pointing out such inconsistency is an excellent way to dilute and dissolve outrage. Most people don't see such cases, they see this one because it's so high-profile/novel; If this is the breakthrough case that starts people talking it will benefit everyone.
That'd be great, but most of them seem to think the treatment is exceptional and targeted at Assange. If you pick the wrong target, all of your shots will miss.
(Equally, wait until you find out exactly how limited the grounds are to refuse an extradition to America. And the fact that America refuses to allow symmetric rules. And the fact that Britain went along with this...)
This is the bit that gets my blood boiling. The UK is extraditing a journalist to the US to keep Trump happy, while the US is refusing to extradite the wife of a civil servant after she killed someone.
That speech from "Love Actually" could be recycled usefully here.
Comments
pointing out such inconsistency is an excellent way to dilute and dissolve outrage. Most people don't see such cases, they see this one because it's so high-profile/novel; If this is the breakthrough case that starts people talking it will benefit everyone.
That'd be great, but most of them seem to think the treatment is exceptional and targeted at Assange. If you pick the wrong target, all of your shots will miss.
(Equally, wait until you find out exactly how limited the grounds are to refuse an extradition to America. And the fact that America refuses to allow symmetric rules. And the fact that Britain went along with this...)
This is the bit that gets my blood boiling. The UK is extraditing a journalist to the US to keep Trump happy, while the US is refusing to extradite the wife of a civil servant after she killed someone.
That speech from "Love Actually" could be recycled usefully here.