Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[theprestige]

Sorry, I am new to this forum.

Welcome to the forum. No need to apologize for being new!

However, you may want to take some time to read this thread. Your concerns have been addressed at length and repeatedly throughout.

If you're already familiar with the refutations to your points, will you consider advancing the conversation by citing the specific refutations you don't accept, and detailing your reasons for rejecting them?

At the moment, you're showing every sign of starting the conversation from the beginning, yet again, and you give us no hope that you'll even acknowledge the refutations, or stick around once they've been presented yet again.

 

[Joey McGee]

Julian is not an elderly head of state being charged for crimes committed by people under his command. He was not responsible for helping the British win and saving many lives during the Falklands war. Upon his release he is not expected to return to his home country where he it is expected he will be under the jurisdiction of people willing and able to prosecute him. It is too bad the Chileans weren't able to do more to Pinochet, but it's not like he faced no legal challenges there.

But to the conspiracy theorist, it's all the same, they seem to think that the only right thing to do is to allow an alleged rapist to walk free in their own country just to avoid looking bad in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists themselves. No one else cares about Julian's fate since there is no reason to doubt that only just laws are being followed properly. It is quite the fallacious and embarrassing tu quoque.

 

[trustbutverify]

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?

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made concerning the Assange situation, but this stuff is just silly.

 

[John Mekki]

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!

Kill everybody and you are God.

 

[John Mekki]

Julian is not an elderly head of state being charged for crimes committed by people under his command..

And you assume Pinochet had no responsibility of the murders that took place under his command?
What is more important, 70 people disappeared and likely been killed or a person who does not put on his condom when needed?
I can not type URLs yet, so just Google "Pinochet charged with kidnapping" and you can read the BBC article as third result

It is obviously a political motivated thing, I can not see any point in even discussing this..

 

[WildCat]

And you assume Pinochet had no responsibility of the murders that took place under his command?
What is more important, 70 people disappeared and likely been killed or a person who does not put on his condom when needed?
I can not type URLs yet, so just Google "Pinochet charged with kidnapping" and you can read the BBC article as third result

It is obviously a political motivated thing, I can not see any point in even discussing this..

So your argument is that since Pinochet never faced justice Assange can rape whoever he wants?

 

[John Mekki]

So your argument is that since Pinochet never faced justice Assange can rape whoever he wants?

No.
I am just saying that the fact that the UK did not extradite Pinochet but they are looking to extradite Assange proves that the whole issue is politically motivated and that they are against Assange because of Wikileaks and not because he did not use the condom.

 

[Here_to_learn]

No.
I am just saying that the fact that the UK did not extradite Pinochet but they are looking to extradite Assange proves that the whole issue is politically motivated and that they are against Assange because of Wikileaks and not because he did not use the condom.

And since Sweden did not agree to extradite Pinochet either that proves it's politically motivated in Sweden also?

 

[Korren]

No.
I am just saying that the fact that the UK did not extradite Pinochet but they are looking to extradite Assange proves that the whole issue is politically motivated and that they are against Assange because of Wikileaks and not because he did not use the condom.

Unless you're trying to argue that all decisions in extradition cases in the UK are politically motivated, your argument lacks a connection between the two cases.

 

[BenBurch]

Defending rape is disgusting.

 

[John Mekki]

And since Sweden did not agree to extradite Pinochet either that proves it's politically motivated in Sweden also?

Absolutely yes.
If you extradite a one person and you do not extradite another, there has to be some reason

Unless you're trying to argue that all decisions in extradition cases in the UK are politically motivated, your argument lacks a connection between the two cases.

?
Still I do not see your point.
Pinochet -> not extradited
Assange -> they are trying to extradite him.
The first one is a criminal who allegedly killed (or ordered to kill) thousands.
The second one did not put a condom on.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Absolutely yes.
If you extradite a one person and you do not extradite another, there has to be some reason

Yup, agreed. So how about a legal analysis from you? Who made the decisions. What laws where the decisions made based on. Is one of the decisions wrong? Some of them? All of them? All this based on law of course, not on public opinion.

The second one did not put a condom on.

Really - your argument does not become better just by repeating it. Again - please show that you have read at least the minimum about this case, for example the actual accusations.

 

[Noztradamus]

Absolutely yes.
If you extradite a one person and you do not extradite another, there has to be some reason



?
Still I do not see your point.
~~~~
Assange -> they are trying to extradite him.
~~~~
The second one did not put a condom on.

Is this a "you don't need a condom if it's a legitimate rape" argument?

 

[John Mekki]

Yup, agreed. So how about a legal analysis from you? Who made the decisions. What laws where the decisions made based on. Is one of the decisions wrong? Some of them? All of them? All this based on law of course, not on public opinion.

Really - your argument does not become better just by repeating it. Again - please show that you have read at least the minimum about this case, for example the actual .

I keep not understanding.
At worst, Assange is accused of not using a condom and forcefully have undesired sexual contact, etc..
Pinochet was accused of killing thousands.
What is worse?
If killing thousands is worse then why Pinochet was not extradite while they are trying to extradite Assange?

And which laws allows a criminal accused of killing thousands not to be extradited while a person who did what Assange did is screwed up?

Please explain.

 

[John Mekki]

Is this a "you don't need a condom if it's a legitimate rape" argument?

No.
The point is why you do not get extradited if you are accused to having killed thousands while they try to extradite someone who did what Assange did.
What is worse?
Simple as that.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I keep not understanding.
At worst, Assange is accused of not using a condom and forcefully have undesired sexual contact, etc..
Pinochet was accused of killing thousands.
What is worse?
If killing thousands is worse then why Pinochet was not extradite while they are trying to extradite Assange?

So your argument is that since Pinochet was not extradited, from that point in time, nobody should be extradited, unless the crime he/she is accused of is "worse" than Pinochets? So a full stop for all extraditions?

And which laws allows a criminal accused of killing thousands not to be extradited while a person who did what Assange did is screwed up?

Please explain.

Um, you are using this argument, not me, so it's up to you to show the law, unless of course your point is that the law should not be involved at all.

But to help you out the law involved regarding JA is based on Englands implementation of the EAW. And three courts in England has found that it is correct according to that law to allow the extradition of JA to Sweden.

Now, could you please show where in the law it says that since Pinochet was not extradited the law does not apply. Also, maybe you could tell us how JA's hightly skilled legal team used this as an argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

I keep not understanding.
At worst, Assange is accused of not using a condom and forcefully have undesired sexual contact, etc..
Pinochet was accused of killing thousands.
What is worse?
If killing thousands is worse then why Pinochet was not extradite while they are trying to extradite Assange?

And which laws allows a criminal accused of killing thousands not to be extradited while a person who did what Assange did is screwed up?

Please explain.

Well that is because your reasoning is entirely fallacious. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

 

[WildCat]

No.
I am just saying that the fact that the UK did not extradite Pinochet but they are looking to extradite Assange proves that the whole issue is politically motivated and that they are against Assange because of Wikileaks and not because he did not use the condom.

How do the facts and the court records and the law in this case warrant a comparison to the Pinochet case? How was the law misapplied in this case?

And you're contending that any and all extraditions granted by UK courts are politically motivated, or just this one and Pinochet? And if it's just this one and Pinochet what is your evidence?

 

[WildCat]

Absolutely yes.
If you extradite a one person and you do not extradite another, there has to be some reason

Yes, like different crimes, facts, jurisdiction, and law.

Yet for some reason you ignore all those far more likely possibilities and leap straight to the conspiracy theory.

 

[John Mekki]

So your argument is that since Pinochet was not extradited, from that point in time, nobody should be extradited, unless the crime he/she is accused of is "worse" than Pinochets? So a full stop for all extraditions?

No.
My argument is that in one case the "much less evil" criminal is being (will be?) extradited and in the other the "much more evil" criminal has not been extradited.
Why?

Um, you are using this argument, not me, so it's up to you to show the law, unless of course your point is that the law should not be involved at all.

The laws governing extraditions in the UK should be the valid in both cases.

But to help you out the law involved regarding JA is based on Englands implementation of the . And three courts in England has found that it is correct according to that law to allow the extradition of JA to Sweden.

And why the same law did not apply for Pinochet?

Now, could you please show where in the law it says that since Pinochet was not extradited the law does not apply. Also, maybe you could tell us how JA's hightly skilled legal team used this as an argument.

I am not saying that the law does not apply in Assange case.
If the law applies in Assange` case, why it did not apply in Pinochet` s case?

Well that is because your reasoning is entirely fallacious. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

They are both extraditions cases under the UK law system
Why the law applies in one case and not in the other?

How do the facts and the court records and the law in this case warrant a comparison to the Pinochet case? How was the law misapplied in this case?

As it is the same country, the UK, is willing to extradite Assange because he was involved in some "I did not put the condom on and being rude with women, etc." but not willing to extradite Pinochet for much wore crimes.
If the law was correctly applied in Assange case, then they should have extradited Pinochet the very same day Argentina asked for it.
It seems to me so evident.
Nobody, except maybe some fanatical supporter of the US, will not be able to understand that the underlying problem is just that he was involved in Wikileaks and the US just want to punish him as an example for everyone not to disclose secret documents anymore, same they are doing with Bradley Manning.