It is neither about whether the Swedish judicial system is just or fair, nor is it about a conviction; it's about extradition to Sweden. Following their judicial processes to the letter:

a. Have to extradite him from the UK to Sweden for questioning, whether the charges are trumped up or not;
b. Once there, they have made it pretty clear that they will not rule out onward extradition proceedings.

I don't think I can put my point across in any more of a straightforward and clear way than that. I don't care whether you agree with me or not, just that you actually understand the point I have made, which you have consistently failed to do thus far.

If you really want him gone, focus your bile on the UK government wanting to take him into custody if he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy. Let him go to Ecuador and let Sweden or the US extradite him from there.

WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Really? Using warisacrime.com as a source is like quoting the Guardian.

It would cost us a damn sight less if we just let him go. It'll have been done before.

The timing reminded me of the DSK affair at the IMF, in the run up there were a number of sneering articles in various newspapers. It was all just a bit too fishy for my liking, especially as he was starting to take on banks more effectively.

Assange has been his own worst enemy at times, but I'm more suspicious of US motives. I think he probably used publicity as a way to avoid being taken out quietly.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed the recent flurry of public secret service f'ck ups? The bloke killed in his bath, the Prisoner X in Israel, the fake passport stuff. None of this strikes me as particularly remarkable, other than that it's being made public...

Echoing a previous poster, it's odd with CF I either wholeheartedly agree (as in this case ) or disagree.
Assange is a brave man, as so was Bradley Manning the U.S. soldier alleged to have passed this information on to Wikileaks. His work is truly significant. A hero of this new century.

I keep showing the illogical nature of many of your points and I did address the extradition point in one of my previous posts.

I said that Assange can't expect the law to work differently for him as it would for anyone else.

His defenders, seem to suggest that he cannot be tried for possible crimes because they are suspicious of the charge......Apparently, you don't see the logical flaw in that.

It is simply ludicrous to suggest that Assange can avoid answering a charge in a European court.

Once again you have failed to address the weaknesses in your arguments.

The reality that the nature of the charge is weak, not a likely means of conviction meaning it's a poor instrument for framing.

The reality that you appear to have decided that suspicion upon the nature of guilt is enough to suggest that the law shouldn't be followed in respect to Assange....One of the cake and eat it brigade.

Indeed you suggest that Britain break EU law by not arresting him.....For a man, who picks and chooses which laws he likes to follow. Again, a cake and eat it merchant.

But apparently the problem is that I can't comprehend your argument.

I have addressed your arguments and show their flaws.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Feb 2013 12.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Again, I've explained this....This is just waffle.

If it is illegal where are the convictions? These wars have gone on for over a decade.

Every attempt to bring a prosecution of these apparently guilty officials has been thrown out of court.

Annan, is not the decider upon the legality of the war. He was giving a view not using a mandate.

I've already stated what happened in respect to UN resolutions, so thanks for cut and pasting what amounts to the same stuff.

I'll repeat the reality again. The passed security council resolution was vague enough to permit 'consequences' in respect to Iraq.

I've already stated it wasn't passed to allow ware but the fact remains that no successful prosecution can be made due to the wording.

The facts remain. There has been no successful convictions on 'war crimes' because actually the wars weren't illegal.

The Wars weren't directly authorized but they weren't ruled out either. The UN passed the resolution that legally allowed it to happen.

That's why Blair, Bush and all the rest of them walk freely.....Because all you lot are doing is waffling emotional nonsense.

In your view the war is illegal....In reality it wasn't.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Feb 2013 12.55pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)