Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
So presumably, he was not under any travel restriction at that time, i.e. wasn't told "don't leave town"?

If so, this would mean that he was entitled to leave the country.

If they didn't want him to go, why would they not confiscate his passport?
 
smartcooky said:
So presumably, he was not under any travel restriction at that time, i.e. wasn't told "don't leave town"?
Click to expand...
It's a little more complex than that but overall it's correct, he was not under travel restrictions but the investigation was ongoing.

The prosecutor had asked (sep 21st) JAs lawyer for an interview while JA was still in Sweden, but he failed to set one up for a week. After JA had left (sept 27th), and then did not come pack for a requested interview the whole EAW business started (nov 18th).

Sources: Swedish prosecution authority and Agreed facts.
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
That can't be adequately determined unless Assange goes to trial, which is why the topic has drifted to why he's not going to trial. There's not really much more to discuss about the primary issue.

I am perfectly willing to believe that Assange may have evaded justice because he thought there was some plot against him. I've seen people rationalize crazier things.
 
000063 said:
That can't be adequately determined unless Assange goes to trial, which is why the topic has drifted to why he's not going to trial. There's not really much more to discuss about the primary issue
Click to expand...

Actually, if you go back and re-read the OP, you'll see that the actual question being asked is, "those women alleging rape are just playing silly buggers, aren't they"?
 
I think that the issue that many people (almost all of them living in the US or Western countries) seem to have against Assange despite all the evidence provided (and with the dismissal of the position of other foreign leaders, etc.) may be tracked down to a more basic and general psychological issue with their “us vs. them” mentality.
To discuss this I have opened a separated thread in order to avoid any off-topic.
Link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247475

I will continue the discussion there.
 
John Mekki said:
I think that the issue that many people (almost all of them living in the US or Western countries) seem to have against Assange despite all the evidence provided (and with the dismissal of the position of other foreign leaders, etc.) may be tracked down to a more basic and general psychological issue with their “us vs. them” mentality.
To discuss this I have opened a separated thread in order to avoid any off-topic.
Link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247475

I will continue the discussion there.
Click to expand...

All the evidence provided shows that he is breaking the law by evading trial for alleged sexual offences. Hand-waving about foreign leaders ignored as none have shown any particular knowledge of the case. Evidence to the contrary welcomed.

And way to go dismissing all the actual evidence because it's been provided by Westerners - aka "them".
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Any bookies making book on how long Assange is self-imprisoned in that tiny room?
Click to expand...

I saw a few sites, which I don't care to have on my history on this machine, but they're out there. Odds tend to favor him being there for at least a year, though one was offering on the Ecuadorians kicking him out.
 
000063 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously. But you seem to forget that my comment was about the "funny" picture he posted - he slants the alleged rape victims. It's disgusting.
 
John Mekki said:
I think that the issue that many people (almost all of them living in the US or Western countries) seem to have against Assange despite all the evidence provided (and with the dismissal of the position of other foreign leaders, etc.) may be tracked down to a more basic and general psychological issue with their “us vs. them” mentality.
To discuss this I have opened a separated thread in order to avoid any off-topic.
Link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247475

I will continue the discussion there.
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether Assange should be extradited to Sweden, or whether he is being a twit hiding away in the embassy in order to avoid being extradited.

<something about sinking ships>
 
If JA wanted to minimize the damage to his reputation caused by fallacious rape charges, he's doing it wrong.
 
Hallo Alfie said:
Which is code for "I cannot shift the goalposts without being called on it here, so I will hide the fact by changing parks". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not exactly.
Which is code for: "I have quoted the opinion of 40% of the Australian people, the declaration of Amnesty International, the declaration of the UNASUR - about 400 million people represented here - cultural personalities as Oliver Stone and Michael Moore and still my point of view is not even considered.
I did not say agreed with, I said "not even seriously considered".
Probably, most people posting in this focum would consider as "psychos" or "conspiracy theorists" the about half a billion people above that more or less seem not to believe or are represented by people that do not seem to believe much that the reason by the UK Government to go after Assange is what it is officially stated.
I think there is a serious psychological problem of "Us. vs Them" mentality that most Western-educated people here seem to have, a problem that you can find everywhere in the world, unfortunately, so I decided that it is better to focus directly on this problem."

This is more or less the reason why I opened another thread.
 
Last edited:
Wudang said:
All the evidence provided shows that he is breaking the law by evading trial for alleged sexual offences. Hand-waving about foreign leaders ignored as none have shown any particular knowledge of the case. Evidence to the contrary welcomed.
And way to go dismissing all the actual evidence because it's been provided by Westerners - aka "them".
Click to expand...

The Heads of State of the UNASUR (representing about 400 million people) issued an official declaration in support of Ecuador giving asylum to Assange and stated that it is good to give asylum to people who are threatened for life (in this case, Assange).
They did not say a word about accusations of rape, or the need to bring an alleged raper to justice, which is a puzzle.
And they do not seem much impressed by the position of people like you.
Maybe they are all terrorists psychos.
Or maybe you are been lied to, and you swallowed hook, line and sinker.
(good thing that you are not much in the position to harm anyone, if I may)

:)
 
Last edited:
John Mekki said:
Not exactly.
Which is code for: "I have quoted the opinion of 40% of the Australian people, the declaration of Amnesty International, the declaration of the UNASUR - about 400 million people represented here - cultural personalities as Oliver Stone and Michael Moore and still my point of view is not even considered.
I did not say agreed with, I said "not even seriously considered".
Probably, most people posting in this focum would consider as "psychos" or "conspiracy theorists" the about half a billion people above that more or less seem not to believe or are represented by people that do not seem to believe much that the reason by the UK Government to go after Assange is what it is officially stated.
I think there is a serious psychological problem of "Us. vs Them" mentality that most Western-educated people here seem to have, a problem that you can find everywhere in the world, unfortunately, so I decided that it is better to focus directly on this problem."

This is more or less the reason why I opened another thread.
Click to expand...
The problem is that all those opinions have been seriously considered, but they don't happen to have anything to do with the Swedish charges against Assange for rape.

ETA: Except maybe for the UNASUR declaration, which is more about preserving the institution of asylum, than it is about the merits of Assange's flight from extradition.

And citing Oliver Stone and Michael Moore is actually worth negative 400 million opinions--canceling out the UNASUR support.
 
Last edited:
John Mekki said:
Not exactly.
Which is code for: "I have quoted the opinion of 40% of the Australian people, the declaration of Amnesty International, the declaration of the UNASUR - about 400 million people represented here - cultural personalities as Oliver Stone and Michael Moore and still my point of view is not even considered.
Click to expand...

Let me help you out here. Read this very slowly.

OPINION IS NOT EVIDENCE!

Do you now understand? If not go back and read it again until you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom