Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
So, the US has an extradition treaty with the UK that is *so* good, they can't afford to use it? This is precisely the sort of reverse logic that characterises all truly nutty conspiracy theories.
|
I'd certainly be nutty to expect any better from a lynch mob Chris. If you go back and actually read my post, I never said that extradition is *so* good they can't afford to use it, they simply don't *need* to.
In the absence of any extradition to Sweden, then they could go ahead and decide whether or not to extradite Assange from the UK. I'm no legal expert, but even I can see they don't need to do this.
Quote:
|
Your post was an entertaining read, especially the part where you sought to disparage all the discussion based on "very few facts at all". I bet you even wrote it with a straight face.
|
13 pages of rubbish Chris. Pure conjecture, with very few facts, one could paint the discussion any way they chose, based on one's own prejudices rather than definitive facts. Excuse me whilst I reserve my judgement until a person has been proved guilty as alleged.
---------- Post added at 16:03 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Do you believe this legal, ratified extradition should go ahead, or not?
|
I'm inclined to believe that this case is politically motivated.
If too you believed it was politically motivated (for the aforementioned reasons), do you think this legal, ratified extradition should go ahead?