3 ms·

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

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

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?