Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[BenBurch]

... I find fleeing from prosecution, and evading extradition, to be extremely offensive. ...

I do agree with you. There is a reason why the penalties for 'flight to avoid' are often more than the crime charged, and that is it.

 

[smartcooky]

But here's the irony: I find fleeing from prosecution, and evading extradition, to be extremly offensive.

I wonder if you would feel the same way about the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, Galileo Galilei, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Mandela, Alfred Dreyfus and Alexander Solzhenitsyn; all persecuted, prosecuted imprisoned or exiled for what they believed in or because they didn't/don't conform to the government of their time.

Sometimes, when you know that you have no chance of being tried fairly, flight to a safe location outside the jurisdiction is your only recourse.

Would Assange really expect to be tried fairly in country that sets up a place like Gitmo; on foreign soil so that they can get around their own Constitution and violate human-rights with impunity.

Don't get me wrong, I approve of places like Gitmo because if your country is at war, you have to have them. But nations should at least have the balls to set them up within their own borders, and make them accessible to the Red Cross under the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

 

[John Mekki]

So pointing out that the sources aren't representative and don't support your claims and telling you need better sources is "dismissal".
[..]

And who decides which sources are “representative”?
Is Fox News “representative”?
The New York Times?
Only US sources are "representative"?
Pink glasses, boy, pink glasses over and over

 

[BenBurch]

I wonder if you would feel the same way about the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, Galileo Galilei, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Mandela, Alfred Dreyfus and Alexander Solzhenitsyn; all persecuted, prosecuted imprisoned or exiled for what they believed in or because they didn't/don't conform to the government of their time.

Sometimes, when you know that you have no chance of being tried fairly, flight to a safe location outside the jurisdiction is your only recourse.

Would Assange really expect to be tried fairly in country that sets up a place like Gitmo; on foreign soil so that they can get around their own Constitution and violate human-rights with impunity.

Don't get me wrong, I approve of places like Gitmo because if your country is at war, you have to have them. But nations should at least have the balls to set them up within their own borders, and make them accessible to the Red Cross under the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

If Assange were anything like as decent, humane, and valuable a human being as Mandela, you might have a point.

But he isn't.

Nor is the deck stacked against him as in those cases; He has been given not only due process, but more due process than any ordinary rapist would have gotten.

I'm sorry, but rapists are the scum of the earth, and Assange is some very privileged scum.

 

[John Mekki]

[..]
Except that people do that here all the time.

Oh really?

Moreover, being a US forum does not mean a US bent;

Maybe the wording "US-favourable" or "US-prone", "US-friendly" would be more acceptable from you?
I am not making it a case.
To be noted that I am not talking about the management of the forum, but about the opinions of most people who post here who have been brought up in a Western environment and have Western-directed bias as probably have not read much about news sources from other countries.
In Iranian forums I would the same "Iran-favourable" attitude.
In Japanese forums, the same.
People who believe their governments is good and the others are bad are everywhere, regardless of nationality.
They are called "the stupid majority", and it comprises most of the people living in the world.
This is why war happens.
Not speaking about anyone in particular. (to be noted)

many of the people in the world who are most critical of the US are Americans,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I really saw big crowds of American people asking for Sgt. Wutherich to be brought to prison for life for his crimes in Haditha.

and many members of the forum are not American (like me) and/or are extremely critical of it.

Absolutely.
I do agree with this.
How many times have you asked for former President Bush or Henry Kissinger to be brought to trial for war crimes (or something close to that)?

You're using the exact tactics a conspiracy theorist does. "All you need to do is open your eyes!" followed by disparaging the sources you think we use, all the while ignoring contrary evidence.

Me, the President of Brazil, the President of Argentina and another half dozen of Head of State who showed their support to Ecuador are all conspiracy theorists.

ADDED
The BBC's Will Grant said it was a symbolic but important show of unity in a region which considers the UK government's approach over Mr Assange to have been colonialist and threatening.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19314618

Strangely enough, no Head of State in South America has condemned Ecuador` stance of giving protection to a raper.
Why is that?

Maybe they live in a different world?
Maybe they do not care about rape?
Or maybe they do not have US-bias?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Great, boy..
Keep on the glasses.

Who you callin' 'boy'?

 

[smartcooky]

If Assange were anything like as decent, humane, and valuable a human being as Mandela, you might have a point.

But he isn't.

Nor is the deck stacked against him as in those cases; He has been given not only due process, but more due process than any ordinary rapist would have gotten.

I'm sorry, but rapists are the scum of the earth, and Assange is some very privileged scum.

No! You made a statement...

"I find fleeing from prosecution, and evading extradition, to be extremely offensive."

You made no provision as to who it applied to, you simply said it generally, so that it applies, as writ, to ALL people who flee the courts in their land, regardless of their reasons for doing so.

I simply disagreed with your generalisation.

For the record, IMO Assange is a scumbag; quite aside from the rape allegations, which at this stage are unproven. His drive to expose secret government information has put Agency operatives, suppoters and informants in mortal danger, indeed, it has almost certainly led to the deaths of hundreds of not thousands of people.

He is a grossly irresponsible person who ought to be brought to account for the havoc he has wreaked..

 

[Joey McGee]

Things have gotten pretty bad for Assange. He's pretty cooped up in there, I mean his wanton sex life and stated mission to impregnate a large number of women has to be somewhat more difficult and unenjoyable under the circumstances, and he can't trap women in quite the same way he allegedly sometimes prefers. Hey, a hop, step and a jump from conjugal visits.

Since entering the embassy he's lost a huge number of personal and financial supporters such as Anonymous for becoming a money-hoarding glory hound, many more such as Khan have brutally scolded or mocked him "That last @wikileaks tweet manages to be both absurd and shockingly offensive" for such statements as "By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world." It seems extremely likely that such paranoid and asinine activities have been brought on by his newfound habitat's effect on his already heavily narcissism-addled brain. This caged monkey has no bananas! He's spun, he's morbidly self-approved, he's holding himself hostage, except in this case, he's not fooling anyone with a measurable increment of power. And he has permanently lost respect, assistance and financial resources from a huge percentage of the market he was formerly doing well in.

Justice? Close enough for the wild, ********** up world we live in. And it's not even over yet.

 

[theprestige]

I wonder if you would feel the same way about the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, Galileo Galilei, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Mandela, Alfred Dreyfus and Alexander Solzhenitsyn; all persecuted, prosecuted imprisoned or exiled for what they believed in or because they didn't/don't conform to the government of their time.

Why on earth do you wonder that? I wasn't even talking about any of those people. I was talking about Assange.

Do you even think Assange is anything like those people? No, you don't.

Sometimes, when you know that you have no chance of being tried fairly, flight to a safe location outside the jurisdiction is your only recourse.

Do you think this describes Assange's situation? No, you don't.

Would Assange really expect to be tried fairly in country that sets up a place like Gitmo; on foreign soil so that they can get around their own Constitution and violate human-rights with impunity.

LOLWUT.

What does Gitmo have to do with the topic of this thread?

Don't get me wrong... [more irrelevant Gitmo ramblings snipped]

Dude, you cited an American POW camp in the context of a Swedish rape case. I don't know how I can get you anything other than wrong!

No! You made a statement...

"I find fleeing from prosecution, and evading extradition, to be extremely offensive."

You made no provision as to who it applied to, you simply said it generally, so that it applies, as writ, to ALL people who flee the courts in their land, regardless of their reasons for doing so.

I simply disagreed with your generalisation.

You know what I think? I think that in spite of your bizarre and irrelevant Gitmo digression, you actually have a pretty good idea of what I meant in context. I think you understood it pretty well, and pretty much agree with it.

For the record, IMO Assange is a scumbag; quite aside from the rape allegations, which at this stage are unproven. His drive to expose secret government information has put Agency operatives, suppoters and informants in mortal danger, indeed, it has almost certainly led to the deaths of hundreds of not thousands of people.

He is a grossly irresponsible person who ought to be brought to account for the havoc he has wreaked..

For the record, you never thought for an instant that Assange might belong to the aforementioned group of people who might reasonably be excused for fleeing injustice at the hands of their government.

And for the record, IMO you never thought for an instant that I meant anything like that in my post.

 

[smartcooky]

I objected to what I perceived to be a generalisation. I think I'm allowed to do that, aren't I?

You have explained that you weren't generalising.

I am happy enough with your explanation.

My remarks re Gitmo refer to your assertion that you "wouldn't mind seeing charges brought against Assange and Wikileaks for their part in the Manning affair"

If I were in Assange's position, I would be very nervous about setting foot in any US Territory at this time.

 

[tsig]

I wonder if you would feel the same way about the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, Galileo Galilei, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Mandela, Alfred Dreyfus and Alexander Solzhenitsyn; all persecuted, prosecuted imprisoned or exiled for what they believed in or because they didn't/don't conform to the government of their time.

Sometimes, when you know that you have no chance of being tried fairly, flight to a safe location outside the jurisdiction is your only recourse.

Would Assange really expect to be tried fairly in country that sets up a place like Gitmo; on foreign soil so that they can get around their own Constitution and violate human-rights with impunity.

Don't get me wrong, I approve of places like Gitmo because if your country is at war, you have to have them. But nations should at least have the balls to set them up within their own borders, and make them accessible to the Red Cross under the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

They all were charged with rape and hid in a foreign embassy?

 

[theprestige]

I objected to what I perceived to be a generalisation. I think I'm allowed to do that, aren't I?

'You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is beneficial' -- St. Paul

You have explained that you weren't generalising.

I am happy enough with your explanation.

Happy you may be, but I didn't actually explain anything. I simply told you that the original post to which you objected included context that clearly invalidated your objection. You didn't get anything from my "explanation" that you didn't already have when you made your objection.

My remarks re Gitmo refer to your assertion that you "wouldn't mind seeing charges brought against Assange and Wikileaks for their part in the Manning affair"

If I were in Assange's position, I would be very nervous about setting foot in any US Territory at this time.

I guess there's been a misunderstanding. John Mekki was insinuating that the only reason for hating on Assange is because of the Wikileaks thing. I was explaining that while I do in fact hate on him for the Wikileaks thing, in the context of this thread, the Wikileaks thing is irrelevant, and I'm basically hating on him for being an extradition-dodging tiny party hat for my behind.

I admit that this is a much more subtle point than the whole "Assange, unlike Mahatma Ghandi, is a douchebag" thing, so I forgive you for not grasping it right away.

 

[smartcooky]

They all were charged with rape and hid in a foreign embassy?

Perhaps not, but I imagine they believed that they had done nothing wrong, and were persecuted anyway?

Now, I don't know the mechanics of how the legal system in Sweden works; is the burden of proof "innocent until proven guilty" or does a defendant have to prove their innocence as they do in Singapore. Is the standard of proof for conviction on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" or on "the balance of probabilities"? Perhaps Assange truly believes he is innocent of the charges, and does not believe he will get a fair trial in Sweden.

Has he actually been found guilty of rape? You see, I have been very suspicious about a number of aspects of this case

1. The determination with which he is being pursued by authorities for these rape charges, a determination that appears to be entirely absent with other potential and accused rapists that are being sought by police.

2. The fact that he has been dealt with by much of the media as if he were guilty, even though he has not been tried and found guilty.

3. He has clearly and publicly stated that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities. Why haven't they taken up his offer?

4. The double standards being applied here. In 1998 Pinochet was arrested in London after a request from Spain for his extradition on charges that he murdered thousands of people, and tortured of tens of thousands. This included the proximate rape of over 3,000 women. However, the British government refused to extradite him, and Pinochet was allowed to go back to Chile. The determination to have Assange extradited seems much greater than it was with Pinochet.

It seems clear to me that his pursuit is politically motivated. He may well have actually committed the rapes that he has been accused of, but that is NOT the motivation behind the pursuit. Various governments are using this to try to clamp down on him, and on WikiLeaks for having revealed their secrets to the public. They may have even laid, and sprung, a "honey trap" to just this end!!

I still think what he did (and does) in WikiLeaks was morally and ethically wrong, but that doesn't mean that I am comfortable with the idea of governments using trumped up charges to get their man for something other than what they are charging him for. IMO, such action is also morally and ethically bankrupt.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is like whack-a-rat, does no one read the first (how many pages are we up to now?)

Perhaps not, but I imagine they believed that they had done nothing wrong, and were persecuted anyway?

How many of them fled extradition/and or prosecution?

Now, I don't know the mechanics of how the legal system in Sweden works; is the burden of proof "innocent until proven guilty" or does a defendant have to prove their innocence as they do in Singapore. Is the standard of proof for conviction on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" or on "the balance of probabilities"? Perhaps Assange truly believes he is innocent of the charges, and does not believe he will get a fair trial in Sweden.

Don't you think that it might be worth finding out before commenting?

Has he actually been found guilty of rape?

Hard to find someone guilty when they run away so they can't be charged and tried.

You see, I have been very suspicious about a number of aspects of this case

The most suspicious thing is the number of people who don't bother to read the rest of this thread and see the answers are already there.

1. The determination with which he is being pursued by authorities for these rape charges, a determination that appears to be entirely absent with other potential and accused rapists that are being sought by police.

Really? How many alledged rapists that the Swedish prosecution believe they have a case against are been ignored?

2. The fact that he has been dealt with by much of the media as if he were guilty, even though he has not been tried and found guilty.

Really? Exactly which media are treating him as if he is guilty of the rape? Of the whole breach of bail we can say pretty conclusively he did that.

3. He has clearly and publicly stated that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities. Why haven't they taken up his offer?

Perhaps if you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread you'd know the answer.

4. The double standards being applied here. In 1998 Pinochet was arrested in London after a request from Spain for his extradition on charges that he murdered thousands of people, and tortured of tens of thousands. This included the proximate rape of over 3,000 women. However, the British government refused to extradite him, and Pinochet was allowed to go back to Chile. The determination to have Assange extradited seems much greater than it was with Pinochet.

Apart from the fact that Pinochet's case is totally irrelevant, let's look a little closer at it shall we. The British Courts and the House of Lords both said that Pinochet should be extradited, same as Assange. He wasn't because his lawyers appealed to the Home Secretary on the basis that Pinochet was too ill to face trial, the Home Secretary agreed and halted the case, as he is able to do and has recently done in the case of Gary McKinnon. Now we can compare to the Assange case. Are you claiming that Assange is too ill to face trial in Sweden?

It seems clear to me that his pursuit is politically motivated. He may well have actually committed the rapes that he has been accused of, but that is NOT the motivation behind the pursuit. Various governments are using this to try to clamp down on him, and on WikiLeaks for having revealed their secrets to the public. They may have even laid, and sprung, a "honey trap" to just this end!!

It seems to me you have exactly zero evidence for that and are basing your belief, well on faith.

I still think what he did (and does) in WikiLeaks was morally and ethically wrong, but that doesn't mean that I am comfortable with the idea of governments using trumped up charges to get their man for something other than what they are charging him for. IMO, such action is also morally and ethically bankrupt.

Care to provide the evidence of these trumped up charges?

 

[theprestige]

Has he actually been found guilty of rape? You see, I have been very suspicious about a number of aspects of this case

1. The determination with which he is being pursued by authorities for these rape charges, a determination that appears to be entirely absent with other potential and accused rapists that are being sought by police.

Since, what? 2006? The UK has extradited over 3,000 people under the same EAW agreement that covers Assange's extradition.

That same EAW extradition agreement has led to the extradition of numerous sex offenders throughout the signatory states, in the same time period.

So please: Explain to us what is so suspicious about the UK extraditing an accused sex offender under the EAW agreement. Hardcore mode: explain without referencing the Pinochet case, which happened under different laws. Nightmare mode: actually make sense and have evidence to support your claims.

 

[smartcooky]

I'll tell you what folks, I have presented nothing in this thread as fact!

What I have done is express an OPINION, which, the last time I heard, I am entitled to do.

When I present something as a fact, I will back it up with evidence, but when I express an opinion I will not feel any compulsion to back that up.

I joined this forum to LEARN; recommended by a couple of users at Apollohoax/Clavius, but it seems that some of you are more interested in dictating, berating and brow-beating than you are in teaching.

I am beginning to regret my decision to join. So be it!

 

[nathan]

I'll tell you what folks, I have presented nothing in this thread as fact!

Oh, really?

2. The fact that he has been dealt with by much of the media as if he were guilty, even though he has not been tried and found guilty.

 

[eirik]

I wonder if you would feel the same way about the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, Galileo Galilei, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Mandela, Alfred Dreyfus and Alexander Solzhenitsyn; all persecuted, prosecuted imprisoned or exiled for what they believed in or because they didn't/don't conform to the government of their time.

Assange believes in rape?

 

[Tolls]

2. The fact that he has been dealt with by much of the media as if he were guilty, even though he has not been tried and found guilty.

He is guilty, though.
Of jumping bail.

 

[000063]

And who decides which sources are “representative”?
Is Fox News “representative”?
The New York Times?
Only US sources are "representative"?
Pink glasses, boy, pink glasses over and over

You're missing the point. He's not dismissing you, he's saying that the evidence presented does not support your point, and you should find better evidence.

Also, NightStar76 provided extensive reasoning for not accepting the evidence, which you responded to with a one-liner. He even pointed out that you were outright wrong in using one of those articles as evidence of SA support, since it was merely reporting Assange's claims, not endorsing them.

You also snipped out a question of mine;

If you didn't expect any different, why are you still posting?