• 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.
Childlike Empress said:
edit: ah, on second read I understand your post, you mean they didn't mention that the lawyer didn't inform him correctly according to your information.
Click to expand...
Correct, appologies for being unclear.

The description (in the transcript) that continues from the point you quoted makes it out like the prosecutors decision to use an EAW came out of the blue, when in fact there had been several attempts to set up the meeting in that time.
 
JihadJane said:
Appeal to authority.
Click to expand...
This is not a fallacy when the authority in question is actually a legitimate authority on the subject at hand.

Surely you're not arguing that Swedish courts are not legitimate authorities on matters of Swedish law.

ETA: Anyway, as we've seen repeatedly in this thread, the argument is circular. The Swedish courts are acting improperly because they're under the influence of the US government, and the evidence that they're under the influence of the US government that they're acting improperly.

To her credit, Naomi Wolf is attempting to break this circle by actually providing independent evidence that the Swedish courts are acting improperly. However, her attempt only gets so far as asserting this.
 
Last edited:
Jack of Kent said:
Here is my post on Assange in the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/d...09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

Would be grateful for any comments from fellow skeptics.

David Allen Green
Click to expand...

You state that "If it were an espionage or computer offence in respect of his role at Wikileaks then not only would he possibly have protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

I do not believe that the First Amendment would afford Mr. Assange any protection from a criminal prosecution. In fact a plurality of the US Supreme Court in the famous Pentagon Papers case stated that criminal charges could be leveled against the Mr. Ellsberg. In fact charges were brought against Ellsberg, and were dismissed, not on First Amendment grounds, but rather because of gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering.
 
JihadJane said:
Correct



"Credibility" isn't evidence. It's highly a subjective quality, easily influenced by ideological and other bias.
Click to expand...
So what bias are Walsh, Davies, Leigh and all of the defectors under? They are the ones saying Assange said he didn't want to remove the names, in one case because supporters of the great satan deserve to die, and it was only done at the last moment. When several people tell similar stories, it's reasonable to conclude there is something to it. That's why witness testimony is still allowed in court. You know it's true Assange had that opinion then, you just object because it makes him look like a stupid piece of ****, which he is, and is effective as an argument that his entire worldview is pathetic. Working for Putin, praising the the leader of a terrorist organization (hezbollah) as a freedom fighter? He is trash
 
Argument from authority is actually a valid inductive argument, if not a foolproof one. A false appeal to authority occurs when the supposed authority is not an expert on the specific issue (e.g. citing a property lawyer as an expert on a subtle issue of family law say) or does not reflect the general consensus (the newspapers' use of rent-a-nutjob for any medical story perhaps).

That the considered view of experts in both UK and Swedish (i.e. several courts) is that there is a case to be answered (not that he's guilty, a case to answer) can thus be taken to have a high probability of being correct.
 
Jack of Kent said:
Here is my post on Assange in the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/d...09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

Would be grateful for any comments from fellow skeptics.

David Allen Green
Click to expand...

By the way. you were far kinder to Glenn Greenwald than i would have ever been. He writes:

"Assange's lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should be."

And who will dictate those "assurances" Glenn, and since when does a Sovereign State make diplomatic assurances to an accused criminal defendant? Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists, and there is no way in hell that Sweden should ever negotiate with criminals.

Further, Assange HAD a full, fair, and legal hearing in Great Britain, and the suggestion that ASSANGE is not preventing the proceedings from going ahead in Sweden is ludicrous.

The Gaurdian must correct its error over Assange and extradition!
 
theprestige said:
There's a joke there somewhere...

Q. Why did America buy the Swedish justice system?

A. Because they'd get a free Assange with purchase.

No?
Click to expand...
Or maybe the other way around:

Q. Why did the the US demand a refund for their purchase of the Swedish justice system?

A. Because they got a free Assange with it.
 
uke2se said:
Shouldn't they be saying it to Assange instead? I mean, he's the only one capable of "freeing Assange".
Click to expand...

Funnily this has been true since the very begining of the case. Everything that has happened has done so purely because of his choices.
 
Why trust serial human rights abusers?

Human Rights Watch accuses US of covering up extent of waterboarding
The organisation alleges that opponents of Muammar Gaddafi were subjected to the torture at secret CIA prisons


The New York-based human rights group has cast "serious doubt" on Washington's claim that only three people, all members of al-Qaida, were waterboarded in American custody, claiming in a new report to have fresh evidence that the CIA used the technique to simulate drowning on Libyans snatched from countries in Africa and Asia.

The report, Delivered into Enemy Hands: US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi's Libya, also says that the CIA, Britain's MI6 and other western intelligence services were responsible for "delivering Gaddafi his enemies on a silver platter" by sending the captured men to Tripoli for further abuse after the American interrogations.
Click to expand...


______________________________



Joey McGee said:
So what bias are Walsh, Davies, Leigh and all of the defectors under? They are the ones saying Assange said he didn't want to remove the names, in one case because supporters of the great satan deserve to die, and it was only done at the last moment. When several people tell similar stories, it's reasonable to conclude there is something to it. That's why witness testimony is still allowed in court. You know it's true Assange had that opinion then, you just object because it makes him look like a stupid piece of ****, which he is, and is effective as an argument that his entire worldview is pathetic. Working for Putin, praising the the leader of a terrorist organization (hezbollah) as a freedom fighter? He is trash
Click to expand...

Gossip.

The bias I had in mind was your own, though it's true that journalists also suffer from it, often unconsciously. In this case, your bias would be caused by your need to portray Assange as "a stupid piece of ****" ... with a wordview of "pathetic", amazingly deep and profound analysis though it is, easily worthy of a five-year old. ;)
 
Last edited:
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