You quoted laws that can and have already been bent to extradite people at will. All that is needed is political will and basically anyone can be extradited by such agreements. All you need is an accusation of anything that fits (and accusations are very easy to make) and the good will of the countries involved which is easy enough for US to get.
At this point nobody can extradite him to US legally, as I said, but it can change at any point as long as they can accuse him of the right things, They do not wish to do so now, though, because it is much better for them to smear him the most they can before doing that, and sending him to Sweden to be tried by these ridiculous charges is a good start.
So basically you've shown no evidence at all that my "conspiracy theories" cannot come to happen. You still feel in the right of saying he is "my hero" despite the fact that I haven't even once given him any kind of value judgment. You, on the other hand, are perfectly fine with referring to him as guilty of the crimes he has not even he has been charged of .
You are the laugh stock here, Mr. Americano, but keep telling yourself otherwise and maybe you will believe it. It will be good for your wounded self-esteem.
You can't ask from others what you can't offer yourself. By doing that you only show the double standards that are so popular in your country. You offered no evidence that ANY of those points are false. You also didn't offer any evidence refuting the inconsistencies I pointed deciding just to ignore them, because you have no answer to them.
You keep writing long winded posts repeating the very same things time and again in a desperate attempt to make them become true, maybe to yourself, considering that at this point we are probably the only ones reading these texts.
Your posture is basically: "I will completely disregard anything that doesn't fit with my theories and call it bullshit without any proof that they are really false.". Sorry, my good sir, but you couldn't recognize rational thought even if it bit you in the face.
I suspected you would have difficulties understanding a simple concept but I am somewhat surprised at this point. If you still do not get the point, I simply cannot explain it to you. Perhaps you can ask around some.
Perhaps you can learn to reason. There is no concept here to be understood but your inability to understand that you used an analogy that basically proved you were wrong, which just accomplished to show how feeble is your mind.
Now wait a minute. I said the only case I know of where the prosecution was overridden in needing the suspect present for questioning was when a judge rules that his statement wouldn't be substantially material to the investigation. You replied in turn that Assange's lawyers attempted to get the same thing but failed. Are you or are you not claiming that Assange's lawyers attempted to get Sweden to waive the custody for the inquiry and if so, are you also claiming their Assange's lawyers did not ask the right people?
Man, you are slow, it is tedious to explain things to you. He has not been charged of anything, the prosecutors used an international agreement to request his extradition to be interrogated without consulting a Swedish judge, there is no process open in Sweden, there is nothing a Swedish judge can do until the charges are brought against him. The lawyers and the embassy offered the alternatives to the prosecutors. The prosecutors declined them.
Furthermore the Swedish prosecutors could interrogate him with him present in the embassy, or previously in UK custody, at any moment they wished. They chose not to. They don't want to interrogate him. They don't want to ascertain the truth. They want to crucify him. Period. This case would never even go to court in any country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence against him. It is just his word against the word of two people in two different cases.
It is not my fault that your definition of evidence is whatever you accept as evidence. That is circular logic, and just another fallacy, I gave you plenty of evidences of inconsistencies in the process and in the behavior of the people involved.
I can't give you evidence that the US is trying to extradite him because, as I claimed it won't yet, so as I said the only way to obtain such evidence is to put Assange in the position they want, which won't happen now that he is granted Asylum.
Now you can keep your fantasies and personal biases as much as you want, or you can grow up and concede that your arguments not only have no evidence to back them up, they simply do not make sense, they are internally inconsistent and basically resume to: "You can't absolutely prove you are right, and so you are wrong.". A phrase that can also be applied to evolution, quantum physics, classical physics and basically any scientific achievement of mankind.
Your first paragraph does not even makes sense. Your analogy was indeed silly, in that you are right, and there is no point in arguing with silly analogies besides trying to make a fool of yourself.
And now you are on the hopes my friend and trying to pull arguments from your sorry ass. No judge refused the offers, the Swedish prosecutors did, the same prosecutors that didn't bother to press charges against Assange.
And no, no Swedish judge was ever consulted about the Ecuadorian embassy offer or even the lawyers request. Furthermore the prosecution has autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order.
There is no possible way to give you the evidence you want. The only way to proof beyond doubt that he is being targeted in a smear campaign would be for him to accept being extradited, going to Sweden, getting some weird and disproportional sentence, possibly being charged for something else after arrival too, and ending in US. That is a high price to pay to prove you are right, and I doubt he wants to be a martyr.
But as I posted in my first post he is confident enough that this is the case to risk being stuck for years, or even for life, in a two rooms embassy, instead of facing charges that would never imply in more than a year (with good behavior) in the worst possible scenario in a Swedish prison, which could be seem like a Hotel compared to any US prison. Even if he is considered guilty, the most likely outcome for a primary offender would be communitary services, though, not even the prison.
You can keep defending the integrity of Sweden as much as you like, despite all evidence on the contrary, but were I in Assange skin I would have done exactly the same. It pays to be paranoid when dealing with US government.
You won't see what you don't want to see, it doesn't matter if it jumps on your face and bites you. That much has been made more than clear by your words, and exhaustively. I am also flattered that you find myself cute, but unfortunately I am not available.
Your first sentence is infantile. The police cannot plant evidence because there are laws that say they can't. Doing that is forgery, perjury (if they are called to court), illegal arrest, abuse of power and many other offences all covered by specific laws. Laws are mostly negative, Positive laws only exist to open exception as amendments to other more general negative laws.
And Assange lawyers did argue requesting video conference to avoid extradition, but their requests were refused. The diplomatic authorities of Ecuador also offered to Sweden an opportunity to interrogate him in UK inside their embassy, which was arbitrarily refused by the prosecution. Swedish authorities had many opportunities to question him, and declined all of them.
I do believe 20 years are a bit excessive, but nowhere near the excesses of copyright lengths (last time I checked 120 years or so and with automatic renewal).
You are greatly underestimating the place of all atheist scientists, philosophers and entrepreneurs in the history of mankind, and it could be argued that some religious people indeed helped the improvement of mankind, but that was despite their being religious not because they were.
Don't understand me wrong. I am all for freedom of creed, but, based on the very same Human History you cite, I can safely conclude that the bad effects of religions are considerably more significative than their good effects.
There needs to be no law saying what is allowed. In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something it is allowed. None of the texts you posted strictly say the process cannot follow without his presence. If a law says I cannot cross red lights it does not make physical impossible for me to cross red lights. Conversely if a law says I must present myself in my trials it does not make it impossible for the trial to proceed if I, by any motive, decide to ignore such law.
If you found yourself a case where the judge allowed for it than it is within his discretion, and, as nobody tried to ask a judge if he would allow it in this case, even because nobody pressed any charges against Assange, then you can safely argue that they are purposely avoiding the possibility of it being granted.
And that my good sir is another bunch of fallacies (which are basically the only thing that you can write apparently. There is no dichotomy between "respect the law to the letter" or "do whatever you wish". There is a lot of middle ground and a lot of reasons not to go to either extreme. Actually the extremes are virtually inexistent.
What US obviously wants is to make of him an example without making him a martyr. That cannot be accomplish by simply extraditing him by force from UK. They need to sway public opinion enough to avoid the making of a martyr and then, and only then make him an example to his peers, which by the end of this smear campaign will ideally be few.
But I waste my time trying to explain this to a stubborn idiot like you. You will never accept the obvious. So be welcome to hide in your illusions of fair governments and proper justice if that makes you happy.
As I said it means he has the obligation to attend. Nowhere it says the government can't follow the process if he refuses to cooperate, but keep repeating to yourself that you are right, by all means. We both know you are not but if you repeat enough times maybe you will end believing it.
It says it is his responsibility to be present and not a requirement for the process to take place, but be my guest to keep pulling lies from your ass and hiding your head under the ground in order to justify your prejudices.
You are the one who offered no facts at all. You apparently have absolutely no knowledge regarding the laws and treaties involved in this case and still insists on speaking blatant lies and misinformation as if they were the most absolute truth.
UK can't easily extradite him to US because the only crime US can impute over him at the moment is espionage, which is not extraditable. Surely they could ignore international law and their own law (as they have done time and again) and just do it, but why would they bother? Once it has him in its power Sweden can "temporarily" surrender him to US when the time is right, with or without UK authorization especially if he is a convicted criminal there. It will be much easier to sway public opinion when he is a convicted sexual offender.
This has been cleverly orchestrated to both discredit him as a criminal and give US enough grounds to eventually have him in custody without making him a martyr. Once US has him in custody it can ignore international law as it always does and refuse to give him back.
Regarding the track record of these governments whose integrities you so vehemently defend, both UK and Sweden have already proved that international laws and their own laws are irrelevant when their governments want to do something. The extradition of UK citizens to US that had committed no crime in UK is just one example, and the farce of Piratebay judgement in Sweden was another. For God's sake UK even threatened to violate international laws and invade an embassy. They even have a law made to be used just for this at will in blatant violation of international law.
I shouldn't have to even comment about US, but I will do anyway. US is a little better than North Korea at the moment, but not by much. US plainly stated it does not recognize political asylum and mostly laugh at international law, despite the fact that it offers political asylum to many people this very moment and invokes international law whenever it is convenient to them. Additionally US government feels it is within its right to ignore human rights, arrest people without formal accusations for undetermined time, and use torture. All in the name of fighting terrorists that are as big a threat, statistically speaking as being hit by a meteor.
I would advise you to concede you have no argument left (if you ever had any) and just let go. It is painful to watch you embarrassing yourself. The FACT is your country is corrupt to the bone "Americano" and your myopic posture is in grand part of what is wrong with it. You believe unconditionally, with almost religious fervor, in the integrity of manipulative governments regardless of the countless proofs in the contrary. You hate this man for exposing how rot the institutions you defend are and so you need to believe he is a villain and a liar to keep holding to your absurd beliefs. You are pathetic.
Who cares if he lied. He already lost the case as the result of this. What is in discussion here is not if he should be judged innocent, but the absurdity of the sentence.
One thing is for him to lose the case. An argument can actually be made that he deserved to lose, but there is absolutely no justification to the scale of the sentence.
Even if that was true that is no justification for this verdict. It is completely out of proportion as a punishment to anything that he did, including lying and forgetting to make his bed.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the violation of international agreements by a government is exactly the same as the violation of dirty secrets by a group of individuals.
You quoted laws that can and have already been bent to extradite people at will. All that is needed is political will and basically anyone can be extradited by such agreements. All you need is an accusation of anything that fits (and accusations are very easy to make) and the good will of the countries involved which is easy enough for US to get.
At this point nobody can extradite him to US legally, as I said, but it can change at any point as long as they can accuse him of the right things, They do not wish to do so now, though, because it is much better for them to smear him the most they can before doing that, and sending him to Sweden to be tried by these ridiculous charges is a good start.
So basically you've shown no evidence at all that my "conspiracy theories" cannot come to happen. You still feel in the right of saying he is "my hero" despite the fact that I haven't even once given him any kind of value judgment. You, on the other hand, are perfectly fine with referring to him as guilty of the crimes he has not even he has been charged of .
You are the laugh stock here, Mr. Americano, but keep telling yourself otherwise and maybe you will believe it. It will be good for your wounded self-esteem.
You can't ask from others what you can't offer yourself. By doing that you only show the double standards that are so popular in your country. You offered no evidence that ANY of those points are false. You also didn't offer any evidence refuting the inconsistencies I pointed deciding just to ignore them, because you have no answer to them.
You keep writing long winded posts repeating the very same things time and again in a desperate attempt to make them become true, maybe to yourself, considering that at this point we are probably the only ones reading these texts.
Your posture is basically: "I will completely disregard anything that doesn't fit with my theories and call it bullshit without any proof that they are really false.". Sorry, my good sir, but you couldn't recognize rational thought even if it bit you in the face.
I suspected you would have difficulties understanding a simple concept but I am somewhat surprised at this point. If you still do not get the point, I simply cannot explain it to you. Perhaps you can ask around some.
Perhaps you can learn to reason. There is no concept here to be understood but your inability to understand that you used an analogy that basically proved you were wrong, which just accomplished to show how feeble is your mind.
Now wait a minute. I said the only case I know of where the prosecution was overridden in needing the suspect present for questioning was when a judge rules that his statement wouldn't be substantially material to the investigation. You replied in turn that Assange's lawyers attempted to get the same thing but failed. Are you or are you not claiming that Assange's lawyers attempted to get Sweden to waive the custody for the inquiry and if so, are you also claiming their Assange's lawyers did not ask the right people?
Man, you are slow, it is tedious to explain things to you. He has not been charged of anything, the prosecutors used an international agreement to request his extradition to be interrogated without consulting a Swedish judge, there is no process open in Sweden, there is nothing a Swedish judge can do until the charges are brought against him. The lawyers and the embassy offered the alternatives to the prosecutors. The prosecutors declined them.
Furthermore the Swedish prosecutors could interrogate him with him present in the embassy, or previously in UK custody, at any moment they wished. They chose not to. They don't want to interrogate him. They don't want to ascertain the truth. They want to crucify him. Period. This case would never even go to court in any country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence against him. It is just his word against the word of two people in two different cases.
It is not my fault that your definition of evidence is whatever you accept as evidence. That is circular logic, and just another fallacy, I gave you plenty of evidences of inconsistencies in the process and in the behavior of the people involved.
I can't give you evidence that the US is trying to extradite him because, as I claimed it won't yet, so as I said the only way to obtain such evidence is to put Assange in the position they want, which won't happen now that he is granted Asylum.
Now you can keep your fantasies and personal biases as much as you want, or you can grow up and concede that your arguments not only have no evidence to back them up, they simply do not make sense, they are internally inconsistent and basically resume to: "You can't absolutely prove you are right, and so you are wrong.". A phrase that can also be applied to evolution, quantum physics, classical physics and basically any scientific achievement of mankind.
Your first paragraph does not even makes sense. Your analogy was indeed silly, in that you are right, and there is no point in arguing with silly analogies besides trying to make a fool of yourself.
And now you are on the hopes my friend and trying to pull arguments from your sorry ass. No judge refused the offers, the Swedish prosecutors did, the same prosecutors that didn't bother to press charges against Assange.
And no, no Swedish judge was ever consulted about the Ecuadorian embassy offer or even the lawyers request. Furthermore the prosecution has autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order.
There is no possible way to give you the evidence you want. The only way to proof beyond doubt that he is being targeted in a smear campaign would be for him to accept being extradited, going to Sweden, getting some weird and disproportional sentence, possibly being charged for something else after arrival too, and ending in US. That is a high price to pay to prove you are right, and I doubt he wants to be a martyr.
But as I posted in my first post he is confident enough that this is the case to risk being stuck for years, or even for life, in a two rooms embassy, instead of facing charges that would never imply in more than a year (with good behavior) in the worst possible scenario in a Swedish prison, which could be seem like a Hotel compared to any US prison. Even if he is considered guilty, the most likely outcome for a primary offender would be communitary services, though, not even the prison.
You can keep defending the integrity of Sweden as much as you like, despite all evidence on the contrary, but were I in Assange skin I would have done exactly the same. It pays to be paranoid when dealing with US government.
You won't see what you don't want to see, it doesn't matter if it jumps on your face and bites you. That much has been made more than clear by your words, and exhaustively. I am also flattered that you find myself cute, but unfortunately I am not available.
Your first sentence is infantile. The police cannot plant evidence because there are laws that say they can't. Doing that is forgery, perjury (if they are called to court), illegal arrest, abuse of power and many other offences all covered by specific laws. Laws are mostly negative, Positive laws only exist to open exception as amendments to other more general negative laws.
And Assange lawyers did argue requesting video conference to avoid extradition, but their requests were refused. The diplomatic authorities of Ecuador also offered to Sweden an opportunity to interrogate him in UK inside their embassy, which was arbitrarily refused by the prosecution. Swedish authorities had many opportunities to question him, and declined all of them.
I do believe 20 years are a bit excessive, but nowhere near the excesses of copyright lengths (last time I checked 120 years or so and with automatic renewal).
I already did, but you refuse to accept any of them. There is no point in keeping repeating myself.
But don't worry, just keep repeating the same fallacies time and again and maybe they will become truth.
Keep repeating your mantra and maybe you will believe in it. Then again maybe not...
You are greatly underestimating the place of all atheist scientists, philosophers and entrepreneurs in the history of mankind, and it could be argued that some religious people indeed helped the improvement of mankind, but that was despite their being religious not because they were.
Don't understand me wrong. I am all for freedom of creed, but, based on the very same Human History you cite, I can safely conclude that the bad effects of religions are considerably more significative than their good effects.
Yes, reformed religions are more akin with the rules in modern societies, and less bad than traditional ones. That is still a low bar to use, though.
But it is a very efficient way to accomplish this feat, unfortunately.
There needs to be no law saying what is allowed. In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something it is allowed. None of the texts you posted strictly say the process cannot follow without his presence. If a law says I cannot cross red lights it does not make physical impossible for me to cross red lights. Conversely if a law says I must present myself in my trials it does not make it impossible for the trial to proceed if I, by any motive, decide to ignore such law.
If you found yourself a case where the judge allowed for it than it is within his discretion, and, as nobody tried to ask a judge if he would allow it in this case, even because nobody pressed any charges against Assange, then you can safely argue that they are purposely avoiding the possibility of it being granted.
And that my good sir is another bunch of fallacies (which are basically the only thing that you can write apparently. There is no dichotomy between "respect the law to the letter" or "do whatever you wish". There is a lot of middle ground and a lot of reasons not to go to either extreme. Actually the extremes are virtually inexistent.
What US obviously wants is to make of him an example without making him a martyr. That cannot be accomplish by simply extraditing him by force from UK. They need to sway public opinion enough to avoid the making of a martyr and then, and only then make him an example to his peers, which by the end of this smear campaign will ideally be few.
But I waste my time trying to explain this to a stubborn idiot like you. You will never accept the obvious. So be welcome to hide in your illusions of fair governments and proper justice if that makes you happy.
Yes, unlike copyright, patent problems are more related to the absurdity of what is patented than the time they cover.
As I said it means he has the obligation to attend. Nowhere it says the government can't follow the process if he refuses to cooperate, but keep repeating to yourself that you are right, by all means. We both know you are not but if you repeat enough times maybe you will end believing it.
It says it is his responsibility to be present and not a requirement for the process to take place, but be my guest to keep pulling lies from your ass and hiding your head under the ground in order to justify your prejudices.
You are the one who offered no facts at all. You apparently have absolutely no knowledge regarding the laws and treaties involved in this case and still insists on speaking blatant lies and misinformation as if they were the most absolute truth.
UK can't easily extradite him to US because the only crime US can impute over him at the moment is espionage, which is not extraditable. Surely they could ignore international law and their own law (as they have done time and again) and just do it, but why would they bother? Once it has him in its power Sweden can "temporarily" surrender him to US when the time is right, with or without UK authorization especially if he is a convicted criminal there. It will be much easier to sway public opinion when he is a convicted sexual offender.
This has been cleverly orchestrated to both discredit him as a criminal and give US enough grounds to eventually have him in custody without making him a martyr. Once US has him in custody it can ignore international law as it always does and refuse to give him back.
Regarding the track record of these governments whose integrities you so vehemently defend, both UK and Sweden have already proved that international laws and their own laws are irrelevant when their governments want to do something. The extradition of UK citizens to US that had committed no crime in UK is just one example, and the farce of Piratebay judgement in Sweden was another. For God's sake UK even threatened to violate international laws and invade an embassy. They even have a law made to be used just for this at will in blatant violation of international law.
I shouldn't have to even comment about US, but I will do anyway. US is a little better than North Korea at the moment, but not by much. US plainly stated it does not recognize political asylum and mostly laugh at international law, despite the fact that it offers political asylum to many people this very moment and invokes international law whenever it is convenient to them. Additionally US government feels it is within its right to ignore human rights, arrest people without formal accusations for undetermined time, and use torture. All in the name of fighting terrorists that are as big a threat, statistically speaking as being hit by a meteor.
I would advise you to concede you have no argument left (if you ever had any) and just let go. It is painful to watch you embarrassing yourself. The FACT is your country is corrupt to the bone "Americano" and your myopic posture is in grand part of what is wrong with it. You believe unconditionally, with almost religious fervor, in the integrity of manipulative governments regardless of the countless proofs in the contrary. You hate this man for exposing how rot the institutions you defend are and so you need to believe he is a villain and a liar to keep holding to your absurd beliefs. You are pathetic.
Apparently I can read and comprehend English texts and you cannot. The very judicial code you pointed says nothing to back up your arguments. Period.
Who cares if he lied. He already lost the case as the result of this. What is in discussion here is not if he should be judged innocent, but the absurdity of the sentence.
One thing is for him to lose the case. An argument can actually be made that he deserved to lose, but there is absolutely no justification to the scale of the sentence.
Even if that was true that is no justification for this verdict. It is completely out of proportion as a punishment to anything that he did, including lying and forgetting to make his bed.