Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
therefore
what, champ, person 2 should get off too? That is idiocy.
Click to expand...

I have never said that Pinochet (or Assange) should "get off".

nathan said:
Well, if you could be clear and precise about what your problem with the JA extradition process is, that would be helpful.
What exactly is your problem with extraditing JA to Sweden?
Click to expand...

The "problem" is more a "question" that I have been asking several times, so far without getting a clear answer.
Better, so far getting no answer.
Why was Assange seeked extradition so forcefully while Pinochet was protected from extradition by the same country?

PhantomWolf said:
You should have stopped here. The legal differences in the cases is what led to the different results in the cases.
Click to expand...

Sure.
There are "legal differences" between all legal cases on Earth.
So we can use this excuse to send a person who spit to a public officer 30 years to jail and a killer can be set free?

PhantomWolf said:
You are trying to turn multiple legal differences in both cases into just one of magnitude, it simply doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...

Of course, you can find legal differences, you can find legal differences between all cases.
This does not mean that you can not make any comparison between different cases.
And what are the decisive "differences" that prevented a person accused of crimes against humanity not to be sent to justice and Assange seeked "justice" with such vigor, I still have to be told

PhantomWolf said:
Depends entirely on the situation.
Click to expand...

You can say this to any case on Earth.
Should crimes against humanity be prosecuted?
"Depends entirely on the situation", according to you.
Is it good to rape an 8-year-old child?
"Depends entirely on the situation", according to you.
Yeah.. Go ahead like this..
"Depends entirely on the situation" can be used everywhere.

PhantomWolf said:
Then you are either not interested in learning or you think that trials should be judged according to the magnitude of the accusation, and not the actual law itself. Either way, you are on very shakey ground.
Click to expand...

The law should be related to the magnitude of the accusation.
Or should not?
Or would you be OK to send homosexuals to death if the law is OK with that?
Maybe you would?

PhantomWolf said:
So, do you think that Assange should give himself up and be extradited to face the accusations of rape and sexual mollestation?
Click to expand...

I have never said that he should not.
 
theprestige said:
Why should the US limit its options in any way? Why should Assange be entitled to hold justice hostage for this outcome?
Click to expand...

Not an obligation.
This is something that may have been done to dispel all opinions that the real reason for seeking extradition for Assange had nothing to do with the "rape" case.
It has not been done
 
Wudang said:
I wonder if you will ever notice that we keep saying "under different laws".
Click to expand...

And I keep replying that what evidence you have that there has been a change of law of such a magnitude that,
a. before the "change" a person that allegedly ordered to kill thousands is no sent to trial and
b. after the "change", they threaten to enter a foreign embassy to bring a person accused of sex crimes to justice
 
John Mekki said:
And I keep replying that what evidence you have that there has been a change of law of such a magnitude that,
a. before the "change" a person that allegedly ordered to kill thousands is no sent to trial and
b. after the "change", they threaten to enter a foreign embassy to bring a person accused of sex crimes to justice
Click to expand...

Do you think Assange should be extradited? Why? Why not?
 
John Mekki said:
Not an obligation.
This is something that may have been done to dispel all opinions that the real reason for seeking extradition for Assange had nothing to do with the "rape" case.
It has not been done
Click to expand...
Just out of interest - what do you think is missing from the official statement that Sweden has made?
 
John Mekki, methinks you are now a troll.

You started out comparing the Pinochet case with the JA case, stating that the difference is unfair. It was natural to deduce from that that either you thought that Pinochet should have been extradited, or that JA should not be (or both). As the Pinochet case is in the past, Pinochet is now dead, and this thread is about JA, the natural deduction is that you think JA is being unfairly extradited. But when asked to clarify your position, you studiously fail to do so. When people assume that that is your position, you cry that you never said that, but you continue to fail to state your position.

You wilfully ignore others very patient explanations of why the Pinochet case and the JA case are incomparable, and that even if they were, it would not be an argument as to why JA should not be extradited. You continue to claim that the UK authorities are behaving exceptionally, utterly ignoring that all the exceptionalness has been precipitated by JA's actions during the extradition proceedings. You continue to sling mud, in the hope that something sticks.

You're failing to convince anyone that JA's extradition is unwarranted, and you're doing a good job of convincing people you're either an idiot or a troll. Don't be surprised when you start being ignored.
 
Please do get back to (and stick to) the thread topic, which is not Pinochet, nor other members. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
TjW said:
Honestly, Sabrina, I don't think that's any more possible than proving no ghost story is real, or that no UFO sighting has ever been an alien spacecraft. It's trying to prove a negative.

To the conspiracy inclined, lack of evidence is evidence. See how careful they are about hiding it? But if they hacked a government computer, and found a policy statement that advocated something like your wait and watch scenario, I predict the responses would be: How do you know that wasn't deliberately left for you to find? and That's just that department/agency/service. There are others, you know. (Darkly: ) ...and probably some that you don't know.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see your point, although personally I view it more as cowardice on the part of Anonymous if what you outlined is their mindset. But then, that's my view on most conspiracy theorists; they keep spouting off their vitriol, but when asked to actually back it up, they whine about being asked to do so. See if it were me, I'd want to actually SEE some evidence before espousing a theory. But then I suppose that's the difference between critical thinkers and conspiracy theorists.

Ultimately it doesn't change one very simple fact. Assange is avoiding justice by attempting to hide behind a corrupt government and his own paranoid narcissism in thinking that "they're out to get me!" I happen to believe, barring the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the USG is wisely letting Assange string out enough rope to hang himself with without getting their hands dirty in the slightest. Now, if someone could introduce some new evidence to the contrary, then I'd be happy to entertain the notion that I'm way off base. Until then... I'll stick with my own personal experience regarding this sort of situation and continue to believe the USG isn't planning on locking up Assange for supposed crimes against the US.
 
I tought about replying once more on the topic of comparison between Pinochet and Assange and why I consider it legitimate, however the moderator seems to consider it as out of topic so I will continue no further.
Let alone that I believe I have already explained my position as much in detail as I could and that no further clarifications are necessary from my side, assuming that people are willing to discuss matter with genuine interest and not based on national prejudices
 
John Mekki said:
I tought about replying once more on the topic of comparison between Pinochet and Assange and why I consider it legitimate, however the moderator seems to consider it as out of topic so I will continue no further.
Let alone that I believe I have already explained my position as much in detail as I could and that no further clarifications are necessary from my side, assuming that people are willing to discuss matter with genuine interest and not based on national prejudices
Click to expand...

The crime Assange is accused of is, in fact, a serious case and hypocrisies and injustices that may have occurred in the past shouldn't affect the disposition of this particular situation.
 
Hey John, the subject is Assange, so do you think he should be extradited?
 
trustbutverify said:
Wow, I wasn't aware of this information. Illuminating.
Click to expand...
I know, it's *********** crazy. The fact this guy is alleged to have forced women into sex without a condom while simultaneously telling every other male in earshot how bad he wants to knock up virgins as part of his ego should be the main focus of this story. I mean, I want to hear a supporter explain how the pentagon orchestrated this.
 
The McKinnon extradition has been blocked: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138. That's evidence that the UK can and does block extradition when there is a danger of death.

Which way will the CTer's go?

*) It's part of the plot to lull JA into a false sense of security.

*) as the UK hasn't blocked JA's extradition to the US, that must be the ulterior motive for the Swedish extradition.
 
nathan said:
The McKinnon extradition has been blocked: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138. That's evidence that the UK can and does block extradition when there is a danger of death.

Which way will the CTer's go?

*) It's part of the plot to lull JA into a false sense of security.

*) as the UK hasn't blocked JA's extradition to the US, that must be the ulterior motive for the Swedish extradition.
Click to expand...

Or maybe blocking McKinnon` s extradition was not important as he was not the one behind the major leak of confidential cables in US history.

Just wondering..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom