Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
WildCat said:
I must have missed where you posted your evidence?
Click to expand...

Strange since you actually quoted from the post where I explained the figure, you know the one you called absolute nonsense, and I asked for your evidence that it was absolute nonsense.
 
It appears Just Foreign Policy, a group about 2% of us will have heard of, merely references the Lancet study. Could have just said "the lancet study" something most people know about already.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/deathcount/explanation

We multiple the Lancet number as of July 2006 by the ratio of current IBC deaths divided by IBC deaths as of July 1, 2006 (43,394)
Click to expand...

So if you don't accept The Lancet study...

For old times sake http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/10/the_lancets_slant.html

I mean there are more up to date critcisms, but hey ;)
 
Last edited:
Westminster Magistrates’ Court has now ruled that the remaining sureties must be paid.

Full ruling (PDF).
JUDGE HOWARD RIDDLE said:
[...]
What is undoubtedly unique is that the defendant sought, and has apparently been
granted, asylum by Ecuador. It was suggested that the defendant is simply seeking
an alternative legal process. However in principle I see no difference between
seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, and taking flight to that country. In
extradition cases in particular there is not infrequently a possibility that a defendant
might seek refuge in a state friendly to him. I am simply unimpressed by the parallel
legal process argument. Mr Assange has an obligation to comply with the legal
requirements of this country to surrender to the bail granted on terms originally set
by the High Court.
[...]
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, I am new to this forum.
I just think Assange is innocent, I mean, the UK has protected Pinochet from being extradited and now they are prosecuting Assange just because he failed to put up a condom during sex.
Who is going to believe this?
 
John Mekki said:
Sorry, I am new to this forum.
I just think Assange is innocent, I mean, the UK has protected Pinochet from being extradited and now they are prosecuting Assange just because he failed to put up a condom during sex.
Who is going to believe this?
Click to expand...

UK was complying with a legal extradition request. They have no legal option but to do so.
 
John Mekki said:
the UK[...] are prosecuting Assange just because he failed to put up a condom during sex.
Who is going to believe this?
Click to expand...
Nobody I hope, since it's not true.

The UK is not prosecuting JA, he is a suspect in Sweden. And it's not because he failed to put up a condom.

You can read about the details of the accusation here, or if you prefere from the Agreed facts document.
 
John Mekki said:
Sorry, I am new to this forum.
I just think Assange is innocent, I mean, the UK has protected Pinochet from being extradited and now they are prosecuting Assange just because he failed to put up a condom during sex. Who is going to believe this?
Click to expand...

Assange is innocent because Pinochet was guilty? That's an odd argument.
 
eirik said:
Assange is innocent because Pinochet was guilty? That's an odd argument.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.
My point is that the UK protected a criminal like Pinochet who killed thousands of people not extraditing him while they are not protecting Assange who just did not use a condom when he should from being extradited .
It smells quite fishy
 
The UK and the US couldn't give a damn about JA, he's just a publicity whore.
 
John Mekki said:
Not exactly.
My point is that the UK protected a criminal like Pinochet who killed thousands of people not extraditing him while they are not protecting Assange who just did not use a condom when he should from being extradited .
It smells quite fishy
Click to expand...
Spain was seeking the extradition of Pinochet (not a Spanish citizen) for crimes allegedly committed outside the juristiction of the Spanish legal system. A lot more legally dubious position than that of the Assange case.
 
Alt+F4 said:
The UK and the US couldn't give a damn about JA, he's just a publicity whore.
Click to expand...
He's currently paying lawyers to find a way to sue the Austalian PM for calling the cable leak illegal and grossly irresponsible, saying it put quite the damper on their fundraising abilities. In 2010. Seems the self-imprisoned lad is stewing in his own juices, losing his grip and grasping at imaginary straws.

http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/opini...sue-pm-a-stunt-littlemore-20121007-277h3.html
 
John Mekki said:
Not exactly.
My point is that the UK protected a criminal like Pinochet who killed thousands of people not extraditing him while they are not protecting Assange who just did not use a condom when he should from being extradited .
It smells quite fishy
Click to expand...

Oh dear....

anyway, the good thing about this site is you learn things like: tu quoque fallacy.

Welcome!
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
He's currently paying lawyers to find a way to sue the Austalian PM for calling the cable leak illegal and grossly irresponsible, saying it put quite the damper on their fundraising abilities.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing about suing people. You issue a writ and just do it. Shouting 'I'm gonna sue you' is a sure sign that you have no grounds to sue.
 
John Mekki said:
Not exactly.
My point is that the UK protected a criminal like Pinochet who killed thousands of people not extraditing him while they are not protecting Assange who just did not use a condom when he should from being extradited .
It smells quite fishy
Click to expand...

So because UK “protected” Pinochet in the 90's(a highly dubious statement), UK should continue to protect criminals?

Is that really your argument? Then i know were the smell is ;)
 
John Mekki said:
Not exactly.
My point is that the UK protected a criminal like Pinochet who killed thousands of people not extraditing him while they are not protecting Assange who just did not use a condom when he should from being extradited.
Click to expand...
A good point, but you are laboring under the misapprehension that the UK (or any other state) cares one whit about justice or morals. To be fair though, Pinochet was arrested in the UK and the House of Lords did rule for extradition. However it seems he had friends in high places.

Assange, on the other hand, hasn't made many friends anywhere. Piss off enough people in high places and you can expect to be singled out for 'special treatment'. Unfair perhaps, but that's reality...

It smells quite fishy
Click to expand...
Better hold your nose then, because that smell isn't going away anytime soon...

Noztradamus said:
Spain was seeking the extradition of Pinochet (not a Spanish citizen) for crimes allegedly committed outside the jurisdiction of the Spanish legal system.
Click to expand...
Kill one person, you're a murderer.
Kill ten people, you're a serial-killer.
Kill a hundred, you're a monster.
Kill a thousand and you're a statesman!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom