Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[John Mekki]

Seems a long-winded way of saying "buy into a conspiracy theory."

I am not the only one who buys the conspiracy theory..
Here is some evidence that you stubbornly do not want to consider:

6. Reiterate the validity of the institutions of asylum and refuge that protect the human rights of persons that consider their life or physical integrity to be threatened.
http://venezuela-us.org/2012/08/20/declaration-of-guayaquil-in-support-of-the-republic-of-ecuador/

And the list of paranoid supporters of the above declaration are the Head of States of all South America.
Very strange that the openly state talk about threaten to life or physical integrity of the person to whom the asylum is granted (i.e. in this case Assange)
Very strange also that they do not condemn or even talk at all about Ecuador trying to protect an alleged raper from justice.
Of course, they are not citizens of the West, so their opinion can be quickly dismissed.

Alas.. I had more luck try to convince my Iranian friends that the Holocaust did happen and that there is tons of evidence to support the claim.
It is really true.. it is not a question of nationality, biased people are similar all over the world.
They all stick to what their government tells them without any kind of critical analysis.
I will leave you to this.

 

[smartcooky]

Alas.. I had more luck try to convince my Iranian friends that the Holocaust did happen and that there is tons of evidence to support the claim.
It is really true.. it is not a question of nationality, biased people are similar all over the world.
They all stick to what their government tells them without any kind of critical analysis.

Another case in point is the Falkland Islands... they are British Territory. However, Argentina claims that they are Argentine territory; they have their own name for them, las Malvinas.

Children in Argentina are indoctrinated from a very young age that ias Malvinas is part of Argentina, and that Britain are invaders who are illegally occupying them. They grow up believing this, even though it has actually no basis in International Law, the UN recognises only Britain's claim to the islands.

 

[TjW]

I am not the only one who buys the conspiracy theory..
Here is some evidence that you stubbornly do not want to consider:

6. Reiterate the validity of the institutions of asylum and refuge that protect the human rights of persons that consider their life or physical integrity to be threatened.
http://venezuela-us.org/2012/08/20/declaration-of-guayaquil-in-support-of-the-republic-of-ecuador/

And the list of paranoid supporters of the above declaration are the Head of States of all South America.
Very strange that the openly state talk about threaten to life or physical integrity of the person to whom the asylum is granted (i.e. in this case Assange)
Very strange also that they do not condemn or even talk at all about Ecuador trying to protect an alleged raper from justice.
Of course, they are not citizens of the West, so their opinion can be quickly dismissed.

Alas.. I had more luck try to convince my Iranian friends that the Holocaust did happen and that there is tons of evidence to support the claim.
It is really true.. it is not a question of nationality, biased people are similar all over the world.
They all stick to what their government tells them without any kind of critical analysis.
I will leave you to this.

Well, of course you're not the only conspiracy theorist that believes the conspiracy theory. But many people believing a thing is not evidence that the thing is true.

I don't know if Assange is guilty of rape under Swedish law or not. But he and his legal defense team have agreed that certain actions took place. I'm willing to wait and see whether those actions will make him guilty in a Swedish court.
He's certainly guilty of jumping bail. There's an English judges decision on that as evidence.

What evidence -- not speculation, but actual evidence, do you have that Assange's legal difficulties are anything but of his own making? By that, I mean his conduct toward the two women in Sweden, and his conduct with regard to the duly constituted authorities in both Sweden and England.

Have you considered that Assange's worldview might be slanted a bit? That maybe he would like to believe that he's an incredibly important person, that multiple governments are conspiring against?

You're perfectly willing to believe the worst of everyone in the western democracies. Why should Assange's motives be exempt from doubt?

 

[NightStar76]

I suggest we abandon Mekki to his beliefs and end this thread. There can be no debate possible with someone who avoid any challenge and reiterates his own talking points again and again. This is worse than some creationists I've known.

 

[John Mekki]

What evidence -- not speculation, but actual evidence, do you have that Assange's legal difficulties are anything but of his own making?

Let` see..
1) the fact that the UK Government issues an unprecedented threat of violating the sovreignity of the Ecuador Embassy just to bring an alleged sexual offender to justice.
Something that has never occurred in recent history, AFAIK
2) the fact that the same UK Government few years before protected a person accused of mass killings from being extradited.
No, I do not believe that this dramatic change in policy is due just because of a new law
3) the fact that the US Government and the Swedish Government, despite being asked by preminent Human Rights Organizations, have failed to state clearly that Assange will not be extradited to the US.
4) the fact that the Wikileaks issue has caused an enormous moral damage to the government of the US and showed a lot of behind-the-scenes manouvering by the US (and other countries) + shown crimes committed by the same Government and that, AFAIK, none of the crimes that have been brought to light was punished.
5) the fact that Bradley Manning will probably be sent to jail for 50 years or so, despite having killed no one while Sgt. Wuterich, a.k.a. the slaugtherer of 28 civilians in Iraq (including babies in pijama and old man in wheelchair) for pure revenge will not spend one day in jail
6) the fact that all the Head of States of South America are supporting Ecuador stance.

Now, I am sure that you will not consider any of the above as evidence and none of the above will make you change your opinion that Assange is just a raper and the UK Government is simply trying to bring him to justice.
Please, keep having faith that your government is just doing the right thing, and that Governments never steal, kill, use people to increase their own positions and power.
Wait.. all Governments do that (Iranian, Chinese, ..), except ours, right?, because "we" are crystal clean and "we" would never harass anyone.
Let alone someone for having caused one of the most impressive damages to our reputation
"We" do not overthrow other governments, do not do wars unless completely necessary, never lie, if we find one of "our" soliders killing civilians we give him a trial and, if needed, send to prison for life and would never, in any case, use a false or inflated accusation to harass someone for other purposes.
The terrorist, communists, criminals is "them"!
What else can I tell you?
Same story I heard in the Iranian forum, just change US with Iran and Iran with US.
Same people and same thinking.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Let` see..
1) the fact that the UK Government issues an unprecedented threat of violating the sovreignity of the Ecuador Embassy just to bring an alleged sexual offender to justice.

Firstly any threat was not executed.
Secondly, this happened after Assange skipped away; so this was of his own making.

2) the fact that the same UK Government few years before protected a person accused of mass killings from being extradited.
No, I do not believe that this dramatic change in policy is due just because of a new law

The facts will not change just to suit your beliefs. Try doing some reading.

3) the fact that the US Government and the Swedish Government, despite being asked by preminent Human Rights Organizations, have failed to state clearly that Assange will not be extradited to the US.

Or Australia, or Zimbabwe, or The Sudan, or Belgium, or Argentina or Sierra Leone, or Canada, or New Zealand (I could go on.... and on.... and on).

And which 'preminent (sic) Human Rights Organisations'? The left wing support groups that love Assange? Those ones, you mean?

4) the fact that the Wikileaks issue has caused an enormous moral damage to the government of the US and showed a lot of behind-the-scenes manouvering by the US (and other countries) + shown crimes committed by the same Government and that, AFAIK, none of the crimes that have been brought to light was punished.

This does not go to answering 'of his own making'. Oh and it's straw.

5) the fact that Bradley Manning will probably be sent to jail for 50 years or so, despite having killed no one while Sgt. Wuterich, a.k.a. the slaugtherer of 28 civilians in Iraq (including babies in pijama and old man in wheelchair) for pure revenge will not spend one day in jail

How is this of Assanges 'own making'?

6) the fact that all the Head of States of South America are supporting Ecuador stance.

This is getting tedious. Please stick to the point.
We could come up with other countries that support the extradition (like those that respect the laws of other countries and their jurisdictions). The opinions of banana republics does not equate to a valid appeal to authority.

Now, I am sure that you will not consider any of the above as evidence

Good guess. Do you know why?
Because they are not evidence.

.. and none of the above will make you change your opinion that Assange is just a raper and the UK Government is simply trying to bring him to justice.

That is because there is zero evidence to support such a change in opinion.

What else can I tell you?

Well rather than telling us, try proving it to us instead - evidence is your friend.

 

[John Mekki]

Firstly any threat was not executed.

Yes.
But it was issued

Secondly, this happened after Assange skipped away; so this was of his making.

Because Assange should have waited to be extradited to the US, maybe imprisoned for 30 years just to please you

What you believe and what is true do not have to correlate. Try doing some reading.

This is true for you too as well.
You correlate what you want to be correlated

Or Australia, or Zimbabwe, or The Sudan, or Belgium, or Arghentina or Sierra Leone, or Canada, or New Zealan (I could go on.... and on.... and on).

Strangely enough, Amnesty was talking only about the US.
Probably they are a bunch of communists.
Or maybe the 5th column of AlQaeda in the US.

This does not go to answering 'of his own making'. Oh and it's straw.

As, again, you by principle want to see only what you want to see.
For you, in principle, Wikileaks and the extradition case are unrelated, so you close your eyes to any thing that points in that direction

How is this os Assamges 'own making'. Or is he making straw too?

See above.
You just see what you want to see.
Such a spectacular contradiction between two different sentence does not arise in you anything.
What the judge says has to be true as he/she said that.
There is no connection between things as our Government said so, and then it must be true.
Would our government lie to us?
"We" are the "right" side, the "wrong" side is "them".
Was it not like that since the beginning of human history?
Thought that in the era of internet people should have done some progress, but..

This is getting tedious. Please stick to the point.
We could come up with other countries that support the extradition (like those that respect the laws of other countries and their jurisdictions). The opinions of banana republics does not equate to a valid appeal to authority.

Sure..
Brazil and Argentina are banana republics.
Iran is a terrorist country.
Russia is a mafia country.
Chinese people make our CDs for cheap and they are a bunch of communists.
"We" are the champions of liberty and democracy!!
As said, the only good conclusion in this blindness that you ahve is that you are not in a position to do much harm to people except maybe to yourself (not that I would be happy of that..)

Good guess. Do you know why? Because they are not evidence.

Of course.
When I was talking in the Iranian forum and showed them the pictures of the concentration lagers as “evidence” of the Holocaust, I got more or less the same answer.
Japanese, when you talk to them about the issue of "confort women", you get the same answer.
"This is not evidence", "our governments would never do this as we are good"
Nothing new under the sun.

 

[eirik]

Again, Mekki, who are these Assange supporting European media you were talking about? Surely, you mean something more than a few left fringe blogs and opinion pieces?

 

[John Mekki]

Should translate like as:
"Help! Help! I have been raped"

Sorry, I could not resist

 

[John Mekki]

Oh, I just found out that Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are among the psychopaths who are supporting Assange

Filmmakers Oliver Stone and Michael Moore spoke out in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange today in a New York Times op-ed, declaring themselves "deeply grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks." Assange is currently living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London after the country granted him diplomatic asylum.

Moore and Stone praise Assange and WikiLeaks for exposing "the uglier acts" of the American government, including the release of footage that appears to shows a U.S. attack helicopter killing Baghdad civilians seemingly at random, and information about the Obama administration's pressuring of other nations not to prosecue Bush-era officials for torture.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...n-new-york-times-op-ed-20120821#ixzz2BcvdXZz4

Here is what the two psychos are saying:
"Although Moore and Stone call for a thorough investigation of the sexual assault allegations that have prompted a warrant for for Assange's arrest in Sweden, they also accuse the governments of Britan and Sweden, and not Assange, of impeding the investigation.

And, hear hear, here they say that most Australians, a nation of consipiracy theorists, also back Assange.
Would you believe it?

Most Australians back Assange, poll finds
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...s-back-assange-poll-finds-20120808-23uwh.html

Mr Assange is not a particularly popular person in Australia either, with 40 per cent having a favourable view of him, 30 per cent having a negative view and 30 per cent unsure.

 

[Tolls]

Let` see..
1) the fact that the UK Government issues an unprecedented threat of violating the sovreignity of the Ecuador Embassy just to bring an alleged sexual offender to justice.
Something that has never occurred in recent history, AFAIK

The embassy in Quito were simply pointing out that the UK had the option to remove the diplomatic status from the embassy, thus opening the way to the arrest of Assange.

It was a bloody silly thing to do, frankly, and was pointed out as such and quickly dropped as a way forward.

2) the fact that the same UK Government few years before protected a person accused of mass killings from being extradited.
No, I do not believe that this dramatic change in policy is due just because of a new law

Not the same government at all. Not even the same party.
I don't agree with Straws Pinochet decision and feel he should have been extradited to Spain.

But this doesn't really help your argument, because you clearly agree that Pinochet should not have been let off.

3) the fact that the US Government and the Swedish Government, despite being asked by preminent Human Rights Organizations, have failed to state clearly that Assange will not be extradited to the US.

This is so much of a red herring. As has been pointed out several times, Sweden is far less likely to extradite Assange to the US than the UK.

The rest is utterly irrelevant to the point. Which is whether Assange should be sent to Sweden under the EAW.

 

[Wudang]

Oh, I just found out that Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are among the psychopaths who are supporting Assange

Filmmakers Oliver Stone and Michael Moore spoke out in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange today in a New York Times op-ed, declaring themselves "deeply grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks." Assange is currently living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London after the country granted him diplomatic asylum.

Moore and Stone praise Assange and WikiLeaks for exposing "the uglier acts" of the American government, including the release of footage that appears to shows a U.S. attack helicopter killing Baghdad civilians seemingly at random, and information about the Obama administration's pressuring of other nations not to prosecue Bush-era officials for torture.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...n-new-york-times-op-ed-20120821#ixzz2BcvdXZz4

Here is what the two psychos are saying:
"Although Moore and Stone call for a thorough investigation of the sexual assault allegations that have prompted a warrant for for Assange's arrest in Sweden, they also accuse the governments of Britan and Sweden, and not Assange, of impeding the investigation.

And, hear hear, here they say that most Australians, a nation of consipiracy theorists, also back Assange.
Would you believe it?

Most Australians back Assange, poll finds
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...s-back-assange-poll-finds-20120808-23uwh.html

Mr Assange is not a particularly popular person in Australia either, with 40 per cent having a favourable view of him, 30 per cent having a negative view and 30 per cent unsure.

Do you understand the difference between "evidence" and "random people's opinions"? We asked for the former and got the latter.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Indeed. More appeals to invalid authority.

Moreover, Oliver Stone and Michael Moore are American's aren't they? Doesn't that sort of prove that all westerners are not the brainwashed dolts he would make out?

 

[000063]

If you talk to any person living in South America about the Assange matter and you can see:

So, nine people? Do most of their people support their leaders blindly? Or is it just the Japanese, Iranians, and Americans who have a "stupid majority"?

...

.
6) the fact that all the Head of States of South America are supporting Ecuador stance.

Hm.

 

[eirik]

Oh, I just found out that Michael Moore and Oliver Stone(..)

Lol.

Most Australians back Assange, poll finds
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...s-back-assange-poll-finds-20120808-23uwh.html

Huh? A popularity contest, and you can't even get that right? Do you take us for idiots, or did you simply buy the media spin, "thinking with your own head", and all that?

The poll asks if he should be prosecuted for cablegate - That's a completely different question than if he should surrender to Swedish police as UK courts have orderes, and face due process for the rape charges. (oh yes, he is charged as it is defined in the ECH)

The poll did not ask if Australians "backed Assange". They were asked if he should be prosecuted in the US for the leaked cables, and if they thought he would recieve a fair trial in the US. These questions would probably go over in a similar fashion in the JREF-forums. (before he escaped rape charges and due process and shamed himself, that is..)

Hell, even US authorities haven't even asked for extradition, and their stated opinion is that they are not planning to seek extradition. Therefore they agree - he should not be extradited! - it's a non issue. So the question of if you think he would recieve a fair trial is therefore given. If he should not be prosecuted in the first place, and they do it anyway, obviosly it would be a trial without legitimacy.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...s-back-assange-poll-finds-20120808-23uwh.html

A majority of Australians believe the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would not receive a fair trial should he ever be extradited to the United States.

The nationwide poll, conducted by UMR Research, also finds more than half do not believe he should be prosecuted for releasing thousands of leaked diplomatic cables

 

[eirik]

[qimg]https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292783_454149584631767_2028555515_n.jpg[/qimg]

Should translate like as:
"Help! Help! I have been raped"

Sorry, I could not resist

Thank you. I find it telling that you appreciate flat out sickening rape-victim jokes in the context of a real life rape case.

You seem to have completely emotionally disconnected yourself from the realities and the gravity of the rape charges. Maybe you should ask yourself if you would have posted this picture if it was your mother, sister, wife or child who was raped? Sorry, *alledgedly* raped.

And you could do a whole lot worse than reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

A rape victim is especially stigmatized in cultures with strong customs and taboos regarding sex and sexuality. For example, society may view a rape victim (especially one who was previously a virgin) as "damaged". Victims in these cultures may suffer isolation, be disowned by friends and family, be prohibited from marrying, be divorced if already married, or even killed. This phenomenon is known as secondary victimization.

Secondary victimization is the re-traumatization of the sexual assault, abuse, or rape victim through the responses of individuals and institutions. Types of secondary victimization include victim blaming and inappropriate post-assault behavior or language by medical personnel or other organizations with which the victim has contact. Secondary victimization is especially common in cases of drug-facilitated, acquaintance, military sexual trauma and statutory rape.

 

[TjW]

Let` see..
1) the fact that the UK Government issues an unprecedented threat of violating the sovreignity of the Ecuador Embassy just to bring an alleged sexual offender to justice.
Something that has never occurred in recent history, AFAIK
2) the fact that the same UK Government few years before protected a person accused of mass killings from being extradited.
No, I do not believe that this dramatic change in policy is due just because of a new law
3) the fact that the US Government and the Swedish Government, despite being asked by preminent Human Rights Organizations, have failed to state clearly that Assange will not be extradited to the US.
4) the fact that the Wikileaks issue has caused an enormous moral damage to the government of the US and showed a lot of behind-the-scenes manouvering by the US (and other countries) + shown crimes committed by the same Government and that, AFAIK, none of the crimes that have been brought to light was punished.
5) the fact that Bradley Manning will probably be sent to jail for 50 years or so, despite having killed no one while Sgt. Wuterich, a.k.a. the slaugtherer of 28 civilians in Iraq (including babies in pijama and old man in wheelchair) for pure revenge will not spend one day in jail
6) the fact that all the Head of States of South America are supporting Ecuador stance.

So, as you say. Other than conspiracy minded speculation you have none.

Now, I am sure that you will not consider any of the above as evidence and none of the above will make you change your opinion that Assange is just a raper and the UK Government is simply trying to bring him to justice.
Please, keep having faith that your government is just doing the right thing, and that Governments never steal, kill, use people to increase their own positions and power.
Wait.. all Governments do that (Iranian, Chinese, ..), except ours, right?, because "we" are crystal clean and "we" would never harass anyone.
Let alone someone for having caused one of the most impressive damages to our reputation
"We" do not overthrow other governments, do not do wars unless completely necessary, never lie, if we find one of "our" soliders killing civilians we give him a trial and, if needed, send to prison for life and would never, in any case, use a false or inflated accusation to harass someone for other purposes.
The terrorist, communists, criminals is "them"!
What else can I tell you?
Same story I heard in the Iranian forum, just change US with Iran and Iran with US.
Same people and same thinking.

I explicitly said I don't know if he is a rapist under Swedish law or not. Others here have said this as well. You seem to ignore that, because it doesn't fit your preconceptions.
We're perfectly willing to accept the Swedish court's decision on that, if it can ever be made.

I don't know that my government is doing the right thing. I have seen no evidence that my government is involved at all in this particular incident. If you have evidence the U.S. is involved, show it. Speculation, assertions without evidence by other governments, and outrage over historical incidents is not evidence.

 

[000063]

Thank you. I find it telling that you appreciate flat out sickening rape-victim jokes in the context of a real life rape case.

You seem to have completely emotionally disconnected yourself from the realities and the gravity of the rape charges. Maybe you should ask yourself if you would have posted this picture if it was your mother, sister, wife or child who was raped? Sorry, *alledgedly* raped.

And you could do a whole lot worse than reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

To be fair, even an accusation of being a rapist can ruin someone's a man's life, even if dropped. Rape is an ugly issue, for the accuser and the accused. The problem is, the rape charges are actually secondary to this discussion, which is about Assange evading justice, as he clearly did, which is why Mekki doesn't actually want to talk about it.

 

[smartcooky]

...The problem is, the rape charges are actually secondary to this discussion, which is about Assange evading justice

Really?

The title of this thread is "Julian Assange: Rapist or not"...

First paragraph of the OP

"With all the headlines about wikileaks, and a warrant out for mr Assange's arrest on suspicion of rape, I came across an article from the Daily Mail about the origin for these alegations. My intention for this thread is to focus on the question if mr Assange committed rape or not, based on the available information of what happened between the women and him."

...and that means this discussion IS about the rape charges, and the evasion of justice is a thread hijack, and therefore a secondary issue, if that.

which is why Mekki doesn't actually want to talk about it.

Or it could be because he may be thinking that the evasion of justice issue is irrelevant to the original post, as specified by the original poster.

 

[theprestige]

Really?

The title of this thread is "Julian Assange: Rapist or not"...

First paragraph of the OP

"With all the headlines about wikileaks, and a warrant out for mr Assange's arrest on suspicion of rape, I came across an article from the Daily Mail about the origin for these alegations. My intention for this thread is to focus on the question if mr Assange committed rape or not, based on the available information of what happened between the women and him."

...and that means this discussion IS about the rape charges, and the evasion of justice is a thread hijack, and therefore a secondary issue, if that.




Or it could be because he may be thinking that the evasion of justice issue is irrelevant to the original post, as specified by the original poster.

Threads drift.

But okay. The original question is really easy to answer:

• The first Swedish prosecutor to review the case did not think there was enough evidence to press charges.
• After more information was presented, and (I think?) appeals were made, the second Swedish prosecutor to review the case, did think there was enough evidence to press charges.
• Subsequent Swedish legal authorities also reviewed the case and concurred.
• After preliminary questioning, Assange left Sweden for the UK.
• Swedish authorities determined that the case was still worth pursuing, and requested Assange's extradition from the UK, under the EAW.
• UK courts reviewed the Swedish reasons for pursuing the case, and concluded it justified extradition under the EAW.
• Assange's lawyers(?) appealed. UK courts reviewed the appeal, and concluded that the extradition was still justified under the EAW.

So that's the evidence--supporting documentation has been provided repeatedly throughout the thread. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.