Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[John Mekki]

Yea- holding a women down and penetrating her while refusing her demands to use a condom isn't really a serious crime and even if it was, some powerful people get away with murder so WTF?!

Since you are so dramatically keen to justice when we are talking about one alleged person being penetrated without condom when she refused that, then why you do not seem to care a damn heck for the murder of few thousands of women, children and men slaughtered by Pinochet and his regime?
Penetrating a woman without condom when she does not want is not a good thing, but slaughtering is slightly worse on my scale of values.
Or their lives count as nothing as they are South-American people while we like in the civilized first world?
Why not a damn word for them?

 

[WildCat]

John Mekki, do you have any legal arguments?

So far, it's all evidence-free conspiracy theories and appeals to emotion from you.

 

[John Mekki]

John Mekki, do you have any legal arguments?

So far, it's all evidence-free conspiracy theories and appeals to emotion from you.

WildCat,
about the Moscow Trials, where thousands of workers were sent to death, do you have any legal arguments against them?
If not, shall we assume that they were legitimate from a legal and moral point of view?

 

[Wudang]

Once again, what does any of this have to do with the Assange case? The nearest thing to a coherent statement any of us seem to be able to derive from your rants is that since there may have been a miscarriage of justice once then everyone else should be allowed to go without being extradited. As has been pointed out several times, since the EAW was introduced many people have been deported under it. Quite why the UK should ignore its obligations under EU and UK law to honour the terms of the EAW has nothing to do with Pinochet's case as that took place before the introduction of EAWs.

 

[Joey McGee]

So John if you were in charge you'd order the police to go home and allow him to be smuggled out of country setting a precedent that it's ok to escape arrest through embassies?

 

[WildCat]

WildCat,
about the Moscow Trials, where thousands of workers were sent to death, do you have any legal arguments against them?
If not, shall we assume that they were legitimate from a legal and moral point of view?

A red herring is not a legal argument.

Do you have any actual legal arguments? What did the UK courts get wrong in the Assange case?

 

[Sabrina]

Okay, here's a mental exercise for you, John.

Forget Pinochet. Different law, under a different government (the UK holds democratic elections same as the US, and prior to 2004 had an entirely different House of Lords, House of Commons, and Prime Minister in place); you're comparing apples to oranges there. Instead, try this; find a case of someone failing to be extradited to Sweden under the CURRENT law in effect in the UK (the EAW) and compare THAT case to Assange's. What arguments were made to the courts in the comparison case? Were they considered sufficient to extradite the person in the general public? If not, why? What was the crime the person had committed that caused the request for extradition to be filed?

The morality (or lack thereof) of a person's actions have little to do with how the law is interpreted at any given point in time. Sure, supposedly ordering the execution of thousands of people is utterly reprehensible; but so is forcing a woman to engage in sexual relations against her will. This is why people are accusing you of an appeal to emotion; you're attempting to justify Assange's actions by saying, "look, this person did something much worse! Why wasn't he punished?" rather than focusing on the fact that, under the current law in effect, legal arguments were presented by Sweden to the UK courts that were deemed sufficient to order Assange's extradition to Sweden to face a potential trial for his actions. Whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the Pinochet situation is immaterial at this point; we are discussing the case at hand, and according to the current law in effect, the evidence against Assange has been deemed sufficient to order him to face up to the accusations in the country that has submitted them. The US has nothing to do with this particular case, and to the best of my knowledge has been pretty much ignoring Assange in favor of bigger fish. So in my opinion, you need to drop the comparison to Pinochet, who was an an entirely different situation, and focus on a more current, comparable situation for your comparison to Assange's case. Try the intellectual exercise I outlined above; I'd wager you'll understand a little bit better why we're objecting to your comparison of Assange to Pinochet once you do.

 

[nathan]

Forget Pinochet. Different law, under a different government (the UK holds democratic elections same as the US, and prior to 2004 had an entirely different House of Lords, House of Commons, and Prime Minister in place);

Nitpick: The House of Lords is unelected. In the Pinochet case, they approved extradition (overturning a lower court's decision).

 

[nathan]

If now the UK is so keen to bring people to justice, then the UK should then apologize for not having done so for a serious criminal like Pinochet only a few years ago..

Have you petitioned your MP to make such an apology? Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on that issue, because it sure has nothing to do with this one.

 

[Sabrina]

Nitpick: The House of Lords is unelected. In the Pinochet case, they approved extradition (overturning a lower court's decision).

I stand corrected on that then. Still was done under an entirely different law though, so my point stands, more or less.

 

[Wudang]

I stand corrected on that then. Still was done under an entirely different law though, so my point stands, more or less.

And the Law Lords (full time professional judges appointed to the House of Lords and who would have made that decision) have now (2009) been replaced by the Supreme Court which removed the last (IIRC) anomalous overlap of the legislature and the judiciary in the UK.

 

[BenBurch]

Nope.

Agree.

 

[The Big Dog]

My takeaway from this complete derail?

FAILURE TO EXTRADITE PINOCHET = BAD

FAILURE TO EXTRADITE ASSANGE = ALSO BAD.

Thanks, solid points. And now back to the thread.

 

[theprestige]

You say that legal arguments should not consider the killing of thousands?
What then should the law be about?

The law should be about the law. It should consider the legality of actions, but also the legal jurisdiction, and the legal limits on government. The Pinochet case in the UK--which apparently you know as little about as the Assange case in the UK--considered all these things. Can you find any fault there?

They are using them to extradite (or try to) Assange?
And your point is..??

My point is that the law is a good law, and it is being applied in a good and proper way in the Assange case. Do you disagree with this point?

You can justify anything based on laws, especially if you are the one making the laws.
You can change them or interpret them according to the situation.
Even children know this.

Do you have any evidence that laws were made, changed, or interpreted especially to achieve the result in the Assange case?

So, the massacre of the Kurds was OK as it was based on Iraqi laws?
No problem with that?

I have plenty of problems with that. But since you agree that the UK laws aren't bad laws, I don't see why you have a problem with the UK applying those laws.

Does the application of Swedish law to Assange violate his human rights? No.
Does the application of UK law to Assange violate his human rights? No.

So what is your problem?

And why the same UK Government was not applying the same just UK extradition laws to Pinochet?
It is the same laws and the same country

Again: It's not the same laws. The laws were changed in 2004. And the government has been changed incrementally throughout the intervening years between the two cases, as well.

The fact is, you have no idea what laws were in effect in 1998 when Pinochet was arrested. You have no idea what jurisdiction the UK had to judge Pinochet. You have no idea what authority the UK government had to impose its will on Pinochet. You have no idea what authority Spain had to request his extradition, or to put him on trial. You have no idea if Pinochet was treated fairly, or if the law that was applied to him was good or bad.

And the fact is, you are similarly ignorant about the Assange case.

And the fact is, you want the two cases--about which you know nothing--to be similar, when they are actually quite different on every point you consider important.

It is the same extradition issue and the same country

Same country, but very different extradition issues. You should probably take some time to study the Pinochet case. If you like, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet

I agree that you do not know, but just try to think about it yourself.
In how many cases the UK sent tens of policemen to surround a foreign Embassy for a sex-related crime?

At least one. But that irregularity was introduced by Assange, not by the UK government. Alleged criminals who are subejct to extradition and flee to a foreign embassy are probably going to find themselves pursued and surrounded by police. Why would you want it to be any other way?

While killing thousands is not considered a crime in the UK?

I'm sure it is. And if the UK actually had jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals in foreign countries, I'm sure they would prosecute for those crimes.

And if Spain actually had jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals in foreign countries, I'm sure the UK would honor Spanish extradition requests for those foreign nationals.

It seems like you are questioning Assange's extradition because the UK didn't completely ignore its own laws (which you agree are not bad laws) and enforce lawless vigilante justice on Pinochet.

It is the same country dealing with the same issue of extradition in both cases.

So you are suggesting there has been a revolution in the UK extradition laws so that before they did not extradite a potential murderer of thousands and then they went as far as surrouding an Embassy for just a sex-related crime?
Interesting opinion

Not really. They're not surrounding the embassy for a sex-related crime. They're surrounding the embassy for a legitimate extradition subject, who is fleeing from justice.

OK.
So since “formalities” were respected, the Moscow Trials justly sent thousands to death?

You've repeatedly acknowledged that UK and Swedish law is not similar to these other horrible laws that you keep bringing them up.

If Swedish and UK law is not unjust or inhumane, then there is no objection to seeing Swedish and UK law applied. I will ignore all further references to irrelevant unjust laws. If you can't talk about the application of Swedish and UK law in terms of Swedish and UK law, and if you can't find any injustice in Swedish and UK law as it is being applied, what is your objection?

The UK Government sent tens of policemen to surround the Embassy of Ecuador to get Assange or prevent him to leave.
Can you please name some other extradition case where we can see the same zealous effort for a sex-related crime?

Assange sought refuge in the embassy to avoid legitimate extradition. Do you think the effort to retrieve him is out of proprotion to his actions?

If the UK is so committed to justice, why did the UK protect Pinochet, accused of killing thousands?

Have you actually studied the Pinochet case?

 

[uke2se]

This thread took a turn to the bizzare in the last two pages.

 

[Korren]

This thread took a turn to the bizzare in the last two pages.

That's usually the result when someone makes use of the Chewbacca defense.

In other news, always fickle Anonymous are not amused by the "one man Julian Assange show."

 

[BenBurch]

I wonder if we will be done with this thread before Assange dies of old age in that little room?

 

[theprestige]

In other news, always fickle Anonymous are not amused by the "one man Julian Assange show."

Apparently the CIA conspiracy to discredit Wikileaks depended entirely on Assange intentionally playing right into their hands.

If he'd stayed in Sweden and distanced himself from Wikileaks, the project would probably have been fine.

Instead, he did the exact opposite: Distanced himself from Sweden and stayed in Wikileaks.

 

[BenBurch]

The truly brilliant plan evolves such that nobody thinks that there was any plan at all.

 

[theprestige]

Heh, and he could have avoided the whole mess if he'd stayed in the condom instead of distancing himself from it. Or by distancing himself from the bedroom instead of staying in it.

ETA: And I guess now the UK wants him to distance himself from the Ecuadorian embassy, but he's staying in it.

I guess it remains to be seen if John Mekki will distance himself from the thread or stay in it...