I think he was wanted from Sweden?
Being wanted and being prosecuted are two different things, you specifically stated prosecuted and indicated that it was more than anyone else would be. You have provided no evidence of this claim.
There is tons of evidence about the crimes by Pinochet, so the crimes are not "supposed".
They are real.
That the crimes may be real is not the question. The question is Pinochet's guilt. Since there was no trial, you cannot say that he was guilty, only that he was accused of allegedly committing the crimes. In the exact same way, we can only state that Assange is an alleged rapist.
And, yes, Pinochet` s extradition was blocked formally for health issues
But where is the guarantee that the real reason was the one stated?
And what guarantee is there are that unicorns aren't on the far side of the moon? Nothing can ever be proven 100%, there is no such thing as a total guarantee. This is why we require evidence of claims.
See this is your problem.
Firstly you can't actually show that there was likely political interferrence with Pinochet's Extradion beyond what the law of the time allowed. Because of that you can't do more that speculate that there might have been because no one can prove there wasn't (something totally unprovable.)
Secondly, you have the issue that even if you could show that Pinochet's extradition was likely interfered with, that this still has zero to do with Assange's. See let's for a case of wishful thinking say that documents turn up tomorrow that say yes Pinochet's was because of politics. That still doesn't change anything for Assange because there is no link between him and Pinochet.
You are trying to do prove B = D like so
1) If A = D
2) And B = A
3) Then B = D
See the issue here? Even if you prove (1), which you haven't, it doesn't automatically make (2) correct. Pinochet's Extradition could have been interfered without there being any interference at all with Assange's. This is still an entirely valid senario that you are discounting without cause.
So instead you simply assume (1), then you assume (2) and having waved a magic wand, you declare victory and claim (3). It doesn't work that way.
Please show me evidence that the UK threatened to enter a foreign embassy
Captain Swoop has done this for me, and it has been posted previously. How many cases can you find where wanted persons in Britain have run to hide in Embassies and have not been chased?
You are much more in a circular argument than I am.
Assange needs to be guilty/prosecuted as the Justice system said so, and if the justice system said so is because Assange needs to be guilty/prosecuted.
You do not have the slightest doubt that the Justice system may be wrong.
Not just a strawman but a totaly illogical and warpped idea of how the law works as well.
The Justice System hasn't said anything about Assange's guilt as of yet. The Justice System kicks in once a trial starts, and since he isn't before a trial yet, the Justice System is quiet as to his case.
The Law states that Assange should likely face trial (I say likely because even that has not been determined yet and won't be until he returns to Sweden.) The Law says that when someone is accused of a crime for which the police and prosecutors find reasonable cause to believe occured then that person is entitled to a trial to determine the facts of the case so that they may put up a defence and not be sentenced for that crime unless found by the trial to be guilty of it.
The facts of the matter is that a) Assange has been accused of a crime and b) The police and prosecution believe they have reasonable cause, so by law, unless they decided to not press charges, there should be a trial.
This is not circular reasoning, it is the law.
So I invite you to look at the biggest picture.
I have, I don't agree with the parts you want to add to "the big picture".
I have looked at the facts, and the facts say Assange should return to Sweden.
Who is they?
Pinochet could have been prosecuted, he was not.
Irrelevent as shown above. Pinochet not being prosecuted has nothing to do with Asange.
Despite being a murderer.
Factually incorrect. Regardless of your personal belief on the matter, legally Pinochet was never found guilty of murder.
The crimes shown in the leaks were not prosecuted.
Who determined that what was shown in the leaks were in fact crimes?
Assange is wanted because his alleged victims complained to the police about him, and from there the Police and the Prosecution Service have done their jobs. Do you think that the police and Prosecution should have told the complainents, "Sorry, he's a public figure so we're not going to do anything about him."?
At the end, it is all about our own sense of justice
No it has nothing to do with "own sense of justice." Western Countries have instituted a rule of Law and a Justice system of Courts, Juries, Judges, and Trials to deal with justice in a fair and consistant manner simnply because as a collective our sense of justice is totally off. If someone raped and murdered my sister and the police said, I think this is the guy, then my sense of justice would want him tied upside down to a lamp post by his testies. The fact this doesn't happen is that we are a society of laws, and we don't make up how the world should work based on our "own sense of justice." Most of the Western World broke from that mould centuries ago, the US at the end of the Wild West. We tend to be more civilised now.
