So is the UN going to send Britain and Sweden a strongly worded letter then? That always gets the job done!
What do you suggest they do? Send a drone to kill Cameron and a dozen bystanders at a wedding party?
Blue Helmets. But UK and Sweden declined to contribute troops.
Sounds good to me, especially if the bystanders are cabinet ministers.
Probably Rebekah Brooks and Jeremy Clarkson. I’d call that acceptable collateral damage.
I still cannot understand why the US needs to extradite Assange to Sweden in order to then extradite him to the US. That claim, the foundation for his reason for refusing to go to Sweden, makes no sense whatsoever and the claim that Sweden would simply agree to send him to the US to face possible execution is, quite frankly, an insult to the people of Sweden.
Can anyone explain to me how this far-fetched claim is supposed to make sense? Why the US has to capture him through Sweden? Why, if this is a honey trap false accusation, didn’t the US have more women come forward in more countries to make similar claims? Why, out of all of the countries in Europe, he needs to be extradited to Sweden before he can be sent to the US makes no sense to me at all. I am genuinely asking.
I’m OK with that.
I really don’t get this. How is he being detained when he’s chosen to hide there? Would he still be being “deprived of his liberty” if he was on the run?
Other reports were saying he should be compensated, so how’s that meant to work? “Sorry for trying to arrest you; here’s some money.”?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.