

Well, you're missing one possibility: that there's some dirty, under-the-tables agreement between the US and Sweden that would guarantee Assange's extradition to the US from Sweden. The thing is that the amount of effort Sweden (or some people in Sweden) is putting into the Assange case while there's so much mystery surrounding that case says something. It's not a clear cut trial here. It's pretty obvious there's more at stake than a rape allegation, especially since the "victims" have already expressed their disapproval of prosecuting Assange.losCHUNK wrote:It does apply to rule of law also
And I can't see how that's contradicting myself. I've said that they can't extradite him from Sweden anymore than they can from the UK, that's been part of my point from post 1, so he can go back and face charges - As if the US can bring a credible case in Sweden as Assange claims then they can also bring a credible case in the UK. If I said the US could get him if they wanted him, due to my stance from post 1 I thought it would be obvious that I meant if they brought forward a credible case to Sweden and/or the UK as assuming anything else would be illegal.
The best you could come up with is *because Britain would have to answer awkward questions*seremtan wrote:furthermore, a lot of the points he's raising are already addressed in the article itself, and i don't really feel like being mr copypasta today
John Pilger isn't perfect (he can be a bit hysterical sometimes) but overall he's one of a rare breed of solid investigative journalists who follow a story to the end (Patrick Cockburn is another)
And you resorted to twisting my words when it was clear what I meant. After claiming to be correct when you didn't even know a few basics *it was about a condom*. But he's definately being persecuted *slaps forehead*Eraser wrote:Cock burn
You obviously still don't understand. Nevermind.losCHUNK wrote:Well it's you guys that's speculating
The notion that Sweden invented a rape case so that he can be deported to America when the US could've cut out the middle man if they had grounds to do so
Uh? My "Cock burn" post was a laugh at the surname of a person seremtan referred to, not a dig at you.losCHUNK wrote:And you resorted to twisting my words when it was clear what I meant. After claiming to be correct when you didn't even know a few basics *it was about a condom*. But he's definately being persecuted *slaps forehead*Eraser wrote:Cock burn
That statement applies 100% to yourself.losCHUNK wrote:You said yourself, you're speculating. all you've been given it's what the media and a very vocal defense has given you.
I never, it's all goodEraser wrote:
Uh? My "Cock burn" post was a laugh at the surname of a person seremtan referred to, not a dig at you....
...I never resorted to twisting your words. I'm just trying to figure out what point you're trying to make, because it's still not clear.
repeating the contents of the article to you is starting to get tedious nowlosCHUNK wrote:The notion that Sweden invented a rape case...
there's nothing for him to answer since he hasn't been charged with a crimelosCHUNK wrote:I think he should answer to the Swedish authorities.
lol, did you even read the article at all? Marianne Ny has so far refused to question Assange, even though there has been ample opportunity to do so.losCHUNK wrote:He can't be charged without being questioned, that's the next stage of the investigation, he's arrested in his abscence. He's wanted to be charged after questioning, and it's not just the prosecutor, It's also the Swedish courts.
You didn't answer either of Mat's questions. Why don't you try engaging in the actual debate that YOU created, rather than use all your resources to avoid admitting that you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.losCHUNK wrote:It wouldn't be the 1st time a prosecutor acted like a dog with 2 dicks.
I had to defend a mate against sexual assault in crown court despite any evidence, a witness and the withdrawal of the victim.
I stuck to one point and everyone else is sidetracking with speculation.syp0s wrote:
You didn't answer either of Mat's questions. Why don't you try engaging in the actual debate that YOU created, rather than use all your resources to avoid admitting that you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.