4 ms·

Only, the Swedes would have had a quick/sham trial and extradited him promptly to the US regardless of the outcome of the rape case. Not everything is as black

by shiven 12y ago

Only, the Swedes would have had a quick/sham trial and extradited him promptly to the US regardless of the outcome of the rape case. Not everything is as black and white as you appear to make it.

Xylakant 12y ago
But it's as black and white as you appear to make it. Just a different kind of black, eh? Why don't we let the court figure that out? Under public scrutiny?
- facepalm 12y ago
  What would the public do, how would they help (in stopping his extraction to the US)? How much "truth" do you think you receive everyday about the state of the world, through our "public" channels? Apparently you trust the system, so maybe you can not understand how it feels if you don't trust the system. I hope you'll never have issue to worry about it. Edit: answering here because HN won't let me reply - The issue is not that you trust the system and want him on trial, that's a fair attitude. The issue is that you assume he is guilty because he avoids the trial (or rather, questioning). Perhaps it makes logical sense if you assume everybody would trust the system. But perhaps you can accept that not everybody trusts the system, and that therefore their avoiding it doesn't prove guilt. In fact I think your attitude demonstrates a typical failure of the system. Most people (who represent the system) are prone to jumping to conclusions and illogical assumptions (he runs so he must be guilty).
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    Yes, I do trust the system in general. There's a need for public scrutiny, but in general - while imperfect and certainly in need of some fixing - it's the best system we have had for the last couple of hundred years. It's understandable that Assange might not trust the system, but that does not mean that I have to support that. It's obviously not a better system if everybody on his own gets to decide which parts of the legal system apply to him or not. It's not an opt-out system. Given that, even if that were not the case: I trust the UK less than Sweden. The alleged scheme makes no sense: It would be the same for the UK and Sweden could only loose. Unless somebody gives me a credible reason what Sweden has to gain from allowing extralegal action of the US under its legal system, I'm sticking with my opinion.
legulere 12y ago
That doesn't make any sense. Why would the US try to get him to Sweden first and not get him extradited directly from the UK? The UK is a way closer partner to the US than Sweden.

by shiven 12y ago

Only, the Swedes would have had a quick/sham trial and extradited him promptly to the US regardless of the outcome of the rape case. Not everything is as black and white as you appear to make it.

Xylakant 12y ago

But it's as black and white as you appear to make it. Just a different kind of black, eh? Why don't we let the court figure that out? Under public scrutiny?

facepalm 12y ago
What would the public do, how would they help (in stopping his extraction to the US)? How much "truth" do you think you receive everyday about the state of the world, through our "public" channels? Apparently you trust the system, so maybe you can not understand how it feels if you don't trust the system. I hope you'll never have issue to worry about it. Edit: answering here because HN won't let me reply - The issue is not that you trust the system and want him on trial, that's a fair attitude. The issue is that you assume he is guilty because he avoids the trial (or rather, questioning). Perhaps it makes logical sense if you assume everybody would trust the system. But perhaps you can accept that not everybody trusts the system, and that therefore their avoiding it doesn't prove guilt. In fact I think your attitude demonstrates a typical failure of the system. Most people (who represent the system) are prone to jumping to conclusions and illogical assumptions (he runs so he must be guilty).
- Xylakant 12y ago
  Yes, I do trust the system in general. There's a need for public scrutiny, but in general - while imperfect and certainly in need of some fixing - it's the best system we have had for the last couple of hundred years. It's understandable that Assange might not trust the system, but that does not mean that I have to support that. It's obviously not a better system if everybody on his own gets to decide which parts of the legal system apply to him or not. It's not an opt-out system. Given that, even if that were not the case: I trust the UK less than Sweden. The alleged scheme makes no sense: It would be the same for the UK and Sweden could only loose. Unless somebody gives me a credible reason what Sweden has to gain from allowing extralegal action of the US under its legal system, I'm sticking with my opinion.

legulere 12y ago

That doesn't make any sense. Why would the US try to get him to Sweden first and not get him extradited directly from the UK? The UK is a way closer partner to the US than Sweden.