Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me see if I can explain this in language you will understand.

Please do

You are talking about two entirely separate cases that were assessed under TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF LAWS. The law in the UK that was in effect while Pinochet was present in the late nineties, and the SUBSEQUENT law which REPLACED the earlier law that is NOW in effect when Assange is undergoing extradition proceedings.

I have already replied extensively on this point

You cannot compare the Pinochet case to Assange's case BECAUSE they were tried under two DIFFERENT laws. Do you get it now?

I have already replied extensively on this point (see above)


This is why it's apples to oranges; an entirely different set of laws was in effect in the late nineties when Pinochet's extradition was requested, therefore you can't point to that case as a comparison because it is entirely likely that, were the Pinochet case to be tried TODAY, it would end up with a similar outcome to Assange's.

Any evidence that the outcome would be different apart from your deductions?

Similarly, you cannot compare Assange's case to Pinochet's, because we cannot go back in time and conduct Assange's extradition proceedings under the law that was in effect during the Pinochet hearing. Assange's case was dealt with using the current laws in effect, and was held to be a legitimate extradition request using THOSE criteria.

You make the same point, you get the same answer:
I have already replied extensively on this point (see above)

You do understand that laws can be amended and even replaced, yes? That a law which may have affected one case in a particular way will not even apply to another case if the law in question was amended or replaced, AS IS THE CASE HERE? Thus far, the only thing these two cases have in common is that they are both extradition cases; otherwise, they are WORLDS apart due to the fact that more or less the entire British government has been replaced in the intervening years, AND the laws which affect extradition proceedings have been completely replaced with a NEW set of laws.

See above

No, but you sure as hell implied it with pretty much every post where you No one is arguing that Pinochet was an alleged genocidal dictator, and that if found guilty that he would deserve to pay for his crimes. What you are failing to understand, in my estimation, is that THE CRIME DOES NOT MATTER;

I completely understand that for you crimes do not matter.
However, for me and for a lot of other people crimes do matter.

ALL extradition cases are treated the same under the current set of laws in the UK. The details of the crime are immaterial, so long as the country submitting the extradition request meets the CURRENT standards set out in the EAW for extraditing a person back to their country. Sweden has met those requirements, according to the British courts; therefore, Assange is legally bound to return to Sweden and face the accusations against him.

See above

If Pinochet were alive today and the extradition request were filed today rather than over a decade ago, and the country requesting the extradition met the standards of the EAW, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because Pinochet would either be evading arrest like Assange or would be on his way to face up to the accusations against him.

Any evidence that the outcome would be different apart from your deductions?

Did you try that intellectual exercise I asked you to do? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the CURRENT law in effect and find a similar case that isn't over a decade old to compare Assange to.

As said, your point, which is the same restated multiple times, has been already replied to by me few posts ago.
 
Let me see if I can explain this in language you will understand. ..

If I may add two additional questions:

1) Since the House of Lords, then Britain’s highest court, ruled that Pinochet could indeed be handed over to the Spanish judicial authorities because crimes such as torture could not be protected by immunity, whatever the opinion of few people in the then UK Government on the legality of the extradition of Pinochet may have been, I do not think there would have been a single voice in the UK society condemning the extradition of Pinochet.
Considering the gravity of the charges for Pinochet, that is crimes against humanity, even assuming for a second that few people in the UK Government genuinely believed that the law would not specifically allow to extradite Pinochet to Spain contrary to what stated by the House of Lords, why the UK Government got stuck to a questionable interpretation of the law instead of putting in first place the rights of thousands of families and their legitimate right to seek justice?

2) Even assuming for a second that the rape charges against Assange had nothing to do with the Wikileaks matter and the two things are completely unrelated, since there have been very serious allegations by several top-level politicians of the opposite (President Correa in primis, I believe), why did not the US issue an official statement that, had Assange been extradited, they would not charge it with leak of confidential cables and/or seek his extradition to the US?
Of course, the US is not forced to issue any such statement, but just for clearing all the mess up, it would have taken a minute to issue such official statement.
Why the US did not?
 
Of course, the US is not forced to issue any such statement, but just for clearing all the mess up, it would have taken a minute to issue such official statement.
Why the US did not?
This has of course been discussed in this thread before, but maybe you can answer this question - who in the US can legally promise that what a person has done and may do is not illegal?
 
This has of course been discussed in this thread before, but maybe you can answer this question - who in the US can legally promise that what a person has done and may do is not illegal?

I don't think it would be productive for the USG to go after Assange on the Manning affair. However, issuing an official guarantee to that effect would set a ridiculous precedent.
 
I don't think it would be productive for the USG to go after Assange on the Manning affair.

I see.
Your opinion should dispel the worried of three or four heads of state of South American countries.
I guess you have a rather high opinion of yourself

This has of course been discussed in this thread before, but maybe you can answer this question - who in the US can legally promise that what a person has done and may do is not illegal?

The Wikileaks affair is very well known, it has been a leak of confidential documents by the website handled by Assange.
If the US will seek (or will not seek) extradition regarding this affair (or crime, depending on the points of view) is totally in the hand of the US Government, who can clarify once for all his position on the matter.
Of course, we are talking about the Wikileaks affair only, in case Assange may decide to shoot the US Ambassador in Sweden he may still risk extradition for that crime, but what about for this crime/incident?
The cables content are well know by all the persons involved.
So it should be quite easy for the US Government, who has half-said that they are not after Assange and that the "rape" incident has nothing to do with Wikileaks, to dispel all the worries, which are not just rumors, but opinions of very influential people and statesmen.
For some reasons, they have never issued any formal declaration in this sense.

Again, why?
 
Last edited:
So it should be quite easy for the US Government, who has half-said that they are not after Assange and that the "rape" incident has nothing to do with Wikileaks, to dispel all the worries, which are not just rumors, but opinions of very influential people and statesmen.
For some reasons, they have never issued any declaration in this sense.

Again, why?
Again, please show who can do it, and according to what US law. Giving that guarantee is a legal statement so exactly who would be legally allowed to do that?
 
Again, please show who can do it, and according to what US law. Giving that guarantee is a legal statement so exactly who would be legally allowed to do that?

Again, you are using technicalities as excuses.
It would be quite easy to any high authority in the US (say, President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton) to state that they will not look for extradition of Assange.
Or for the government of Sweden, as requested by Amnesty International

The Swedish authorities should issue assurances to the UK and to Julian Assange that if he leaves Ecuador’s London embassy and agrees to go to Sweden to face sexual assault claims, he will not be extradited to the USA in connection with Wikileaks, Amnesty International said.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/swed...nce-it-won-t-extradite-assange-usa-2012-09-27

I will never believe that the Secretary of State of the US or the President would have no right to block an extradition to their own country, if they really mean to

Remember the case of Pinochet, again?
He was wanted for crimes against humanity and the UK Government blocked the process of extradition.
The same could be done here.

Why not?
 
Just to summarize it all:

A person responsible for the biggest leak of confidential documents in modern history is also wanted for sex assault, a charge that he completely denies.
The two charges are however completely unrelated and have nothing to do with each other.

This is the first coincidence.

Some left-wing conspiracy theorists however have stated that the two things *may* have something in common.
One of the left-wing conspiracy theorists is President Correa who, in order to avoid what he believes a possible extradition of Assange to the US, has accepted Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
The UK Government however has made the utmost effort to get Assange, preventing him from leaving the building and even slightly threatening that they may get into the Ecuador embassy violating all the international treaties known about embassies.
The same country, the UK, just few years before have blocked an extradition of Pinochet to Spain for crimes against humanity (not for having stolen a pack of chocolate) and now the same country has threatened to that they may get into the Ecuador embassy violating all the international treaties known about embassies for a wanted for sex-related crimes.
There is no other previous known of a country issuing such a threat and surrouding an embassy for days and weeks for bringing to "justice" a wanted for sex-related violence.
The fact that this is the first time (as far as we know) and it happens not for bringing Goebbels, or Pinochet to justice, but only Assange who so far has allegedly done sex-related crimes but no crimes against humanity, so far.
Of course again this has nothing to do with the fact that the wanted is again responsible for the biggest leak of confidential documents in modern history.

And here is the second coincidence.

I forgot to say that Pinochet incidentally has been an ally of the UK during the Falklands War, but this of course has nothing to do with the fact that the UK Government did not extradite him to Spain

It is only the third coincidence

Again, the same left-wingers as before have said that the Government of Sweden or of the US may just clear the path of every doubt just stating that they will oppose to any extradition of Assange to the US.
This has also been asked by Amnesty International.
Again, neither the US Government nor Sweden does not issue such statement as "they can not".

And here is the fourth coincidence.

Oh, I forgot, the buddy of Assange, that is Bradley Manning, despite being slightly more than 20 and having copied CDs of data has been kept in isolation for months and will likely take/has taken 50 years +/- of jail time while the Marines that slaughtered 28 unarmed civilians in Haditha in cold blood including few children in pijama and one old guy on a wheel chair will not spend one day in jail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
Which is not of course any proof that the US Government and military justice is only after protecting their own ass and not making justice
It is just that the court that punished Manning was for a pure coincidence quite severe and the court that did not punish Wuterich & others was a lax one

Which would be the fifth coincidence.

Or maybe, they are not coincidences and the reality is much more prosaic:
The US government is after protecting their asses, they do not care, as no other government cares, of things like justice and fairness, whether Assange actuall did sex-related crimes or not is totally irrelevant as they are desperately trying to putting him in jail for the rest of his life or at least to threaten any other person who may think about doing the same.
They will do it with Bradley Manning and they are trying to do the same with Assange.
Pinochet was not kept from extradition as there was no merit, but just as supported the UK during the Falklands War and was an ally of the UK while Assange has to be kept in prison to show everyone that no one should leak confidential documents.
How was it?
"Strike one to educate one hundred"?
And the suckers keep sucking as they just do not care.
 
Last edited:
The UK police are not arresting him for a sex-related crime they are pursuing him for skipping bail and are following the requirements of a valid European Arrest Warrant. Do try to keep up.
As for Sweden saying he won't be extradited, do we have to discuss this yet again with every newby who's too lazy to read the previous discussion?

eta: From an expert in Swedish law.
http://palwrange.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/can-julian-assange-be-extradited-from.html
 
Last edited:
The UK police are not arresting him for a sex-related crime they are pursuing him for skipping bail and are following the requirements of a valid European Arrest Warrant. Do try to keep up.
As for Sweden saying he won't be extradited, do we have to discuss this yet again with every newby who's too lazy to read the previous discussion?

eta: From an expert in Swedish law.
http://palwrange.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/can-julian-assange-be-extradited-from.html

He can not even spell Assange' s name correctly
 
The US Government has stated unequivocally in press briefings that the matter of Assange's extradition is between the UK and Sweden and that we do not intend to interfere in those proceedings in any way. We do not consider this case to be a US matter.

Not to mention, the actual perpetrator of the entire Wikileaks case is already in custody and is undergoing an Article 32 hearing at Ft. Meade already; namely PFC Bradley Manning. Assange was incidental to the entire thing; Manning is the one who actually released classified information to persons not authorized to receive it. Manning is the one who broke US law in that regard. And Manning is the one the US Government has rightly decided to concentrate on. Obviously I cannot speak to what the US Department of Justice has actually found in the Wikileaks case, but a search of the DoJ website reveals that no charges are being brought against Assange at this time, and any time the case is mentioned on the website, Assange's name is nowhere to be found.

You seem to be conflating the statements of a few minor government representatives as being the stance of the entire US Government, a fact which could not be further from the truth. I wouldn't deny that some government officials have been calling for Assange's head here in the US, but thankfully in our government, the majority rules, and the majority seems to have decided to let Assange be hoist on his own petard, to coin a phrase. Right now we are practicing hands off in regards to Assange. We have no major interest in him. His paranoia and narcissism would have his slavish followers believing otherwise, but that is entirely on him, not the US Government.
 
One typo? Ok, you're not interested in anything that might disprove your view (whatever that is).

Here are other experts:

Reuters:
COLUMN: Assange has reason to fear U.S. extradition
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/us-column-assange-idUSBRE87K15D20120821

Sidney Morning Herald:
US intends to chase Assange, cables show
AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-i...cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html#ixzz29B8flRvV

Straford:
WikiLeaks Stratfor Emails: A Secret Indictment Against Julian Assange?

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ctment-against-assange-20120228#ixzz29B9mAqUt

And there are others.

As said, there are experts who say that the US can/will try to get Assange and experts who say that the US cannot/will not try to get Assange.

Had the US government stated clearly that they will not ask for extradition, this matter will be over.
But they did not.
 
The US Government has stated unequivocally in press briefings that the matter of Assange's extradition is between the UK and Sweden and that we do not intend to interfere in those proceedings in any way.

Which is not the same as saying they will not ask for extradition.

We do not consider this case to be a US matter.

Pardon me.
We .. who?
Are you part of the US government?
If not, you count nothing in this case, right, you are just a spectator.

Not to mention, the actual perpetrator of the entire Wikileaks case is already in custody and is undergoing an Article 32 hearing at Ft. Meade already; namely PFC Bradley Manning. Assange was incidental to the entire thing; Manning is the one who actually released classified information to persons not authorized to receive it. Manning is the one who broke US law in that regard. And Manning is the one the US Government has rightly decided to concentrate on. Obviously I cannot speak to what the US Department of Justice has actually found in the Wikileaks case, but a search of the DoJ website reveals that no charges are being brought against Assange at this time, and any time the case is mentioned on the website, Assange's name is nowhere to be found.

I would have something to say about the "rightly", but..
As for the rest of the sentence, this has nothing to do with the guarantee that has been asked.

You seem to be conflating the statements of a few minor government representatives as being the stance of the entire US Government, a fact which could not be further from the truth.

Pardon me..
As you claim to know the "truth"?
Are you Hillary Clinton or the wife of Barak Obama who heard him talking on the phone with some CIA representative that you claim to know things for sure about this case?
You look like to have quite an oversized ego, if I may..

I wouldn't deny that some government officials have been calling for Assange's head here in the US, but thankfully in our government, the majority rules, and the majority seems to have decided to let Assange be hoist on his own petard, to coin a phrase.

Majorities can become minorities and viceversa.

Right now we are practicing hands off in regards to Assange. We have no major interest in him. His paranoia and narcissism would have his slavish followers believing otherwise, but that is entirely on him, not the US Government.

"We" are practicing..
You have to remember that you are not part of the US Government, in other words, you are a nobody in this story, just a spectator, like me and everybody else.
You are talking about Assange having a big ego, but you are also not far from this, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Which is not the same as saying they will not ask for extradition.

Which they should not do, as we do not know what Assange may or may not do in the future. The US is not about to issue a blanket statement saying they will never seek extradition for Assange because we simply do not know what laws he may break in the future. But RIGHT NOW, which is the important part of this equation, we are NOT seeking to indict him for anything, and are therefore distancing ourselves from the entire situation.

Pardon me.
We .. who?
Are you part of the US government?
If not, you count nothing in this case, right, you are just a spectator.

Actually I'm a currently serving member of the United States Army Reserve; my MOS is 35D, which is All-Source Intelligence, and I am a captain. So yes, I am actually a part of the US Government, and can therefore have a better idea than you what the government's stance on Assange is.

I would have something to say about the "rightly", but..
As for the rest of the sentence, this has nothing to do with the guarantee that has been asked.

The "guarantee" which has been requested by both Assange and the Ecuadorian government is that the US will NEVER seek to extradite Assange to the US, a guarantee which is impossible to make. We simply do not know what the future holds and what laws Assange may break in the future, if any. We have unequivocally stated that we are not charging him with anything at this particular point in time and have also unequivocally stated that the case at hand, namely Assange's extradition to SWEDEN (not the US) from the UK is solely between those two countries, and we are not going to involve ourselves. The fact that Assange finds that insufficient is due to his own paranoia and narcissism, as previously stated. The US has no dog in the current fight; that's the plain and simple truth.

Pardon me..
As you claim to know the "truth"?
Are you Hillary Clinton or the wife of Barak Obama who heard him talking on the phone with some CIA representative that you claim to know things for sure about this case?
You look like to have quite an oversized ego, if I may..

Actually, no you may not. Again, I am a currently serving member of the US Military and as such am considered a representative of the US in many ways. If anything, the "oversized ego" in this case is on YOUR part, as you are claiming things you have absolutely no evidence to back up with virtually every post you make. Pot, meet kettle.

Majorities can become minorities and viceversa.

But we are speaking of the present. Right now, the US is not interested in seeking any charges against Assange. No one knows what the future holds, but right now we have no interest in the case at hand, namely Assange's extradition to SWEDEN for rape charges. Nothing you say will change that.



"We" are practicing..
You have to remember that you are not part of the US Government, in other words, you are a nobody in this story, just a spectator, like me and everybody else.
You are talking about Assange having a big ego, but you are also not far from this, apparently.

Again, pot, meet kettle. And I am part of the US Government. Granted, you had no way of knowing that, but it's best not to assume things you have no evidence for. Just saying.
 
Assange has a bigger fear than the US. He is safe as long as somebody has him under arrest, but think of all the "intelligence assets" he burned, and how many might want just a bit of personal, unofficial revenge.

Going free would be the end of him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom