Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[000063]

There is no evidence that the charges against Assange are politically motivated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't, it could just mean that the evidence of it is well hidden... after all the British government is hardly likely to issue a press release saying that they are just using the rape changes as a means to an end, are they.

That looks like an Appeal to Ignorance.

Perhaps all those asking Mr Mekki for "evidence" of political motivation, should be specifying just what form that evidence could take. I for one, cannot think of anything that could likely be called "evidence" other than perhaps a leaked government memo.

I'd be happy to see anything more than Appeal to Authority at this point.

"Please provide evidence of political motivation."
"Who determines what is or isn't evidence? On what grounds? You're just part of the stupid majority!"
"So, no evidence, then?"
"I have these national leaders' statements."
"And how is that evidence of political motivation?"
"Are you saying you don't accept them?"

And on and on.

Also, I would hardly think that a country like Ecuador (with the support of all other South American sovereign states) would grant political asylum to a person they didn't NOT believe was subject to political persecution

Unless they had a political reason to do so, of course. And even if they have such beliefs, they are not necessarily correct.

 

[John Mekki]

I am, in detail. I have never said that the prosecution may not be politically motivated because it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 2 women (who were supportive of Assange ) have accused him of sexual offences for which he should stand trial and have his day in court.

I would say that, if you agree that the prosecution may be politically motivated, then this it is relevant to me
However, 90% of the people here (maybe everyone except myself) do not seem to even take into consideration this possibility

 

[John Mekki]

How about just starting with the Dictionary?

Evidence - 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

Very clear-cut definition
Define in absolute terms when something is "helpful in forming a conclusion" and when it is not.
I would like a clear definition that encompasses all cases without exception

Opinion - 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

Define when knowledge is "positive" and when it is not.
In absolute terms

[..]particular inferences. Ordinarily, witnesses are invited to testify in Court whenever it’s necessary to give testimonial evidence and when this happens, they are asked to give evidence of facts as they perceived them. [..]

Define in absolute terms what is "inference" and what is not.

Now if you actually have some evidence that is relevent to the case and isn't just someone else's opinion, we'd be delighted to see it.

I did and you guys dismissed it.

Do you consider it possible that the Swedish Prosecution Service believe that given the agree facts and the women's testimony that they have enough evidence to prosecute Assange for Rape?

Maybe yes, or maybe they do not care as they are after Assange just to please Big Daddy Obama.
Now, if I may ask you.

Do you consider it possible that 12 Head of States of 12 countries give moral support in written form to Ecuador for its handling of the Assange case if they thought that Ecuador was merely obstructing justice in a rape case?

 

[John Mekki]

Because UNASOM's issue has nothing to do with Assange, and everything to do with supporting the sovereignty of their member states.

It is "UNASUR" and not "UNASOM".
If it has nothing to do with Assange, then why talking about Assange at all?

The only way in which Assange figures in that statement at all is as the proximate cause of Britain's threat to Ecuador.

Not true.
Look at point number 6.

The statement makes it clear that the threat Britain made is in contradiction to treaties that Britain agreed to abide by.

Not only that

Would I make a statement in favor of someone trying to protect a rapist? It would depend on how they were doing it. If they were breaking the law in order to do it, certainly not. If someone else threatened to violate that protector's valid rights in order to get the suspected rapist, I wouldn't support that. In fact, if you'll read back a few posts, I said that Britain making the threat was a bad idea. I can support the idea that Ecuador has a right to provide asylum to anyone they choose, and also say that the right thing for Assange to do is to go to Sweden for questioning, and if charged, trial. I can say that because treaty violations and rapes are not the same thing. They have little to do with each other. In this case, the person being given asylum is a suspected rapist avoiding trial, but who or what he is doesn't have anything to do with the terms of the treaty that Britain threatened to violate.

I do not understand what you are saying.
Is it good to give protection to an alleged raper?
I would say that we agree that no, this is not a good idea.
So, why the UNASUR Ecuador when they are doing just that?

Under the U.S constitution, there's a right to free speech, and I support it. That right gives some noxious people the right to say noxious things, but supporting the right is not supporting noxious speech, it's protecting my right to speech.

Not true, if you use freedom of speech to slander someone, you can get prosecuted.

Similarly, UNASUR wishes to protect its member nations right, under various treaties that have been signed, to give asylum. Their issue is with the right to grant asylum. I'm pretty sure from a practical point of view they don't want to get bogged down in people asking them if they support rapists. And from a treaty point of view, it doesn't matter.
And so they write a strongly worded statement, but don't mention much about Assange other than his existence, because he doesn't matter.

If he does not matter why then mention Assange at all?
Why saying that it is OK to give asylum to people who feel threatened for their lives, if Assange should not feel threatened for his life.
And, most important, if it is bad to give asylum to an alleged raper just because he is trying to escape justice, why then support this bad thing with a declaration?
Would you help someone or support someone that is trying to protecting a raper from facing justice?
I would not.

 

[John Mekki]

Directly related, yes. But for some reason they didn't actually give an opinion about the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. Instead, they confined themselves to general comments about the institution of asylum.

If it is just a "general comment", then why mention Assange at all in the first part of the declaration?

Indeed, their entire position seems to be "surrounding....[Assange's] request for asylum". Where's their analysis of the rape case?

Exactly.
Why they are not even talk about the fact that Assange is supposed ot have raped two women?

Your Spanish must be even worse than mine: It's obvious to me that their support for Ecuador's stance carefully avoids any dependency on Assange's legal status in Sweden as a rapist (or not). Indeed, if you read their statement, it's clear that it would be just as good and true if Assange were a rapist, as it would if he were not.

So you are saying that the 12 Head of States would/are be happy to support another country that is deliberately preventing the international justice system for bringing an alleged raper to justice?
Does not make any sense to me.

It's kind of a shame that the foreign ministers of the UNASUR member nations had to be dragged to Guayaquil for an extraordinary meeting, just to affirm their support for the institution of asylum without committing to anything official on the status of Assange's rape case. [..]

The foreign ministers beg to differ

 

[John Mekki]

What could have prompted Assange to consider asylum in South America? In recent days, outgoing President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva has been one of Wikileaks’ most prominent defenders, remarking that Assange is a champion of free expression. Interrupting a run-of-the-mill speech about infrastructure development, Lula declared “What’s its name? Viki-leaks? Like that? To WikiLeaks: my solidarity in disclosing these things and my protest on behalf of free speech.”

The Brazilian president added, “I don’t know if they put up signs like those from Westerns saying, ‘wanted dead or alive.’ The man was arrested and I’m not seeing any protest defending freedom of expression…Instead of blaming the person who disclosed it, blame the person who wrote this nonsense. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the scandal we now have.”

http://www.nikolaskozloff.com/blog.htm?post=761628

Former Brazilian President Lula is also part of the international pro-Assange and anti-US conspiracy

Wikileaks: Brazil President Lula backs Julian Assange

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has criticised the arrest of the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as "an attack on freedom of expression".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11966193

My comment: how is it hard for the "true believer" to understand that he/she has been lied to all this time..

 

[nathan]

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has criticised the arrest of the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as "an attack on freedom of expression".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11966193

My comment: how is it hard for the "true believer" to understand that he/she has been lied to all this time..

That article is from December 2010. you know what? back then I did think there was something strange about the charges. And you know what happened?

* I found out more information
* time moved on, the UK courts rendered decisions
* JA generated additional information
* I concluded he is attempting to flee legitimate charges.

Do you know whether the Luiz da Silva still thinks it's an attack on freedom of expression? I don't think the UNASUR declaration claims that.

 

[John Mekki]

That article is from December 2010. you know what? back then I did think there was something strange about the charges. And you know what happened?

* I found out more information
* time moved on, the UK courts rendered decisions
* JA generated additional information
* I concluded he is attempting to flee legitimate charges.

Do you know whether the Luiz da Silva still thinks it's an attack on freedom of expression? I don't think the UNASUR declaration claims that.

Do you have any evidence that former Presindent Lula has recanted/changed his position in the mean time?

 

[Noztradamus]

Assange is a tool

Do you consider it possible that 12 Head of States of 12 countries give moral support in written form to Ecuador for its handling of the Assange case if they thought that Ecuador was merely obstructing justice in a rape case?

Soitenly!

As someone said "us and them". They don't care what did or did not happen to the women in Sweden. They don't care what might or might not happen to Assange in Sweden, or the United States

Assange is a tool

His asylum is a hook they can hang a statement of "us" on.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Still, the fact that in this forum most posters are from the West and, for some strange coincidence, the same posters seem to support the position of the Western Governments is, somehow, suspicious.

So many things could be said to this, but let's keep it at this:

You do understand that not all persons in this thread agree? As far as I know there are/have been several posters in this thread from "the West" that do not "support the position of the Western Governments".

These "Western Governments" that you talk about - which "Western Governments" have made their position clear regarding the JA case?

Could knowledge of Swedish and English law, as well as knowledge of how those laws are applied in any way affect what people support and do not support, and can that knowledge and experience possibly be lower in say Ecuador compared to England?

 

[000063]

So, lets review; Mekki asserted that the leaders represented the views of 400 million people. When asked for evidence, he attempted to dodge and divert, then refused to even acknowledge the repeated question.

 

[Wudang]

I would say that, if you agree that the prosecution may be politically motivated, then this it is relevant to me
However, 90% of the people here (maybe everyone except myself) do not seem to even take into consideration this possibility

Well if you weren't so arrogant as to avoid reading the rest of the thread you'd have seen that was already discussed. A lot of human factors go into the decision. That is why after taking the decision to prosecute we have what we refer to as a "trial" to decide if the person is actually guilty. And we can read the arguments, decide if they were valid, Assange can appeal if it goes against him (as he appealed several times in the UK).

So why he should not stand trial in Sweden for the crimes of which he is accused?

 

[tsig]

Very clear-cut definition
Define in absolute terms when something is "helpful in forming a conclusion" and when it is not.
I would like a clear definition that encompasses all cases without exception



Define when knowledge is "positive" and when it is not.
In absolute terms



Define in absolute terms what is "inference" and what is not.



I did and you guys dismissed it.



Maybe yes, or maybe they do not care as they are after Assange just to please Big Daddy Obama.
Now, if I may ask you.

Do you consider it possible that 12 Head of States of 12 countries give moral support in written form to Ecuador for its handling of the Assange case if they thought that Ecuador was merely obstructing justice in a rape case?

I'm not privy to their motivations, are you?

Besides their motivation has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Good question.
At the end, it is just up to us to use our own head.
Still, the fact that in this forum most posters are from the West and, for some strange coincidence, the same posters seem to support the position of the Western Governments is, somehow, suspicious.

This is less to do with western governments and more to do with a man running from rape allegations.

Please try and stop conflating every issue. Once one breaks them down into logical segments and chronological sequences it becomes clear.

Standing back from the emotion (which you do not do) and looking at things from a logical perspective is what 'using ones own head' would be for me. Perhaps you have another or different definition of what 'using ones own head' is. We would be glad to hear it; perhaps we are all at cross purposes on this definition of yours.

 

[John Mekki]

Minor points? You've got to be joking. (besides the very confusing direction of this extradition).

You mean that there is a large majority or consistent minority here of people supporting Assange?

Of course it has. The JA case has everything to do with Swedish and English law, since for example the EAW is only worth something if it is implemented in the laws of the relevant countries. The way the EAW had been implemented in English law was one of main points that JA used when he appealed in English courts. You really don't have a clue about this case do you?

The EAW (European Arrest Warrant) is neither an English-only Law nor a Swedish-only Law.
Claiming that Ecuador` s lawyers can not read the text of the EAW is racist.
Or stupid.
Or both.

 

[Here_to_learn]

You mean that there is a large majority or consistent minority here of people supporting Assange?

I know nothing about majorities and minorities, and have not claimed to know that either. This is not a popularity contest. What I specifically said was that there are posters in this thread, that are from "western" countries, that do not support that JA should be extradited from England to Sweden. There are also posters that have said that they believe the accusations, or the way the accusations have been handled are influenced by politics.

If you want to do your us vs them talk, take it to the appropriate thread, this thread is about JA and the accusations about rape.

Also, if you are talking about JAs work with Wikileaks, there are quite a number of people that support that. I have stated before that I have not seen anyone presenting a case for why JA should be sent to the US, or be convicted of anything related to Wikileaks. But that is (in my view) a separate isse and also belong to a different thread.

This thread is specifically about the rape/sexual assault charges, and the way they have been handled.

The EAW (European Arrest Warrant) is neither an English-only Law nor a Swedish-only Law.
Claiming that Ecuador` s lawyers can not read the text of the EAW is racist.
Or stupid.
Or both.

Good that's settled then, since I haven't said, claimed or even thought that. You are just doing a bad job of introducing a straw man argument.

And of course the issue about the EAW has been settled in court(s) - they have ruled that JA should be extradited to Sweden based on the EAW (as implemented in England). Do you have any lawyers from Ecuador claiming otherwise?


And by the way - maybe at some stage you could state exactly what your point is with regards to the subject of this thread (rape/sexual assault), for example along these lines:

1. Do you think JA should be extradited to Sweden for further criminal proceedings?
2. Do you think that JA should be charged and stand trial?
3. Do you think he should be convicted by the court?

 

[babycondor]

Well we know one thing. The lawyers are getting rich.

 

[trustbutverify]

So, the employment of JA as a propaganda tool by a group of South American politicians against their Western adversaries is proof of his tragic persecution? Comical, but par for the course.

 

[TjW]

Never mind, I did post what I thought I had before.

 

[brodski]

The EAW (European Arrest Warrant) is neither an English-only Law nor a Swedish-only Law.

In fact it isn't a law at all. The concept of the EAW has, however, been transposed into English and Welsh law, ad well as into Swedish law.
The application of the EAW to JA is entirely governed by English and Welsh law, whilst JA remain in England.