Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[a_unique_person]

So it's idle speculation by professional diplomats instead.

 

[a_unique_person]

Which is quite true,

Thank you. I think it is possible he will be found guilty of rape, but I hear respected people who support Asssange disagreeing with aspects of this case as well.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Exceptional reply. Praytell, what hard evidence do the diplomats have to make their claims?

 

[BenBurch]

Just wanted to note that the case was never dropped entirely. ...

So, the claim is not only a misunderstanding but an outright fabrication.

Thanks.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thank you. I think it is possible he will be found guilty of rape, but I hear respected people who support Asssange disagreeing with aspects of this case as well.

Mostly people who haven't got a clue what is going on and have bought into the conspriacies. The simply facts of the matter have been tested by 3 prosecutors and 5 courts, seven of which determined there was a case to answer. Now yes, people can have different opinions on the same facts, happens all the time, but when 7 of 8 people/courts look at the evidence and say "there is a case to answer" I'm going to go out on a limb and say, it's pretty likely there is a case to answer.

 

[eirik]

Thank you. I think it is possible he will be found guilty of rape, but I hear respected people who support Asssange disagreeing with aspects of this case as well.

Who would they be?

And why do you give them credence over the police and the numerous court decisions in this particular rape case?

 

[a_unique_person]

Exceptional reply. Praytell, what hard evidence do the diplomats have to make their claims?

If there was hard evidence of everything out there, we wouldn't need intelligence services and diplomats, we could all just read it in the paper.

Since that is not the case, they have to do what they always do.

Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/u...bles-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz24kX0aYPH

If they are going to make the grand jury a secret one, then that makes it hard to come up with unambiguous evidence. The matter could be sorted out very quickly if they told us what it was up to.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If there was hard evidence of everything out there, we wouldn't need intelligence services and diplomats, we could all just read it in the paper.

Since that is not the case, they have to do what they always do.

Which is speculate. BTW have you reread your quote and seen where you got it wrong about the US replying?

 

[a_unique_person]

Who would they be?

And why do you give them credence over the police and the numerous court decisions in this particular rape case?

Because the police and prosecutors are always right. Why do we even need trials.

 

[a_unique_person]

Mostly people who haven't got a clue what is going on and have bought into the conspriacies. The simply facts of the matter have been tested by 3 prosecutors and 5 courts, seven of which determined there was a case to answer. Now yes, people can have different opinions on the same facts, happens all the time, but when 7 of 8 people/courts look at the evidence and say "there is a case to answer" I'm going to go out on a limb and say, it's pretty likely there is a case to answer.

And I just said he could well be found guilty of rape.

 

[a_unique_person]

Which is speculate. BTW have you reread your quote and seen where you got it wrong about the US replying?

Yes, the phrasing was not too clear in the article. It doesn't really change the issue much, all it means is that the Australians don't want to release some information because it would be internally damaging politically, that is, the answers would cause even more controversy.

 

[BenBurch]

Because the police and prosecutors are always right. Why do we even need trials.

Do you think there will be no trial?

There might not be, if they like his answers when they interrogate him.

But otherwise there will be a trial with all the proper procedures and niceties.

And he will be convicted (I believe) because he did commit the crimes.

And he will be jailed for approximately 5 years.

And then be Deported back to Oz. Or to Ecuador if they will have him.

And the USA will not have spoken a work to Sweden about him.

 

[eirik]

Because the police and prosecutors are always right. Why do we even need trials.

Well, that's what courts are for. Do try to keep up. And the prosecutions decisions was upheld in court. Not less than 5 times.

Besides, you are projecting. It is you who is so certain of Assange's and your own infallibility that you are willing to ignore both the prosecutions arrest warrant and the five court decisions backing this up.

Why do we even need trials.

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, that's what courts are for. Do try to keep up. And the prosecutions decisions was upheld in court. Not less than 5 times.

Besides, you are projecting. It is you who is so certain of Assange's and your own infallibility that you are willing to ignore both the prosecutions arrest warrant and the five court decisions backing this up.


Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you.

I don't know how many times I have to say I think he could be found guilty.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you.

I think you misunderstood my point, could be a language thing.

 

[Here_to_learn]

For those that read Glenn Greenwalds post in the Guardian here is a followup from Mark Klamberg, were he adresses some of GGs points, specifically around it it would be legally possible for Sweden to guarantee not to extradite JA to the US.

To summarize, if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court. Without an actual request it is difficult to legally asses the exact discretion and whether the Government can exercise such discretion.

 

[eirik]

I don't know how many times I have to say I think he could be found guilty.

And yet still here you are, arguing that he shouldn't be extradited as per the court order.

On the basis of, amongst other convoluted reasons, that the rape victim is not saying it was rape. Why on earth would you repeat such unsubstantiated tripe, after you have been repeatedly told the facts, which is that the woman reported Assange for rape?

 

[000063]

Who would they be?

And why do you give them credence over the police and the numerous court decisions in this particular rape case?

Because the police and prosecutors are always right. Why do we even need trials.

Straw man. You didn't actually answer either question in the slightest.

 

[theprestige]

If there was hard evidence of everything out there, we wouldn't need intelligence services and diplomats, we could all just read it in the paper.

Since that is not the case, they have to do what they always do.

a_unique_person, why is the possibility of the US requesting extradition from Australia in relation to a Wikileaks case relevant to the actuality of Sweden requesting extradition from the UK in relation to a rape case?

Why are the two even relevant? Why would a sane person reasonably conclude that concerns about the former would have any bearing on the latter?

 

[nathan]

As for Australian diplomats preparing for something, perhaps this will sate your fetishistic pedantry:

I'm sorry you see the request for evidence to be fetishishic pedantry.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/au...to-us.aspx?PageID=238&NID=28070&NewsCatID=359

Again, my comment was only that this showed the Australian government believes in the possibility of an eventual extradition to the US to face a wikileaks-related charge.

Great, thanks for that. It does seem like the journalist wants to talk up the likelihood of an extradition request, by using 'preparing', whereas the diplomats want to talk it down by saying 'contingency planning'. Indeed, from that article, there's a quote from Craig Emerson (trade minister):

There is no evidence of such an extradition effort,

It seems to be more of a CYA effort along the lines of disaster recovery.

And even if there was an extradition effort, what evidence is there that JA's more at risk as an extradited-from-UK-person in Sweden, than he would be if he remained in the UK?