• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:
The whole case is bizarre. The amount of time, money and effort put into one man for what is, in the global scheme of things, a relatively minor matter, is truly bizarre. Other people in similar situations have been 'interviewed' remotely, or by Swedish officers going to the other country where they live.

* I am not downplaying the seriousness of rape allegations, I am saying that even in the case of a lower level sexual assault such as this, I do not believe that such measures would be resorted to by the Swedes or the GB authorities to extradite the person in question.
Click to expand...

Why yes, I guess in a global perspective, or rather a geological or cosmic perspective it is a relatively minor matter. And if you think a police investigation and extraditition in a rape case is bizarre, I don't want to live in your country.

But the rape victims might not feel that way, in fact quite to the contrary. And yes, it is rape and sexual assault, not a "lower level sexual assault", so you are downplaying rape.

Is it not "legitimate" enough for you? The irony here is what is truly bizarre.
 
Sabrina said:
Again, nothing "ex" about it; but setting that aside, what about my opinion is an appeal to authority, pray tell? I pretty clearly stated in my post that what I was posting was solely my opinion, as indicated by the qualifiers "I think", "I would say", "I for one would find it very surprising", etc. I never once definitively said that what I was saying was actually the stance of the US Government; merely that it was my interpretation of the stance based solely on my observations and somewhat on my experience as a military intelligence officer (side note: what is a "military intelligentist" anyway?). Assange, based largely on my knowledge of how we pick high-value targets, is nowhere near as important as he thinks he is. I don't believe you can assign the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" to one person's opinion on a matter. If your issue is with me using my own experience (which is hardly an appeal to authority either) to offer an opinion, then what, pray tell, is NOT an "appeal to authority" to you?
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf made the appeal to your authority, suggesting that your opinion in the matter was worth more than JihadJane's, becuase of your background. That is what I objected to; I thought it a bit fallacious to suggest that you would have any special knowledge in this highly speculative matter. I have no issue with you offering an opinion and I am not suggesting that you have made any appeal to authority. I respect that you may have some knowledge as to how targets are selected, but I'm not sure whether you have any special insight into whether it is the intention of elements of the US government to attempt to extradite Assange.

As for 'Military Intelligentist', it's a coinage. I made it up on the strength of 2 beers. Now I know your correct title (and that you currently serve) I promise that I won't use it again.
 
Fantasists pre-select conclusions and simply select "evidence" which supports them. Any inconvenient material which challenges, or in any way calls into question, the fantasy must be rejected. I don't see how the opinions of fantasists can have any real value, since they're based on wishful thinking rather than honest investigation.

Racists, truthers, holocaust deniers, personality cultists, "anti-imperialist" ideologues; all grow off the same tree.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
PhantomWolf made the appeal to your authority, suggesting that your opinion in the matter was worth more than JihadJane's, becuase of your background. That is what I objected to; I thought it a bit fallacious to suggest that you would have any special knowledge in this highly speculative matter.
Click to expand...

Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy when the person isn't an authority. Sabrina is certainly an authority on the way the US Intelligence services work, and that is what she offered her opinion on. In such a circumstance, it's exactly because of her background and knowledge about how things are handled that her opinion is worth far more the JihadJane's, a poster who has exactly zero understanding about the workings of the US Intelligence services and loudly proves that on a regular basis.

And sorry about the 'ex' Sabrina, I thought I had read a while back you'd left the military and were working for someone else. :o
 
eirik said:
I'm astonished. I don't even..


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe that you really are a lawyer, as you have claimed in the past, though I guess that that profession isn't necessarily one renowned for its commitment to truth-telling!

The Swedish Prosecutor's Office is making the allegations, not the women.

Nowhere in your link does it say that it is the women who alleged that they had been raped, and certainly not in the extract you quoted.

trustbutverify said:
Fantasists pre-select conclusions and simply select "evidence" which supports them. Any inconvenient material which challenges, or in any way calls into question, the fantasy must be rejected. I don't see how the opinions of fantasists can have any real value, since they're based on wishful thinking rather than honest investigation.
Click to expand...

Inconvenient material like this (21 August 2010)?:

The arrest warrant is withdrawn. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne.
Click to expand...


trustbutverify said:
Racists, truthers, holocaust deniers, personality cultists, "anti-imperialist" ideologues; all grow off the same tree.
Click to expand...

Not "imperialist" ideologues, then? ;)
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
It's hard to believe that you really are a lawyer, as you have claimed in the past, though I guess that that profession isn't necessarily one renowned for its commitment to truth-telling!

The Swedish Prosecutor's Office is making the allegations, not the women.

Nowhere in your link does it say that it is the women who alleged that they had been raped, and certainly not in the extract you quoted.
Click to expand...

Seriously...

The women told what happened to Swedish authorities. Swedish authorities determined that what the women told about constitutes rape. Thus, both women have accused Assange of rape.

I mean, it's really simple. Denying this doesn't make you look very good.

Also, the case was reopened after the women's attorney had appealed the decision to close it. He would only do that on behest of the two women.
 
Last edited:
'We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited
For decades we have campaigned to get rapists caught, charged and convicted. But the pursuit of Assange is political'

Women Against Rape said:
Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange's extradition or even rendition to the US. That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won't do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat.

In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.

Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?

In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet, the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain's criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet. (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US.
Click to expand...

[My bold -JJ]
 
JihadJane said:
'We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited
For decades we have campaigned to get rapists caught, charged and convicted. But the pursuit of Assange is political'



[My bold -JJ]
Click to expand...

They are just as wrong as you are. Does the fact that you've managed to find someone who's just as wrong as you are make you somehow less wrong? No, no it doesn't.

The women have accused Assange of rape. Assange ran from justice. There's no politics involved except for the politics that Assange and his deluded supporters have managed to bring.
 
eirik said:
Why yes, I guess in a global perspective, or rather a geological or cosmic perspective it is a relatively minor matter. And if you think a police investigation and extraditition in a rape case is bizarre, I don't want to live in your country.

But the rape victims might not feel that way, in fact quite to the contrary. And yes, it is rape and sexual assault, not a "lower level sexual assault", so you are downplaying rape.

Is it not "legitimate" enough for you? The irony here is what is truly bizarre.
Click to expand...

You got the first sentence partly right, but misunderstood my point, the rest was all wrong, and purely invention on your part. I think that if he is accused of rape by the victims, he should face justice. It's just that anyone else in that position would not have been extradited to answer questions. He has not been charged, and has indicated he will answer any questions they ask him. They have chosen not to ask him any.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
No, they are not allowed by law to override the judiciary system. That's why I called it a dictatorial move.
Click to expand...

The current demands to extradite for an interview rather than just have the interview at a place of mutual convenience, which is common practice, already reeks of 'a dictatorial move'.

Don't forget, the US is the country that carries out 'extraordinary rendition', which is above the law.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's just that anyone else in that position would not have been extradited to answer questions.
Click to expand...

According to my, admittedly limited, understanding of the Swedish judicial process, that's the bit that's simply not true; the procedure being followed is standard Swedish legal procedure, and in the same circumstances would be followed no matter what the identity of the person accused. It's Assange who's requesting special treatment.

Dave
 
JihadJane said:
Nowhere in your link does it say that it is the women who alleged that they had been raped, and certainly not in the extract you quoted.
Click to expand...

You are a mystery. And a documented liar. Who is it that is alledgedly raped, then? The police?:boggled:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Julian Assange. Karin Rosander, head of communications, says there are two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation.
Both women reportedly say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual.
Click to expand...
 
a_unique_person said:
You got the first sentence partly right, but misunderstood my point, the rest was all wrong, and purely invention on your part. I think that if he is accused of rape by the victims, he should face justice. It's just that anyone else in that position would not have been extradited to answer questions. He has not been charged, and has indicated he will answer any questions they ask him. They have chosen not to ask him any.
Click to expand...

There's no choice about it. Haven't you been paying attention?

Let me ask you this: If this was some unknown bloke, would you still think it would be reasonable for the Swedish judiciary system to go out of their way to accomodate to the accused's wishes? Do you think it would be fine for a third party nation to interfere with the judiciary process of two nations? Do you think it would be fine for Sweden to violate it's own regulations just because the accused was paranoid?
 
a_unique_person said:
The current demands to extradite for an interview rather than just have the interview at a place of mutual convenience, which is common practice, already reeks of 'a dictatorial move'.

Don't forget, the US is the country that carries out 'extraordinary rendition', which is above the law.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:

It is not common practice. This has already been explained to you.
 
uke2se said:
There's no choice about it. Haven't you been paying attention?

Let me ask you this: If this was some unknown bloke, would you still think it would be reasonable for the Swedish judiciary system to go out of their way to accomodate to the accused's wishes? Do you think it would be fine for a third party nation to interfere with the judiciary process of two nations? Do you think it would be fine for Sweden to violate it's own regulations just because the accused was paranoid?
Click to expand...

It is quite common for police to perform investigations overseas, if the person of interest is living there, and they do not have the evidence to put formal charges for extradition. I have no idea how many millions of dollars this case has cost so far, but it belies the claim it is only normal procedure.

The paranoia seems appropriate, I would be too if they assigned so many police to his case.

I would like to see them proceed with formal charges, if they think they have a case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom