Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Democracy Simulator]

Um, ok, a journalist quoting JA is hearsay? right. Then everything reported here about what JA claims is heresay, unless he said it to the member quoting him. that's not going to get us very far.

The definition of hearsay is that it is the report of one person's word against another. Should Assange choose to deny he made these comments, then that is exactly what this report is.

But, let's put that aside, because it is not really important as to establishing the facts in question, which are whether Wikileaks actually put people's lives at risk. Again I'm going to ask you whether you have any proof that they did? I don't count the opinion of Julian Assange (whether he expressed it or not) as any kind of proof.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That hearsay comes from Guardian journalists writing a book after Assange broke all bridges to them and condemned their participation and reporting publically. Maybe true, maybe not, certainly not evidence of anything. One of them, Luke Harding, is now embedded with the "rebels" in Syria and according to some is turning a blind eye to their atrocities, smiling into the camera while in the next room "government loyalists" are butchered.

 

[theprestige]

Why? There's no longer any reason for one; by now, any potentially transferred STD would show up in a test of the receiver

And any potentially transferred arsenic would shop up in the body of the murder victim.

Yet somehow we still seem to have a charge of "attempted murder" on the books, even though it necessarily implies that nobody was ever actually murdered.

Knowingly exposing someone to an STD, or intentionally risking their exposure against their clear wishes in the matter, isn't something that can be easily excused by "so what? They got lucky, didn't they?"

 

[Korren]

And any potentially transferred arsenic would shop up in the body of the murder victim.

Yet somehow we still seem to have a charge of "attempted murder" on the books, even though it necessarily implies that nobody was ever actually murdered.

Knowingly exposing someone to an STD, or intentionally risking their exposure against their clear wishes in the matter, isn't something that can be easily excused by "so what? They got lucky, didn't they?"

The Swedish authorities are not requesting that Assange undergoes an STD test, nor are they investigating him for "knowingly exposing someone to an STD." Furthermore, even if we consider the hypothetical case that they were, how would an STD test -- particularly one administered a year after the fact -- be evidence of knowledge or intent?

STD testing is not, and has never been, an issue in this case.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

In the current situation yes, but it doesn't help the argument that the rape accusations in Swe is a honey trap designed to get him to Swe for onwards transport to the US.

Of the two countries, Sweden facilitates his extradition to the United States the quickest and easiest, through the "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812.

Oh, come on. It's not like seeking political asylum to prevent being extradited to Sweden, of all places, is a commonplace legal strategy. It's farcial.

I'm not Assange, nor does my level of mind-reading compare to some of the members on this forum, however the basis of his fear of extradition to the United States has been questioned, and regardless of what you or others here think, his concern is not entirely unfounded.

If the United States does want to extradite him, Sweden is the better choice over the United Kingdom, as mentioned above, per the "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812, a clause which the United States does not have in their treaty with Britain.

 

[PhantomWolf]

"...you believe the United States government's best method of extraction would be to send a special operatives team to foreign soil..." - me
"The whole idea that the US is acting as some evil shadowy puppet master and manipulating people and courts to its own ends where it will eventually get them to break laws to hand over Assange makes absolutely no sense when the simple extraction of an unarmed and precisely locatable target by trained operatives is much easier, and has a far larger precedent." - you

hurp durp

I find it rather confusing why you don't link to the actual post in question... Oh, no I don't, because then people would discover you were removing the context by dropping the first sentence. Really is that how you like to try and make an argument? By just cherry picking the part you want and ignoring the context? Oh, wait, reading your posts I know the answer to that too.

For those that can't be bothered to go back several pages and find it, here is the quote in context:

This is the big thing I don't get, conspiracy theories always have people acting in a totally bizzaro and illogical manner, and this one is no different. The whole idea that the US is acting as some evil shadowy puppet master and manipulating people and courts to its own ends where it will eventually get them to break laws to hand over Assange makes absolutely no sense when the simple extraction of an unarmed and precisely locatable target by trained operatives is much easier, and has a far larger precedent.

Oh look at that, add the first sentence back and it's clear I was talking about what the CTs believe, not what I do.

If the United States government is bathing with Swedish judges and prosecutors, I highly doubt it's their intention to be "found" out. Did you ever look those words up?

I don't need to look them up. What baffles me is why you think that it would be their intention not to be caught out manipulating the court systems, but it wouldn't be their intention to not be caught running a black ops to snatch Assange and vanish him. It also baffles me why you think that they wouldn't be caught out trying to manipulate the court systems but would be using a black ops team.

The foundation of your flip-flopping argument rests on the assumption that there is no way Assange can be legally extradited to the United States. You need to catch up on the thread, bro.

I think you need to catch up with the legal realities. Instead of making up interpretations of laws that suit you and dismissing what you are told they really mean, go and read what real lawyers have already said about this case and what can happen. As to the so called "flip-flopping" there is none, my argument has remained consistent from day one, the only issue there is your attempts to cherry pick quotes out of context to claim I was arguing things I never did.

The silliness of your cost/benefit analysis of US intervention regarding Assange can be read above. So you think either the US government is stupid, or the logical conclusion is the person doing the analysis is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The silliness of your selective quote mining and deliberately removing context can be seen by everyone too.

I said sixty years, but for some reason you randomly want to limit the time period to the last twenty? I'm curious as to why you think limiting the me to twenty years will make your case look better?

I know what you said, and the twenty years is not at all random. Perhaps you might not remember, but a rather significant change in world politics occurred twenty years ago. Need a clue of that one?

For starters, we can begin with the most obvious regional US-led initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq

Those were clandestine? Wow, could have fooled me.

then we can move on to the CIA's alleged involvement in Venezuelan (2002, I believe) and Palestinian (2007) attempted coup d'états.

I bolded the appropriate word, got any real evidence there?

From then, the government decided to turn Somalia back into a hell hole because they didn't like the name of the "Islamic Courts Union" that was bringing stability back to the region.

Evidence?

And let's not forget the Libyan and Syrian "revolutions"... which the mainstream media is finally acquiescing that, hmmm, there may have been CIA involvement in fighting alongside "rebels."

Evidence that the "may have been" is an actual "was" and that even if they were, that they were responsible for the revolutions and weren't helping after the fact.

It was only last week that a US Marine was arrested in Venezuela after entering illegally from Colombia, how could you have missed that? Maybe you should've said 'past two days' or something?

Evidence that a) it actually happened, b) the person really was a mercenary, and c) he was there working for the US govt to destabilize the county.

Then you would've had me.

Yes because using conspiracy theories to support another conspiracy theory is such a wonderful idea. Next you'll be adding to the list how the CIA had Kennedy shot, FEMA demolished the WTC, and the NSA faked the Moonlandings.

Speaking of an inability to clearly comprehend written material... or maybe you just don't consider Pakistanis or other brown-skins 'civilized' people?

And Pakistan has been a part of western civilisation since.....? But yeah, always fun to throw mud at people opposing you when you don't have a real argument to stand up with.

Yup, this statement from you confirms quite clearly that you cannot read.

says the person who has clearly and repeatedly taken quotes out of context, twisted what is said, and totally ignored anything that doesn't match their strange world of conspiracy by an evil US government.

 

[theprestige]

The Swedish authorities are not requesting that Assange undergoes an STD test, nor are they investigating him for "knowingly exposing someone to an STD." Furthermore, even if we consider the hypothetical case that they were, how would an STD test -- particularly one administered a year after the fact -- be evidence of knowledge or intent?

STD testing is not, and has never been, an issue in this case.

Huh. Somehow I got the impression it was. My bad. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The difficulty with extraditing him from the United Kingdom is that per the European Arrest Warrant, Britain is legally obligated to arrest him and extradite him directly to Sweden.

Actually they aren't. They are legally obligated to arrest him and then have the courts determine if there is sufficent cause in the arrest warrent to show that he has likely commited a crime in the requesting state that warrents his extradition. They did that, and determined that yes there was. But at that point they could have determined that there wasn't sufficent cause to extradite him and voided the warrent, releasing him.

From my reading, the European Arrest Warrant in no way allows the UK to transfer Assange to the United States.

This is correct, and it doesn't allow Sweden to either, except with the express permission from the UK. Note that this is not true when it comes to a 3rd party who is a member of the EU, so Sweden could extradite him to Italy without the UK's approval had it been them wanting him, or of course the UK could have extradited him directly to Italy.

Another factor involved is one we have witnessed over the past couple of days, is that public opinion regarding Assange is much more positive than Sweden (which you could no doubt, probably confirm.) In the case of extradition to the US from the UK, my understanding is that the people would be absolutely livid if they witnessed their authority figures bowing down to the wishes of the United States government.

I haven't seen anything like that, off of the internet, most people I know who even know about the case think he should just go and get it over with.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of the two countries, Sweden facilitates his extradition to the United States the quickest and easiest, through the "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812.

It amazes me that you still seem to think that a clause that is designed to determine how to deal with the sentencing and trial of a prisoner who is serving time in one country and is wanted in a second, somehow negates the requirements of extradition, like actually showing by the balance of evidence that a crime has indeed been commited and that such a crime is a crime in both states.

If the United States does want to extradite him, Sweden is the better choice over the United Kingdom, as mentioned above, per the "Temporary Surrender" clause in Article VI of 14 UST 1845 TIAS 10812, a clause which the United States does not have in their treaty with Britain.

Still incorrect. The US would still have to prove their case and show that what Assange did was a crime in Sweden, a higher level of evidence than required in the UK, and would still require the UK's permission to be extradited. The clause you keep referencing kicks in after extradition has been agreed by the courts and is to do with how to deal with the prisioner's sentence, as in whether they serve the sentence from the first country while serving in the second, or whether they can be temporarily surrendered for trial and then must be returned to complete their custodial sentence in the first.

 

[bit_pattern]

Some entertaining speculation on how Assange might pull off the Great Escape from the UK:

The problem with credentialling Assange as a high-ranking Ecuadorian diplomat is that he would need to be accepted by the UK, which is unlikely on the face of it. Ordinarily, a diplomat made persona non grata is guaranteed safe passage, per the Vienna Convention, but what is the rule if they were never a diplomat in the first place? What if Assange were made an Ecuadorian diplomatic representative to a third country — Brazil — say, and was accepted by them? The Vienna Convention should then oblige the UK to give safe passage, per the convention, as far as I read it.

Thirdly, there is the option of making Assange an ambassador to the UN, or one of its numerous sub-bodies. Unconfirmed reports from sources close to WikiLeaks say that this plan has always been on the table, and was discussed with the Ecuadorian government long before Assange entered the embassy and request asylum on June 20.

 

[Korren]

I'm not Assange, nor does my level of mind-reading compare to some of the members on this forum, however the basis of his fear of extradition to the United States has been questioned, and regardless of what you or others here think, his concern is not entirely unfounded.

It's always possible that Assange's actions are based on a genuine paranoia about being extradited to the USA from Sweden on his part. That doesn't make his actions any more rational or reasonable: not only is there no evidence of the USA having influenced the Swedish legal system, there is not even posited a plausible mechanism for such influence to have taken place. Seriously -- what happened to skepticism?

 

[geni]

It's always possible that Assange's actions are based on a genuine paranoia about being extradited to the USA from Sweden on his part. That doesn't make his actions any more rational or reasonable: not only is there no evidence of the USA having influenced the Swedish legal system,

Since those two egyptians were handed over to CIA operatives rather than transported dirrectly by the swedish authories that wouldn't appear to be tha case.

 

[WildCat]

I find posts like this terribly amusing. So many people here are saying that Assange is of no great importance, yet the hatred is palpable. He's made powerful governments (including my own) look stupid by exposing their duplicity. The leaks have put nobody at risk.

If that makes me an ideological constipated worshipper (whatever that means)
so be it.

Assange didn't expose anything that anyone reading newspapers didn't already know.

How naive do you have to be to think that what diplomats say publicly is exactly what they think privately? Diplomacy is the art of shining a turd.

 

[bit_pattern]

Assange didn't expose anything that anyone reading newspapers didn't already know.

A demonstrably false comment. No-one knew prior to the cable dump Mark Arbib, the faceless man who engineered Kevin Rudd's assassination, was actually a government mole for the US embassy, for example. That's just one of a thousand examples.

 

[WildCat]

A demonstrably false comment. No-one knew prior to the cable dump Mark Arbib, the faceless man who engineered Kevin Rudd's assassination, was actually a government mole for the US embassy, for example. That's just one of a thousand examples.

Kevin Rudd was assasinated? Why hasn't this been in the news?

At any rate, I suppose I should have said "didn't expose anything of any significance". To those of us who aren't Ozzie political junkies anyway.

 

[BenBurch]

Because he is a poon hound, and once the results are a matter of public records...

 

[bit_pattern]

Kevin Rudd was assasinated? Why hasn't this been in the news?

At any rate, I suppose I should have said "didn't expose anything of any significance". To those of us who aren't Ozzie political junkies anyway.

By 'significant' I assume you mean the handful (out of many thousands) of examples (is it even a plural?) that you happened to have heard about before Wikileaks released their documents?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Kevin Rudd was ousted because he ate his own earwax. There was no other reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8

 

[bit_pattern]

>>unnecessary<<

 

[BenBurch]

Huh. Somehow I got the impression it was. My bad. Thanks for setting me straight.

It was to force him to take an STD test that the women went to the police in the first place, after confronting him in person, and him refusing.