4 ms·

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 ju

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.
      - vanusa 5y ago
        not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard". Are you referring to the CIA's famous "We don't do torture" promise, here? Or the implicit promise to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan that they would be treated humanely when they came in contact with our armed forces and their surrogates? And most certainly when they ended up in our ... detention centers? Or to the migrants detained by the ICE, who were told they were merely being "detained"... not that they would one day find an officer "sitting on her like one would on a horse", with his "erect penis on her butt" to quote just one of 1,224 reports of recent sexual abuse at these facilities?

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.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard". Are you referring to the CIA's famous "We don't do torture" promise, here? Or the implicit promise to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan that they would be treated humanely when they came in contact with our armed forces and their surrogates? And most certainly when they ended up in our ... detention centers? Or to the migrants detained by the ICE, who were told they were merely being "detained"... not that they would one day find an officer "sitting on her like one would on a horse", with his "erect penis on her butt" to quote just one of 1,224 reports of recent sexual abuse at these facilities?