3 ms·
That there is common-people support for the US position at all feels truly crazy-town to me. Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support
by rendall 8y ago
That there is common-people support for the US position at all feels truly crazy-town to me.
Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude a blasphemer against Allah.
(Just, as a head-start hint, "I think Assange is a terrible person, therefore he should be extradited" is not a principled perspective.)
That the mainstream US media inexplicably supports the US government's position should alarm you. Yes, you, reading this. As above, I would love to hear an articulated principle that cleaves Wikileaks from the wider community of news media, that also does not allow for the arrest and prosecution of any of the journalists who actually covered what Wikileaks wrote.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago> extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China A rather poor choice of examples, I'd say. Extradition for blasphemy from the United States runs afoul of the dual criminality requirement. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality) The US also has no extradition treaty with China. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...)
- rendall 8y agoI'm asking for the principle that divides one from the other, not the laws. What prevents a reasonable claim that these laws you cite are unjust, given that it is just to extradite a foreign national for the transgression of a US law, that occurred on foreign soil?