Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange 'buoyed by support' [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)70. Again, waiting for Sweden to act makes completely no sense.
You can throw out all the innuendo you'd like. It still doesn't make sense to wait for Sweden. If the US had a case and wanted to prosecute, it is easier to extradite Assange from the UK. The Swedes would bother to read the request, where as the British would just rubber-stamp it.
And why, indeed, was our Secretary of Defense so happy about his capture?
Would you be happy if Karl Rove was arrested? If you don't like someone, you will likely experience schadenfreude when they get in legal trouble.
Btw....who exactly can the Secretary of Defense prosecute? That list doesn't include Assange.
The UK would most certainly not extradite Prince Charles if we asked them to.
Wow you found the hyperbole! Congratulations!
Even for British nationals of lesser rank, ask around, or do some research: you'll find that the UK has a much better record of protecting its own citizens abroad through their embassies
Now, how does the argument that the UK protects it's citizens from extradition apply to Assange, who is an Australian? And no, Australia is no more a part of the UK than the US is.
However, you keep stating your own opinion of who is more likely to extradite Assange, without providing any proof.
I have found 0 cases in the last 40 years where the UK denied a US extradition request. There have been conditions set on extradition, specifically no death penalty, but the suspect was still extradited after those conditions were met. If you want to claim it would be easier to extradite from Sweden, you are going to have to show lots of past difficulties extraditing from the UK to the US
So are you claiming that the Independent doesn't source its stories?
No, I'm claiming their story is utterly illogical. There is nothing preventing the US from extraditing Assange from the UK. Therefore there is no reason to wait until Sweden gets him.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Confirmation that US & Sweden have been discussing extradition to the US since at least
snot
Jun 2012
#20
Then explain why Sweden ( a country with a progressive system if there ever was one)
treestar
Jun 2012
#8
Let someone else answer you, you present nothing new and seem to be asleep even. n/t
clang1
Jun 2012
#11
And how do you know Julian is in no danger? Is that sort of like Bradley Manning is in no danger?
teddy51
Jun 2012
#12
Except that I wouldn't trust either SCOTUS or the US Government to keep there word.
teddy51
Jun 2012
#18
Very good point. They expose themselves just as greedy salivating people usually do
clang1
Jun 2012
#63
The US is terrible and corrupt, that has been witnessed over and over again. Why should
teddy51
Jun 2012
#6
Because if your theory was correct, the UK would have already extradited him to the US.
jeff47
Jun 2012
#17
Even the russians are not 'embarrased' Medvedev: Wikileaks 'Positive,' 'Healthy'
clang1
Jun 2012
#52
What has the US done to stop torture and rendition, treestar- take off the rose colored glasses
larkrake
Jun 2012
#67