Ok, so your point is that the US should be investigating Assange? Ok, good, they are. I'm not sure why you decided to argue this point so fervently when no-one suggested the opposite.
Half of your post seems to be implying that the US has no right to even investigate or assuming that their investigation will result in an illegal charge against him. That's a totally illegitimate thing to assume. The political fallout for an investigation of that magnitude resulting in an illegal verdict would end the careers of pretty much anyone involved.
All of your posts in this thread, except the last few have been presenting falsehoods as facts!! That is not a perspective issue -- you've been making statements that are provably false, which is not "just stating known facts".
The majority of what I've been posting is facts. The fact that I don't sensationalize them to a degree that you feel is more accurate is what you have a problem with (see the timeline of events for the rape investigation for the two of us. They are near identical except that yours just paints him as totally innocent and not having to follow EU law).
Here is a quote from you earlier:
(800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists)
He wasn't in solitary confinement or naked for 800 days. Clearly you've been posting nothing but facts in all of your posts from the beginning of this thread though. As I said, go back and read your posts if you're going to be so critical.
Questions you've asked, most of which I didn't answer because the answers are pointless/known or just saying exactly what your question was in reply to:
No, this is absolutely false (see above - he left after the case was closed). Where did you get this idea?
He clearly left Sweden after the investigation started and refuses to return.
^^^^ I don't know why there is a line break here.
No. This is absolutely true.
My statement that you call false is one of the most provably true statements in this entire thread."Ms Rosander says the investigation into the molestation charge will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant."
Do you really think that destroying the 1961 vienna convention is less important than some celebrity sex scandal?
This is begging the question that they'd actually invoke the law before having grounds to do so. I honestly don't think they'd do anything to the embassy while Assange is inside anyway unless Ecuador or Assange break international law. He'd have to re-enter English territory to get anywhere from the embassy/diplomatic vehicles, and they could just grab him then. Unless he's going to indefinitely run his life out of the Ecuadorian embassy, which I don't see him doing.
I also think that the actual threat was overblown. Not to say it wasn't threatening in any way, but the severity of it was overblown.
Here is the text
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."
More likely I think Assange is going to do/say something soon that's going to force Ecuador to withdraw asylum, and England will take him into custody then.
Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?
If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged?
Nobody, including Assange, has been charged with anything yet. Why are charges/guilt of NYT vs Assange relevant? They've both, to date, been treated identically, with the exception that one is totally paranoid.
For some reason the line break up there ^^^ made me add a quote. I put it here to make it the least distracting.
I never said it didn't, but extraditing him to Sweden doesn't make him any less safe than he would have been in the UK really. Does it not seem suspicious that he'd so fervently avoid being questioned further on a sex scandal? You're ready to tout the assumption of innocence when it comes to Assange, but why shouldn't it be granted for a country that's taken no formal position on or has any provable direct influence on the events taking place yet?
None of this seems at all suspicious to you?
There. That is every question you've asked of me in this thread. I'm sure you won't be satisfied with the answers, but I never expected you to be, which is why I avoided them.
Edited by way2lazy2care, 18 August 2012 - 11:33 PM.