No, we haven't. We've gone against public will in certain regions, when public will in other regions disagreed with them and put them down. It's democracy in action: the majority gets its way. In the case of the Civil War, the north had a majority (in population, as well as industrial capacity), so they got their way. Now I'll agree that in that case, the north was right about the slavery issue, but there's other issues; if a majority of the US population decides they want Creationism taught in all schools nationwide (and they fill the SCOTUS with justices who agree with them over multiple election cycles and SCOTUS appointments), then that's what they're going to get. This is the danger of centralization.
I think you're confusing federalism with anti-federalism. Federalism means having a strong central government, where the government has much more to do with in-country affairs than the things you list. We fought a war over federalism vs. anti-federalism (which believes as you state); the federalists won.
Sure you can. If a large enough majority of the population demands it, the constitution can be amended. It's harder at the federal level, but at the state level constitutions get amended all the time with referendum votes, particularly in the west coast states.
Plus, the constitution, like any law, is subject to interpretation. People's speech is limited all the time despite the 1A: try yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or try publishing damaging lies about someone powerful. There's consequences to those actions, either criminal or civil. Interpretation of laws is done by judges. Where do judges come from? In some states, they're elected; for the SCOTUS, they're appointed by the President with approval from Congress, both of whom are elected by the people. There are mechanisms in place to create a longer "feedback loop" between popular whim and various levels of government (which is why SCOTUS justices are not directly elected), but if the people want something long enough, and in large enough numbers, they're eventually going to get it, in a true democratic system.
Actually, if you read between the lines and some of my other posts, if I'm arguing for anything, it's separatism. But most of the time I'm just bashing society in general. With a democratic government, you're subject to the whims of the voters at large, so if your countrymen are a bunch of religious idiots, well, you can imagine the result. With an authoritarian government, history shows us what that can bring us; basically, the way I see it, with authoritarian government, it's all up to luck. If you're lucky, you'll have a government run by wise people who want to do the best for their people. If you're unlucky, you're have an oppressive despotism. And even if you're in the first group with a great leader (like, say, Elizabeth I or Hadrian), the whole thing can come crashing down when that leader chokes on his food and dies, and his insane son takes over. The Roman Empire's history is full of this.
As a wise man once said, "There's a time and a place for everything", science class is neither the time nor the place for people's creation myths.
Perhaps, but science class in a public school is subject to the whims of the voters (who elect the politicians who decide what's taught in schools), and the general public is not known for wisdom, especially in America.
The Bill of Rights only worked because enough people were able to agree that they were a good thing and should be enshrined in law. Heck, the First Amendment's religion clause was basically a compromise: basically it was an agreement that since no one could agree on a single national religion, and there were a lot of people there who had been oppressed because of their religion, they decided to make a law that no particular religion should be favored, so that everyone could practice whatever religion they liked. However, laws are subject to interpretation by courts, and things change over time.
As for slavery, there wasn't enough popular support to ban that at the time. So they basically had two options: either let different states have different laws on the issue, or not have a unified country at all (which, at the time, was seen as a bad idea because they thought they needed the unity to stay independent from Britain). There wasn't any way the northerners were going to convince the southerners that they should give up slavery, so they weren't going to get them to join in a union unless they allowed different laws by state.
We're seeing lots of problems in the USA these days because of this same infighting, because people in different regions have very different values and opinions. People in places like Kentucky want all kids taught Creationism, people in places like New York don't. How do you reconcile this, without having a dictatorial government? It's easy, either you let different states have different standards (Creationism in Kentucky, Evolution and science in NY), or you break up the country so that KY and NY are no longer part of the same country. Or you can just have a revolution, appoint a Dear Leader, and let him make the decision.
No, not necessarily. You can teach religious doctrine in a way to not explicitly advocate it. Just look at any comparative religion class in a university: they'll teach you what Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Baha'i, etc. all believe, but they don't advocate any of it. This can be done in public school too, but just for one sect of christianity (the ones that believe in Creationism). It's all in the wording: "many people believe that this is how the earth was formed...." and also in what is left out "(student) what about evolution? (teacher) that's not on the syllabus." Now, you might argue that this constitutes religious teaching, but a panel of judges that disagrees with you will say you're wrong. And who are you to argue with a panel of judges? Especially if that panel of judges was appointed by politicians, who make the people happy with these appointments, and then get re-elected? That's how democracy works.
You can argue legal technicalities all you want, but at a fundamental level, democracy is all about giving the people (or the majority of them) what they want most of the time. So if you don't like the way your country is being run, while most of your countrymen are fine with it, then you need to find a new country where you agree more with the people there.
Our democracy is limited one of those limits is that the state and the church are separate.
Wrong. There's no such law; the 1A does have a clause about not favoring a particular religion, but that's one little phrase and it can be interpreted numerous different ways based on the application. Finally, given enough popular support, there's nothing stopping the people from making a new amendment which overturns the 1A. It can even be interpreted that the 1A only applies to the federal government; this is really up to the SCOTUS, so if they change their minds and make a ruling like that, that's the new law.
Schools need to remain neutral I grew up in the age of MADD/DAMM when we started to attempt to indoctrinate moral values.
Yes, that's what happens when you have a democracy, and public schools. The whole point of public schools is to teach the things that society wants taught. If the society, through its instrument the government, decides with a democratic process that they want mythology taught instead of Science, that's their right. If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.
It's funny how the pro-theocracy people and the anti-theocracy people both argue for divinely-guided education and government. The pro-religion people want government and education done according to their particular religion, with laws based on religion, schools teaching their religion, and excluding things their religion doesn't agree with. The anti-religion people do exactly the same thing: they want a higher authority to decide what will be taught in schools, since the people who vote obviously can't be trusted with that. The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc." They seem to think that government should be run by some cabal of wise people who aren't subject to the voters' whims at all. But then they say that authoritarian governments are bad.
I guess I'm at a loss at how exactly you think education should be done in a democratic country, if you don't think it should be up to the whim of the voters. It's not about teaching fifth graders whatever they want to learn, it's about teaching fifth graders (and all other students) what the electorate wants them to learn. If the people collectively decide they want all the students learning Creationism, then that's their right, as voters, to elect politicians who will make that happen. Who are you to say that's wrong? You're just one person, and a majority of your countrymen disagree with you.
schools should be teaching them to question, probe and investigate.
Ideally, yes. However, public education is run by the government, which in turn is elected by the voters. If the voters want schools to teach kids to blindly believe mythology, then it's the schools' duty to teach kids to blindly believe mythology. You can't disagree with this statement if you believe in democracy; if you live in a country where the electorate demands such a form of "education", then you either need to send your kids to a private school that teaches your kids in a way you agree with, or you need to move to a country where the electorate agrees with you, or if you're in a region of your country that has very different values than other regions, you could try pushing for secession so you can get away from all the backwards mythology-believers and not be subject to their rule.
Fortunately, even with the last president, the country resisted turning into the full-fledged theocracy so many of his supporters wanted. Sure, he gave away a few tens of billions of dollars of our tax money to specific churches, which was bad and wrong, but not nearly as bad as forcing teenage rape victims to marry their rapists and stoning gays to death like these people promote in other more theocratic countries.
That's because different religions are different, and have different beliefs and practices. Fundie/Evangelical Christians are generally much more tolerant these days than Muslims, so they usually just want to oppress gays (or try to forcibly convert them to heterosexuality), rather than murder them all. And I've never really heard of bible-thumpers wanting rape victims to marry their rapists, that's a distinctly Muslim trait. The Christians usually want to execute rapists, unless of course "she was asking for it" (by dressing too "provocatively", or going on a date with the rapist), in which case they just want to ignore the crime.
A theocratic government in the US is going to reflect the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens, not the people in the middle east.
No, it's not. A majority of the population does not believe in the scientific method, and believes in creationism. So if you support democracy, then you have to support teaching creationism in schools (and not evolution), as that's what the majority wants.
Local control divides things so that opinions which are more prevalent in local areas than nationwide are able to have more influence within those local areas. So if the country is mostly rational, but some pockets have a lot of backwards religious nuts, then within those pockets, the backwards religious nuts get to have their way when they have more local control. However, the flip side is that if the country is mostly backwards religious nuts, and rational people are dominant in some pockets, then within those small areas local control will allow the rational people to run things in a way different from the religious nuts who are running the country at large. Here in America, most of the population is religious nuts, so if you want non-religious standards in schools, you either need to advocate for more local control (and then make sure to move to one of the areas where religious nuts aren't dominant, generally the northeast and the west coast), or you need (assuming you're already in one of those areas) to advocate for secession.
When a majority of the population is religious cranks, they're naturally going to vote for religious cranks to lead them. What else did you expect? This is how democracies work.
If you like central planning, then you need to accept the opinions of other people in your country. That means you need to change the standards for science and eliminate things they don't like, and put in religious stuff they want.
If you don't agree with this, then you either need to change your government to an authoritarian government like China's, or you need to break up your country so the areas with high concentrations of religious nuts aren't in the same country as you. This is how democracy works.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
If tons of people in your country are a bunch of backwards religious nuts and you don't like that, the answer is simple: you need to break the country up into smaller units, so that you (and others like you) can live in a country with a small concentration of the backwards people, and the areas with a high concentration of them will be a separate country (or countries). That way, you can both live how you like; you can live in a country where religion has little influence on laws and standards, and they can live in a country where religion has lots of power over these things.
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
The authorities don't want to interview him. They've been offered this, and refused, even though Sweden has interviewed suspects in foreign embassies in the past, so their claims that this can't be done are lies.
So no, we shouldn't follow arbitrarily made-up "legal process" in this case. It's obviously all a sham, so they can hand him over the CIA, just like Sweden has done in the past, where people were handed over to the CIA and taken to Egypt to be tortured.
The allegations are obviously politically motivated, and international treaty concerning embassies and granting of political asylum trumps extradition law. Storming an embassy over this case would have pretty severe consequences. What's to keep Ecuador from doing the same thing in return to the UK embassy in Quito? They'd be entirely justified.
If someone from wikileaks posted a defense of Assange here, neither you nor anyone else would accuse them of being a shill; they would be praised, modded up, thanked, etc..
Wikileaks isn't exactly an organization that has tons of money to hire shills to post favorable opinions all over the internet for them.
The US government, however, is.
So while the "shill" accusation may or may not have any veracity, it's perfectly understandable why no one ever accuses people of this who post positive opinions of poorly-funded underdogs.
Go read the Vienna treaty. It clearly states that diplomatic transport cannot be interfered with (i.e., a diplomatic car transporting people from the embassy to the airport).
As another American, I have to completely disagree with you. While I personally agree with your position, and I'm sure many others do too, I simply cannot agree that an actual majority of our countrymen do, not from what I see and hear. Just look at all the political talk in this country; most people actually support American imperialism and militarism, including Obama fans. I've come to the conclusion that most of us Americans really are a bunch of jerks and bullies.
If Americans were really ashamed of our government's actions, they'd be out in the streets protesting and being blasted by water cannons and fighting with the National Guard, just like our parents' generation was during the Vietnam War. But they're not. And it's not apathy, as is usually claimed; there's no shortage of strong opinions in favor of either the Republicans/Romney, or Obama, and both sides are nearly the same when it comes to stuff like this (foreign wars, extraordinary rendition, etc.).
Didn't Sweden already turn someone else over to the CIA, only to have them shipped to a CIA facility in Egypt where they were tortured?
As far as the American legal system, none of that is relevant. Mr. Assange never set foot in America, so anything he did to get his hands on classified American intel is only subject to the laws of the country he was in at the time. Being "classified" by the US government means jack squat outside US borders.
Why do Americans always think their laws apply everywhere anyway?
Yep, the UK is unwilling to extradite a man who tortured, murdered, and disappeared thousands. They're also unwilling to storm the Libyan embassy when someone in the embassy fires a submachine gun into a crowd of protesters, injuring many and killing one British cop, and instead they just let everyone in the embassy go back to Libya, including the murderer. However, for a guy who allegedly committed date rape with a girl who willingly slept with him, and who was released by the Swedish prosecutor and the "victim" is now being uncooperative, they're willing to cause a massive international incident. Hmmm...
And how can anyone possibly determine if these allegations are true? Was there a video camera recording their entire night together to show that while she did willingly sleep with him, she didn't want him screwing her at that particular moment? Or are we supposed to just accept one person's word?
Slashdot Mirror
No, we haven't. We've gone against public will in certain regions, when public will in other regions disagreed with them and put them down. It's democracy in action: the majority gets its way. In the case of the Civil War, the north had a majority (in population, as well as industrial capacity), so they got their way. Now I'll agree that in that case, the north was right about the slavery issue, but there's other issues; if a majority of the US population decides they want Creationism taught in all schools nationwide (and they fill the SCOTUS with justices who agree with them over multiple election cycles and SCOTUS appointments), then that's what they're going to get. This is the danger of centralization.
I think you're confusing federalism with anti-federalism. Federalism means having a strong central government, where the government has much more to do with in-country affairs than the things you list. We fought a war over federalism vs. anti-federalism (which believes as you state); the federalists won.
Are you forgetting that the Federal government is elected by people from Kentucky and similar states?
Sure you can. If a large enough majority of the population demands it, the constitution can be amended. It's harder at the federal level, but at the state level constitutions get amended all the time with referendum votes, particularly in the west coast states.
Plus, the constitution, like any law, is subject to interpretation. People's speech is limited all the time despite the 1A: try yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or try publishing damaging lies about someone powerful. There's consequences to those actions, either criminal or civil. Interpretation of laws is done by judges. Where do judges come from? In some states, they're elected; for the SCOTUS, they're appointed by the President with approval from Congress, both of whom are elected by the people. There are mechanisms in place to create a longer "feedback loop" between popular whim and various levels of government (which is why SCOTUS justices are not directly elected), but if the people want something long enough, and in large enough numbers, they're eventually going to get it, in a true democratic system.
Actually, if you read between the lines and some of my other posts, if I'm arguing for anything, it's separatism. But most of the time I'm just bashing society in general. With a democratic government, you're subject to the whims of the voters at large, so if your countrymen are a bunch of religious idiots, well, you can imagine the result. With an authoritarian government, history shows us what that can bring us; basically, the way I see it, with authoritarian government, it's all up to luck. If you're lucky, you'll have a government run by wise people who want to do the best for their people. If you're unlucky, you're have an oppressive despotism. And even if you're in the first group with a great leader (like, say, Elizabeth I or Hadrian), the whole thing can come crashing down when that leader chokes on his food and dies, and his insane son takes over. The Roman Empire's history is full of this.
As a wise man once said, "There's a time and a place for everything", science class is neither the time nor the place for people's creation myths.
Perhaps, but science class in a public school is subject to the whims of the voters (who elect the politicians who decide what's taught in schools), and the general public is not known for wisdom, especially in America.
The Bill of Rights only worked because enough people were able to agree that they were a good thing and should be enshrined in law. Heck, the First Amendment's religion clause was basically a compromise: basically it was an agreement that since no one could agree on a single national religion, and there were a lot of people there who had been oppressed because of their religion, they decided to make a law that no particular religion should be favored, so that everyone could practice whatever religion they liked. However, laws are subject to interpretation by courts, and things change over time.
As for slavery, there wasn't enough popular support to ban that at the time. So they basically had two options: either let different states have different laws on the issue, or not have a unified country at all (which, at the time, was seen as a bad idea because they thought they needed the unity to stay independent from Britain). There wasn't any way the northerners were going to convince the southerners that they should give up slavery, so they weren't going to get them to join in a union unless they allowed different laws by state.
We're seeing lots of problems in the USA these days because of this same infighting, because people in different regions have very different values and opinions. People in places like Kentucky want all kids taught Creationism, people in places like New York don't. How do you reconcile this, without having a dictatorial government? It's easy, either you let different states have different standards (Creationism in Kentucky, Evolution and science in NY), or you break up the country so that KY and NY are no longer part of the same country. Or you can just have a revolution, appoint a Dear Leader, and let him make the decision.
No, not necessarily. You can teach religious doctrine in a way to not explicitly advocate it. Just look at any comparative religion class in a university: they'll teach you what Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Baha'i, etc. all believe, but they don't advocate any of it. This can be done in public school too, but just for one sect of christianity (the ones that believe in Creationism). It's all in the wording: "many people believe that this is how the earth was formed...." and also in what is left out "(student) what about evolution? (teacher) that's not on the syllabus." Now, you might argue that this constitutes religious teaching, but a panel of judges that disagrees with you will say you're wrong. And who are you to argue with a panel of judges? Especially if that panel of judges was appointed by politicians, who make the people happy with these appointments, and then get re-elected? That's how democracy works.
You can argue legal technicalities all you want, but at a fundamental level, democracy is all about giving the people (or the majority of them) what they want most of the time. So if you don't like the way your country is being run, while most of your countrymen are fine with it, then you need to find a new country where you agree more with the people there.
Our democracy is limited one of those limits is that the state and the church are separate.
Wrong. There's no such law; the 1A does have a clause about not favoring a particular religion, but that's one little phrase and it can be interpreted numerous different ways based on the application. Finally, given enough popular support, there's nothing stopping the people from making a new amendment which overturns the 1A. It can even be interpreted that the 1A only applies to the federal government; this is really up to the SCOTUS, so if they change their minds and make a ruling like that, that's the new law.
Schools need to remain neutral I grew up in the age of MADD/DAMM when we started to attempt to indoctrinate moral values.
Yes, that's what happens when you have a democracy, and public schools. The whole point of public schools is to teach the things that society wants taught. If the society, through its instrument the government, decides with a democratic process that they want mythology taught instead of Science, that's their right. If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.
It's funny how the pro-theocracy people and the anti-theocracy people both argue for divinely-guided education and government. The pro-religion people want government and education done according to their particular religion, with laws based on religion, schools teaching their religion, and excluding things their religion doesn't agree with. The anti-religion people do exactly the same thing: they want a higher authority to decide what will be taught in schools, since the people who vote obviously can't be trusted with that. The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc." They seem to think that government should be run by some cabal of wise people who aren't subject to the voters' whims at all. But then they say that authoritarian governments are bad.
I guess I'm at a loss at how exactly you think education should be done in a democratic country, if you don't think it should be up to the whim of the voters. It's not about teaching fifth graders whatever they want to learn, it's about teaching fifth graders (and all other students) what the electorate wants them to learn. If the people collectively decide they want all the students learning Creationism, then that's their right, as voters, to elect politicians who will make that happen. Who are you to say that's wrong? You're just one person, and a majority of your countrymen disagree with you.
Do you not understand what a democracy is?
schools should be teaching them to question, probe and investigate.
Ideally, yes. However, public education is run by the government, which in turn is elected by the voters. If the voters want schools to teach kids to blindly believe mythology, then it's the schools' duty to teach kids to blindly believe mythology. You can't disagree with this statement if you believe in democracy; if you live in a country where the electorate demands such a form of "education", then you either need to send your kids to a private school that teaches your kids in a way you agree with, or you need to move to a country where the electorate agrees with you, or if you're in a region of your country that has very different values than other regions, you could try pushing for secession so you can get away from all the backwards mythology-believers and not be subject to their rule.
Fortunately, even with the last president, the country resisted turning into the full-fledged theocracy so many of his supporters wanted. Sure, he gave away a few tens of billions of dollars of our tax money to specific churches, which was bad and wrong, but not nearly as bad as forcing teenage rape victims to marry their rapists and stoning gays to death like these people promote in other more theocratic countries.
That's because different religions are different, and have different beliefs and practices. Fundie/Evangelical Christians are generally much more tolerant these days than Muslims, so they usually just want to oppress gays (or try to forcibly convert them to heterosexuality), rather than murder them all. And I've never really heard of bible-thumpers wanting rape victims to marry their rapists, that's a distinctly Muslim trait. The Christians usually want to execute rapists, unless of course "she was asking for it" (by dressing too "provocatively", or going on a date with the rapist), in which case they just want to ignore the crime.
A theocratic government in the US is going to reflect the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens, not the people in the middle east.
No, it's not. A majority of the population does not believe in the scientific method, and believes in creationism. So if you support democracy, then you have to support teaching creationism in schools (and not evolution), as that's what the majority wants.
Local control divides things so that opinions which are more prevalent in local areas than nationwide are able to have more influence within those local areas. So if the country is mostly rational, but some pockets have a lot of backwards religious nuts, then within those pockets, the backwards religious nuts get to have their way when they have more local control. However, the flip side is that if the country is mostly backwards religious nuts, and rational people are dominant in some pockets, then within those small areas local control will allow the rational people to run things in a way different from the religious nuts who are running the country at large. Here in America, most of the population is religious nuts, so if you want non-religious standards in schools, you either need to advocate for more local control (and then make sure to move to one of the areas where religious nuts aren't dominant, generally the northeast and the west coast), or you need (assuming you're already in one of those areas) to advocate for secession.
When a majority of the population is religious cranks, they're naturally going to vote for religious cranks to lead them. What else did you expect? This is how democracies work.
So you're advocating an authoritarian government?
If you like central planning, then you need to accept the opinions of other people in your country. That means you need to change the standards for science and eliminate things they don't like, and put in religious stuff they want.
If you don't agree with this, then you either need to change your government to an authoritarian government like China's, or you need to break up your country so the areas with high concentrations of religious nuts aren't in the same country as you. This is how democracy works.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
If tons of people in your country are a bunch of backwards religious nuts and you don't like that, the answer is simple: you need to break the country up into smaller units, so that you (and others like you) can live in a country with a small concentration of the backwards people, and the areas with a high concentration of them will be a separate country (or countries). That way, you can both live how you like; you can live in a country where religion has little influence on laws and standards, and they can live in a country where religion has lots of power over these things.
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
The authorities don't want to interview him. They've been offered this, and refused, even though Sweden has interviewed suspects in foreign embassies in the past, so their claims that this can't be done are lies.
So no, we shouldn't follow arbitrarily made-up "legal process" in this case. It's obviously all a sham, so they can hand him over the CIA, just like Sweden has done in the past, where people were handed over to the CIA and taken to Egypt to be tortured.
The allegations are obviously politically motivated, and international treaty concerning embassies and granting of political asylum trumps extradition law. Storming an embassy over this case would have pretty severe consequences. What's to keep Ecuador from doing the same thing in return to the UK embassy in Quito? They'd be entirely justified.
If someone from wikileaks posted a defense of Assange here, neither you nor anyone else would accuse them of being a shill; they would be praised, modded up, thanked, etc..
Wikileaks isn't exactly an organization that has tons of money to hire shills to post favorable opinions all over the internet for them.
The US government, however, is.
So while the "shill" accusation may or may not have any veracity, it's perfectly understandable why no one ever accuses people of this who post positive opinions of poorly-funded underdogs.
Go read the Vienna treaty. It clearly states that diplomatic transport cannot be interfered with (i.e., a diplomatic car transporting people from the embassy to the airport).
As another American, I have to completely disagree with you. While I personally agree with your position, and I'm sure many others do too, I simply cannot agree that an actual majority of our countrymen do, not from what I see and hear. Just look at all the political talk in this country; most people actually support American imperialism and militarism, including Obama fans. I've come to the conclusion that most of us Americans really are a bunch of jerks and bullies.
If Americans were really ashamed of our government's actions, they'd be out in the streets protesting and being blasted by water cannons and fighting with the National Guard, just like our parents' generation was during the Vietnam War. But they're not. And it's not apathy, as is usually claimed; there's no shortage of strong opinions in favor of either the Republicans/Romney, or Obama, and both sides are nearly the same when it comes to stuff like this (foreign wars, extraordinary rendition, etc.).
Didn't Sweden already turn someone else over to the CIA, only to have them shipped to a CIA facility in Egypt where they were tortured?
As far as the American legal system, none of that is relevant. Mr. Assange never set foot in America, so anything he did to get his hands on classified American intel is only subject to the laws of the country he was in at the time. Being "classified" by the US government means jack squat outside US borders.
Why do Americans always think their laws apply everywhere anyway?
Yep, the UK is unwilling to extradite a man who tortured, murdered, and disappeared thousands. They're also unwilling to storm the Libyan embassy when someone in the embassy fires a submachine gun into a crowd of protesters, injuring many and killing one British cop, and instead they just let everyone in the embassy go back to Libya, including the murderer. However, for a guy who allegedly committed date rape with a girl who willingly slept with him, and who was released by the Swedish prosecutor and the "victim" is now being uncooperative, they're willing to cause a massive international incident. Hmmm...
And how can anyone possibly determine if these allegations are true? Was there a video camera recording their entire night together to show that while she did willingly sleep with him, she didn't want him screwing her at that particular moment? Or are we supposed to just accept one person's word?