6 ms·

Comments like this make me wonder how much astroturfing is going on here, or whether what we witness in these sorts of comments is just honest-to-god stupidity

Comments like this make me wonder how much astroturfing is going on here, or whether what we witness in these sorts of comments is just honest-to-god stupidity puffed up by a contrarian disregard for common sense and possibly pathological authority-worship. Leaving aside the point that any case involving extradition is by definition a international manhunt, and that the US is known to have started a grand jury investigation so there are at least three countries involved in the judicial mess, it is impossible to take anyone seriously who believes the UK government (or any government) would burn the amount of money it has and upend diplomatic relations with Ecuador over the extradition of a cooperative witness who has yet to be charged with anything. As a reader, one can only imagine these posters calling their Member of Parliament to ask why the police have not yet launched an international manhunt into the disappearance of their bicycle from the local chips shop. Have embassies been informed worldwide? Perhaps ISIS is involved!

foldr 12y ago
Your first paragraph is a bit silly and self-important. People can disagree with you without being either (a) government agents or (b) suffering from some kind of psychological disorder. It's not healthy to react to disagreement by putting people into one of those two boxes. And (not that this matters on the internet) it's also needlessly rude and hostile. I would not describe Assange as "cooperative". There is a legally-obtained extradition order in his name and he's legally obliged to comply with it. Instead of doing that, he's evading it by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. The UK government can't very well send out the message that they enforce extradition orders only when they feel like it. Why should Assange be the exception?
- trevelyan 12y ago
  I like the way you've jumped from the absurd claim that Assange's treatment is "ordinary" to the equally absurd claim it is technically "legal" and thus somehow morally justified. Did you expect no-one else to notice this rhetorical diversion? When you're ready to acknowledge that Assange's treatment is far from ordinary and is completely disproportionate, we can move on to demolish these secondary moral claims for the sophistic distractions they are. In the meantime, forgive me for restricting you to one strawman argument at a time.
  - foldr 12y ago
    I said that the extradition order was ordinary, and indeed there is nothing abnormal about it -- it was obtained via the usual legal channels. For all your huffng and puffing, you haven't actually said anything to the contrary, so there is not much more I can say unless you'd like to explain why you think his treatment is disproportionate or somehow illegal.
    - trevelyan 12y ago
      If you want to double-down on the claims this is ordinary, go ahead. I will concede the whole debate if you can cite even a single other case of extradition because of a romantic spat over a condom (or something similar). Bonus points if there are no charges and the person is only wanted for questioning. I'll be taking your failure to do so as a concession on this point, but it shouldn't be hard to prove yourself right if this is as commonplace as you claim. Good luck!
      - foldr 12y ago
        The allegation is that Assange had unprotected sex with a sleeping woman who had previously indicated that she wanted him to use a condom. That this did actually happen was admitted by Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson. Assange's actions certainly constitute rape under English law, as the High Court ruled. There are indeed other cases where European Arrest Warrants have been issued for rape. For example, the following article mentions that there are 27 cases where (alleged) rapists have been extradited back to the UK via EAWs, and 86 cases in the other direction: http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-european-arrest-warrant-33914 http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-eur... Now, if you think that what Assange (allegedly) did was not rape, then you are entitled to your opinion. But then your disagreement is with established English (and I think Swedish) law, and the courts naturally have to follow the law and not your opinion. Also, please don't repeat this misinformation about Assange only being wanted for questioning. It is impossible under Swedish law for Assange to be charged until he has been arrested. The Swedes don't just want to "question" him, they want to arrest him and then charge him. See the following for more explanation: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...

foldr 12y ago

Your first paragraph is a bit silly and self-important. People can disagree with you without being either (a) government agents or (b) suffering from some kind of psychological disorder. It's not healthy to react to disagreement by putting people into one of those two boxes. And (not that this matters on the internet) it's also needlessly rude and hostile. I would not describe Assange as "cooperative". There is a legally-obtained extradition order in his name and he's legally obliged to comply with it. Instead of doing that, he's evading it by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. The UK government can't very well send out the message that they enforce extradition orders only when they feel like it. Why should Assange be the exception?

trevelyan 12y ago
I like the way you've jumped from the absurd claim that Assange's treatment is "ordinary" to the equally absurd claim it is technically "legal" and thus somehow morally justified. Did you expect no-one else to notice this rhetorical diversion? When you're ready to acknowledge that Assange's treatment is far from ordinary and is completely disproportionate, we can move on to demolish these secondary moral claims for the sophistic distractions they are. In the meantime, forgive me for restricting you to one strawman argument at a time.
- foldr 12y ago
  I said that the extradition order was ordinary, and indeed there is nothing abnormal about it -- it was obtained via the usual legal channels. For all your huffng and puffing, you haven't actually said anything to the contrary, so there is not much more I can say unless you'd like to explain why you think his treatment is disproportionate or somehow illegal.
  - trevelyan 12y ago
    If you want to double-down on the claims this is ordinary, go ahead. I will concede the whole debate if you can cite even a single other case of extradition because of a romantic spat over a condom (or something similar). Bonus points if there are no charges and the person is only wanted for questioning. I'll be taking your failure to do so as a concession on this point, but it shouldn't be hard to prove yourself right if this is as commonplace as you claim. Good luck!
    - foldr 12y ago
      The allegation is that Assange had unprotected sex with a sleeping woman who had previously indicated that she wanted him to use a condom. That this did actually happen was admitted by Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson. Assange's actions certainly constitute rape under English law, as the High Court ruled. There are indeed other cases where European Arrest Warrants have been issued for rape. For example, the following article mentions that there are 27 cases where (alleged) rapists have been extradited back to the UK via EAWs, and 86 cases in the other direction: http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-european-arrest-warrant-33914 http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-must-not-ditch-the-eur... Now, if you think that what Assange (allegedly) did was not rape, then you are entitled to your opinion. But then your disagreement is with established English (and I think Swedish) law, and the courts naturally have to follow the law and not your opinion. Also, please don't repeat this misinformation about Assange only being wanted for questioning. It is impossible under Swedish law for Assange to be charged until he has been arrested. The Swedes don't just want to "question" him, they want to arrest him and then charge him. See the following for more explanation: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...