Assange: Refugee or Fugitive?

[Something completely different]

TGAC -- You're wrong with respect to Sweden being bound to the vaunted ideal of European justice.

If not, then please explain the following:

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriatio...ad_al-Zery

In short, they violated their own great "laws" regarding the treatment of prisoners and extradition.

They could have waited several days as the law requires to attain the necessary information, but they did not.

I wouldn't trust Sweden to handle a high profile sexual offense when they cannot handle low-mid profile extradition requests properly in accordance with their own laws.

I could simply nitpick and state, that the two offenders didn`t have to fear the death penalty - but that would be dishonest since the european high court also forbids the extradition into countries which torture.

But it is true, in the wake of 9\11, not only Sweden, but also Poland, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Czech republic and the UK ignored the European high court of justice.

There have been appologies in the aftermaph, but I addmit that it is a black stain on the credibility of the european justice system. And theoreticaly every individual who was victim in such cases can prosecute the goverment which has ignored their rights - which in some cases has happened.

To explain further, The European high court is a regulatory institution which surveils the high courts and justice systems of every european nation and has a standert set of basic laws which have to be abided by all member nations to prevent undemocratic decisions. It can impose sanctions against a nation which then have to be followed by every other member nation. It did ignore some cases, but mainly wasn`t even informed since most european nations extradited terror suspects in secrecy without.

I guess you know exactly aswell as I do, that in the wake of 9\11 it took not only the courts and goverments but also the general public untill 2003 to realise that terror suspects, also have human rights.
It is unfortunate that Europe ignored it`s rules during this time - but this exception does not prove a generaly repeating theme in which european nations ignore their constitutions.

One might aswell argue that every offender in the US has to fear waterbording - simply because it happened in the wake og 9/11.

I was only following orders, eh TGAC?

You're right -- any unjust law, by virtue of being a law, must be followed to the letter.

By that token, I declare myself an offender under UN and US conventions regarding the use of prohibited substances.

That must mean I deserve losing life, home and reputation! Isn't "the law is the law" so grand?! /s

No.

Laws should be constantly evaluated, to see if they are just. One can still debate if the swedish laws on sexual offences are just.
But in order to do so, one will have to give arguments and most importent of all - one has to be specific.
Sweden interduced it`s strickt laws for sexual offences after it`s conservative goverment realised that Sweden was the nation in Europe in which most sexual offences were comitted.

You can always question laws. But to equate laws of a specific category with another is a bit dishonest.

You cannot compare the category of "sexual offence" with the category of "substance abuse" because both cover completly different "offences" and therefor need different experts and different studies to be reevaluated and questions.

Laws are the same in the sence that they are provided to give a narrative on what can be done.

But since they cover different ereas of sociaty have to be questioned and used by different experts and studies.

Furthermore - it must be underlined that the sexual assault charges against Assange were not instegated to have him arrested by the swedish goverment - NO, swedens laws on sexual offences are generaly very strickt.

I did, Daniel did, Stue Denim did.

The ball is in your court, so to speak.

No so far only you and Stue Denim did with the post 9/11 terror example.

I did not watch the video provided, because I`d rather read the facts than have them presented through the views of a certain opinion.