Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Loss Leader]

A great many posts have been sent to AAH. Some really did contribute to this discussion. However, all of them contained or quoted posts that contained a level of incivility too great for a political discussion. Please refrain from accusing others of being stupid or racist. Please address the topic and not the abilities of other members. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Joey McGee]

Good luck to the Cambridge University Students' Union in blocking a videolink speech from Socrates Assange,

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/5292

notice their unique banner? Quite artistic and appropriate I would say

What a schmuck

 

[John Mekki]

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.

So they are embued in the "us vs them" mentality?
Maybe.
And may I ask you where are you different from them?

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".

They almost all agree on the position of Western Governments in case of Assange.
And they are mostly from the West.
A coincindence?

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.

You are implying that elections in Brazil and Argentina are fake elections?

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?

As maybe he, and a lot of other people, do not believe that he would get a fair trial and the reason for his prosecution has not actually to do with the "rape charges".
Whether you agree with such "other people" or not.

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.

[..]

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

You will pardon me, but there are quite a lot of people, some of them quite influential, that happen not to believe that Assange is prosecuted for rape charges, and that is in fact an excuse.
Are you trying to shut their mouths saying that you can talk about the Assange case only and only if you agree also on the rape charges?

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?

Absolutely yes for all three questions.
Once we have clarified the issue of the allegations that the UK Government (and others) is not really trying to extradite Assange for the rape charges, but for other unrelated issues.

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.

Do not see how this changes the gist of what I said

 

[brodski]

It refutes what you said as the EAW hearings in the UK were entirely governed by UK law.

 

[John Mekki]

It refutes what you said as the EAW hearings in the UK were entirely governed by UK law.

You can call it an UK law, a law framework adapted by the UK law system, .. but this is a totally marginal issue to the original point, which is this.

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?

HTL was just trying to implying that Ecuador is trying to protect Assange as they know little about Swedish and English laws.
I find this argument utterly ridiculous, but feel free to believe in what you like.

 

[Here_to_learn]

They almost all agree on the position of Western Governments in case of Assange.
And they are mostly from the West.
A coincindence?

I have absolutely no idea on what you think "the position of the Western Governments in the case of Assange" is so I cannot answer that. Could you please state clearly what position you claim the "Western Govermnments" and thereby the posters in this thread hold, and maybe we have have a meaningful conversation.

You will pardon me, but there are quite a lot of people, some of them quite influential, that happen not to believe that Assange is prosecuted for rape charges, and that is in fact an excuse.
Are you trying to shut their mouths saying that you can talk about the Assange case only and only if you agree also on the rape charges?

I don't care if people are influential or not, I care about if they have facts, or just opinions.

But if those people come here to the JREF forum and want to discuss this issue, they absolutely have to stay in the correct thread, that's part of the forum rules that everybody that posts here have to follow.

Absolutely yes for all three questions.
Once we have clarified the issue of the allegations that the UK Government (and others) is not really trying to extradite Assange for the rape charges, but for other unrelated issues.

Great, so next step then:

• Who else but the England is trying to extradite JA?
• What evidence do you have that anything else but the Swedish rape/sexual assault allegations are involved?

 

[Here_to_learn]

HTL was just trying to implying that Ecuador is trying to protect Assange as they know little about Swedish and English laws.
I find this argument utterly ridiculous, but feel free to believe in what you like.

In fact Sweden has publicly stated that Ecuadors statements with regards to JA is based on misunderstandings of Swedish law, so either Ecuador (or their spokespeople) do not understand Swedish law, or they willfully ignore that knowledge.

 

[John Mekki]

I have absolutely no idea on what you think "the position of the Western Governments in the case of Assange" is so I cannot answer that. Could you please state clearly what position you claim the "Western Govermnments" and thereby the posters in this thread hold, and maybe we have have a meaningful conversation.

As for the position of the Government of the UK, I think it is pretty clear.
I have not seen any Government in Europe/US disagree much with that.

I don't care if people are influential or not, I care about if they have facts, or just opinions.

Are you really sure you do care about all facts, or only the ones which fit in your mental frame?

But if those people come here to the JREF forum and want to discuss this issue, they absolutely have to stay in the correct thread, that's part of the forum rules that everybody that posts here have to follow.

Absolutely agreed.
But you should also leave people free to express their minds.
After all, the title of the thread is "Julian Assange: rapist or not?"
This means that the thread itself leaves out the possibility to disagree with the accusation that Assange is a rapist.
The title of the thread is not "Julian Assange: rapist, and f you do not agree go back home".

[*]What evidence do you have that anything else but the Swedish rape/sexual assault allegations are involved?

Evidence in this sense has been provided (and discarded/ignored by most of the Western posters here) few posts above, quite a few times, indeed.

 

[John Mekki]

In fact Sweden has publicly stated that Ecuadors statements with regards to JA is based on misunderstandings of Swedish law, so either Ecuador (or their spokespeople) do not understand Swedish law, or they willfully ignore that knowledge.

Or maybe there is some other reason.
We can call it option number 3.
For example, that Ecuador fully understands the Swedish law.
But it is you who is not understanding what is going on.

 

[Here_to_learn]

As for the position of the Government of the UK, I think it is pretty clear.
I have not seen any Government in Europe/US disagree much with that.

Have you asked them? Have they made any public statements? If not, you are just making assumptions based on some kind of group thinking.

Are you really sure you do care about all facts, or only the ones which fit in your mental frame?

You have repeatedly been invited to present evidence and facts that show that for example my opinion is wrong. I welcome that, and look forward to get new facts and viewpoints.

Absolutely agreed.
But you should also leave people free to express their minds.
After all, the title of the thread is "Julian Assange: rapist or not?"
This means that the thread itself leaves out the possibility to disagree with the accusation that Assange is a rapist.
The title of the thread is not "Julian Assange: rapist, and f you do not agree go back home".

I have absolutely no idea what your point is now? Do you honestly think that I have told you or others not to express your mind?

The moderators of this forum have several times warned us to stay on topic, and have sent posts to AAH. It's not hard to follow the rules and have a meaningful discussion about facts - it has happened many times in this thread.

Evidence in this sense has been provided (and discarded/ignored by most of the Western posters here) few posts above, quite a few times, indeed.

If you mean evidence that there are people ( and possibly governments) that hold a different opinion from what I do - yes, I agree, you have posted that and I do not dispute that.

However, you have not posted any evidence that tells us why they hold that opinion, and what facts they use to base those opinions on. This is what I (and others) have been asking for.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Or maybe there is some other reason.
We can call it option number 3.
For example, that Ecuador fully understands the Swedish law.
But it is you who is not understanding what is going on.

So do tell me, since I guess you claim to know?

(also note - I linked to a public statement from the Swedish ministry of foreign affairs, so you'd better explain to them also along the way).

 

[John Mekki]

Have you asked them? Have they made any public statements? If not, you are just making assumptions based on some kind of group thinking.

Position of the UK is clear
Julian Assange: Hague says Britain is obliged to extradite WikiLeaks founder
Foreign secretary tells Ecuador that UK must extradite Assange, while Amnesty claims Swedish assurances would end impasse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/27/assange-hague-ecuador-extradition-legal

As far as I know most Western Government seem to follow the same path

You have repeatedly been invited to present evidence and facts that show that for example my opinion is wrong.

I did.
And the evidence I have provided has been ignored.
What a surprise..

I have absolutely no idea what your point is now? Do you honestly think that I have told you or others not to express your mind?

I think you were trying to do just that here:

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 moderators of this forum have several times warned us to stay on topic, and have sent posts to AAH. It's not hard to follow the rules and have a meaningful discussion about facts - it has happened many times in this thread.

And what am I supposed to do?
Possibly, the moderators are thinking that the Wikilieaks issue is unrelated to the arrest of Assange
But this is just their opinion, and millions of other people disagree.

If you mean evidence that there are people ( and possibly governments) that hold a different opinion from what I do - yes, I agree, you have posted that and I do not dispute that.

No, I do not mean that

However, you have not posted any evidence that tells us why they hold that opinion, and what facts they use to base those opinions on. This is what I (and others) have been asking for.

And this is what I have did, and it has been ignored.

 

[John Mekki]

So do tell me, since I guess you claim to know?

(also note - I linked to a public statement from the Swedish ministry of foreign affairs, so you'd better explain to them also along the way).

The possibility may be that the Swedish Government and the Ecuador Government both know the law very well, but the Swedish Government is just trying to prosecute Assange for other reasons.
Can we consider this as a remote possibility?

 

[TjW]

And this is what I have did, and it has been ignored.

Please link to the posts you've made in this thread which offer evidence which is not either speculation, bare assertion, or the opinion of others.

 

[zooterkin]

The possibility may be that the Swedish Government and the Ecuador Government both know the law very well, but the Swedish Government is just trying to prosecute Assange for other reasons.
Can we consider this as a remote possibility?

Only if you take it to the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, have you read Jack of Kent's excellent summary?

 

[tsig]

So they are embued in the "us vs them" mentality?
Maybe.
And may I ask you where are you different from them?



They almost all agree on the position of Western Governments in case of Assange.
And they are mostly from the West.
A coincindence?



You are implying that elections in Brazil and Argentina are fake elections?



As maybe he, and a lot of other people, do not believe that he would get a fair trial and the reason for his prosecution has not actually to do with the "rape charges".
Whether you agree with such "other people" or not.



You will pardon me, but there are quite a lot of people, some of them quite influential, that happen not to believe that Assange is prosecuted for rape charges, and that is in fact an excuse.
Are you trying to shut their mouths saying that you can talk about the Assange case only and only if you agree also on the rape charges?



Absolutely yes for all three questions.
Once we have clarified the issue of the allegations that the UK Government (and others) is not really trying to extradite Assange for the rape charges, but for other unrelated issues.
Do not see how this changes the gist of what I said

Do you have any evidence of these 'unrelated issues' he's really being extradited for?

ETA: I see several other posters have pre-read my mind.

 

[tsig]

The possibility may be that the Swedish Government and the Ecuador Government both know the law very well, but the Swedish Government is just trying to prosecute Assange for other reasons.
Can we consider this as a remote possibility?

Why would we think the Swiss are lying?

 

[nathan]

Do you have any evidence of these 'unrelated issues' he's really being extradited for?

If it's agreed that JA should be extradited to answer charges, why does motivation matter?

 

[theprestige]

Why would we think the Swiss are lying?

Because their story is full of holes?

No, wait... that's their cheese.

Better question: Why would we think the Swedish are lying?

 

[Here_to_learn]

I think you were trying to do just that here:

Ok, let me explain it, this is how I understand that we should use the different threads.

• If you want to discuss wikileaks, and they ways that what wikileaks has published has harmed/irritated the US, take that to a Wikileaks thread.
• If you want to discuss the generic concept of us vs them, take that to your separate thread.
• If however you can show a link between for example the US being irritated with Wikileaks, and the extradition request that Sweden has asked England for, that would (in my opinion) be relevant for this thread.

But, and this is important, it takes more than just a statement:

Let's take an example - if I would say that "Sweden is not allowed to extradite JA to the US", that would not be worth anything. It would just be me asserting it.

However, if I could show clear sources where these issues are discussed, and include the relevant clarifications for exactly what conditions apply, I'm a lot closer to something that is of value. Specifically, this is something that can be discussed - how trustworthy is the source, what about counter-arguments and so on.