> No, she really doesn't. Her business is Law, not prognostication. What on earth makes you think she reads El Reg in the first place, and values your opinion in the second?
Doesn't what? Or do you mean "hasn't" as in hasn't missed the point?
You are right: her business is Law. And her response to Assange's argument that if he were sent to Sweden he would be subject to the risk of extradition etc was to fob him off with "the US have done nothing so far". That's not a proper response, in law or otherwise.
If the court's view is they don't care about what might happen in the future then she should say so. My complaint is with her sidestepping the question. That's for politicians not judges.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
