3 ms·

Specifically which of these assurances are you saying will be broken?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
They openly admit their willingness to break all three if "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're free to stick him in another terrible jail with other restrictive measures even with the assurances.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Hello old friend. Why are you outraged about things that have not happened? Has the US Govt broken those promises? Y/n?
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Because if we wait for them to be violated, Assange could already be dead? And for the nth time, why should I expect them to hold to these promises when they've already violated his right to a free trial?
tremon 5y ago
Who is going to oversee and enforce these promises? The UK High Court? When the US violates their promises, will the High Court Judge personally fly to the US to collect Assange and bring him back to the UK?
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  They have no means to enforce it, the judgement is what they think will happen. If, say, North Korea gave assurances on how they would treat a prisoner their judgement would probably be different. The point is, saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken, which is an actual falsifiable proposition - I'm just asking which one you think is going to be broken.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken No - that plainly does not follow. All that is needed is to apply the standard of reasonable doubt: in this case, that the party in question (the U.S. government) can be trusted not to act contrary their assurances on these matters. Which we are compelled to adopt, based on the very ample track record of their conduct in this regard.
    - ChrisKnott 5y ago
      The judgement relied (in part) on the Diplomatic Note (No. 169), in which the US stated; > "The United States has provided assurances to the United Kingdom in connection with extradition requests countless times in the past. In all of these situations, the United States has fulfilled the assurances it provided." Are you saying this is false? What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to?
      - vanusa 5y ago
        What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to? We're going in circles. This was already referred to in my original entry into this thread, 5 or 6 levels up. The fact that the U.S. may keep some of its assurances to some parties (if in fact this is the case) does not obviate the fact that frequently and brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard. It is this, much bigger fact (which is pretty obvious and doesn't need substantiation as to the particulars) which takes precedence.
        ChrisKnott 5y ago
        Your original comment refers to the fact that the USA generally treats detainees poorly, not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard". You haven't convinced me why the court is wrong to believe the USA on this point. You just seem to repeatedly state that it's ridiculous without saying why. But anyway, ultimately we will be able to see whether or not the USA does let Assange (if convicted) serve his sentence in Australia or not.
- TwoHeadedBeast 5y ago
  In fairness, the US would be idiotic to renege on their assurances. That essentially would be a valid reason to block any future extraditions. Saying that, we live in strange times where countries like the UK, which always used to play by the rules, albeit the ones they wrote, now backs out of treaties where the ink is barely dry.

They openly admit their willingness to break all three if "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're free to stick him in another terrible jail with other restrictive measures even with the assurances.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Hello old friend. Why are you outraged about things that have not happened? Has the US Govt broken those promises? Y/n?
- Dah00n 5y ago
  yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Because if we wait for them to be violated, Assange could already be dead? And for the nth time, why should I expect them to hold to these promises when they've already violated his right to a free trial?

tremon 5y ago

Who is going to oversee and enforce these promises? The UK High Court? When the US violates their promises, will the High Court Judge personally fly to the US to collect Assange and bring him back to the UK?

ChrisKnott 5y ago
They have no means to enforce it, the judgement is what they think will happen. If, say, North Korea gave assurances on how they would treat a prisoner their judgement would probably be different. The point is, saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken, which is an actual falsifiable proposition - I'm just asking which one you think is going to be broken.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken No - that plainly does not follow. All that is needed is to apply the standard of reasonable doubt: in this case, that the party in question (the U.S. government) can be trusted not to act contrary their assurances on these matters. Which we are compelled to adopt, based on the very ample track record of their conduct in this regard.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    The judgement relied (in part) on the Diplomatic Note (No. 169), in which the US stated; > "The United States has provided assurances to the United Kingdom in connection with extradition requests countless times in the past. In all of these situations, the United States has fulfilled the assurances it provided." Are you saying this is false? What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to?
    - vanusa 5y ago
      What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to? We're going in circles. This was already referred to in my original entry into this thread, 5 or 6 levels up. The fact that the U.S. may keep some of its assurances to some parties (if in fact this is the case) does not obviate the fact that frequently and brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard. It is this, much bigger fact (which is pretty obvious and doesn't need substantiation as to the particulars) which takes precedence.
      - ChrisKnott 5y ago
        Your original comment refers to the fact that the USA generally treats detainees poorly, not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard". You haven't convinced me why the court is wrong to believe the USA on this point. You just seem to repeatedly state that it's ridiculous without saying why. But anyway, ultimately we will be able to see whether or not the USA does let Assange (if convicted) serve his sentence in Australia or not.
TwoHeadedBeast 5y ago
In fairness, the US would be idiotic to renege on their assurances. That essentially would be a valid reason to block any future extraditions. Saying that, we live in strange times where countries like the UK, which always used to play by the rules, albeit the ones they wrote, now backs out of treaties where the ink is barely dry.