3 ms·

It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. The judge was persuaded on the balance of probability (more likely than not) that it was true

by DanBC 6y ago

It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. The judge was persuaded on the balance of probability (more likely than not) that it was true.

jariel 6y ago
"It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. " Then it's the most absolutely biased possible thing upon which to rule. Assange's isolation was a) self imposed and b) considerably better than any 'prison' than he would face in Sweden, the UK or the USA. You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Do you understand what happens in a court case? One side puts forward an argument, and the other side puts forward their argument, and a judge decides which is true and then applies the law. Here the judge decided that he was at risk of death if he went to a US prison, the US was unable to answer that point, and the judge then looks at law - ECHR article 2 - to decide whether to send him or not. The judge seems pretty clear that Assange should be in jail. Just not in an inhumane US jail. Your comment BTW is a great example of how toxic these convos can be. I loathe Assange and I don't care if he rots in prison. You've assumed that I think he should be walking free.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  >You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'. To add to DanBC, a country absolutely can decide not to extradite to another country they believe plans to imprison someone at well below what they consider to be the minimum standard for human rights, the same way many countries do not extradite to a country that tortures or has the death penalty. There is a difference between making the argument “I don’t want to go to jail because it is depressing” and “the country’s planned imprisonment would violate my basic human rights and is to such an inhumane level as it would likely cause severe physiological damage”.

by DanBC 6y ago

It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. The judge was persuaded on the balance of probability (more likely than not) that it was true.

jariel 6y ago

"It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. " Then it's the most absolutely biased possible thing upon which to rule. Assange's isolation was a) self imposed and b) considerably better than any 'prison' than he would face in Sweden, the UK or the USA. You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'.

DanBC 6y ago
Do you understand what happens in a court case? One side puts forward an argument, and the other side puts forward their argument, and a judge decides which is true and then applies the law. Here the judge decided that he was at risk of death if he went to a US prison, the US was unable to answer that point, and the judge then looks at law - ECHR article 2 - to decide whether to send him or not. The judge seems pretty clear that Assange should be in jail. Just not in an inhumane US jail. Your comment BTW is a great example of how toxic these convos can be. I loathe Assange and I don't care if he rots in prison. You've assumed that I think he should be walking free.
542354234235 6y ago
>You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'. To add to DanBC, a country absolutely can decide not to extradite to another country they believe plans to imprison someone at well below what they consider to be the minimum standard for human rights, the same way many countries do not extradite to a country that tortures or has the death penalty. There is a difference between making the argument “I don’t want to go to jail because it is depressing” and “the country’s planned imprisonment would violate my basic human rights and is to such an inhumane level as it would likely cause severe physiological damage”.