to give reassurances that the UK would do its bit if the US was trying to extradite Assange into a situation incompatible with our human rights laws in regards things like the death penalty.
Well I'll hold my hands up now and say I'm fairly wrong on this. Hague saying this kind of thing is exactly what I say Swedish politicians should be saying http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=791558 Thanks for bringing that to my attention, elbows.
 
The people who put up Assange's bail money are now waiting until the 3rd October to find out the result, the hearing was postponed.
 
Looks like somehow the BBC story from 2010 about the arrest warrant being dropped has been bumped back into the top stories list. :hmm:
 
Looks like somehow the BBC story from 2010 about the arrest warrant being dropped has been bumped back into the top stories list. :hmm:

I just saw that, was going to post it and then checked the date. Thought it odd that it would not be at least in the headline section.
 
Back
Top Bottom