No charges ever pressed: Assange marks three years of UK detention

[jeff47]

92. If those arguments were so terrible, you wouldn't be desperately ignoring them.

Since you've ignored it twice now, I'll start with the "Why Sweden?" problem.

You are claiming the US is setting up Assange by trumping up charges in Sweden. Why would they do that instead of trumping up charges in the UK?

You are claiming instead that we trumped up charges in Sweden, requiring lengthy cases in the UK courts in order to rule on the differences between the two judicial systems. Then we'd have to have additional cases in Sweden for their courts to rule on the differences between the Swedish and US systems. Then Sweden might extradite him.

Alternatively, a British woman claims she was raped, and they get Assange in the UK. After trial, if the US wanted Assange they could have him easily extradited - the nearly identical legal systems mean no complex court case would be required.

Yet you've just so happened to not respond to that twice now. Almost like you're desperately trying to avoid thinking about it.

There is absolutely no way you can possibly believe that we offer legal immunity to mobsters but can't tailor a deal for one man whose potential criminal liability is very specific.

Well, your attempt was a terrible failure. If it's so easy, you'd think you would have managed to propose something without a gigantic hole:

"Anything relating to publishing in Wikileaks or to do with Bradley Manning". That was easy

Except for the "active participant" problem. Your deal allows Assange to buy classified information and then avoid prosecution by hiding in Sweden. All he has to do is publish it on Wikileaks.

No, no. We have exceptions for journalists. You really want to charge every journalist who publishes leaks as active participants in conspiracy?

You can not bring up active participant without having such an utterly wrong idea of what it is.

An active participant would be if Assange sought out someone with classified information, and then convinced them to leak that information. For example, by paying the leaker for the information.

A person that just receives information, such as Assange or Greenwald, is not an active participant in the leak.

The fact that you're suddenly pretending to not understand the issue you brought up further demonstrates that you're desperate to avoid discussing this.