Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zeuzzz said:
Frame that in the broader context of wikileaks and I'll be happier.
Click to expand...

ok.

An accused rapist, who happens to be a public figure, is avoiding going to trial, and after exhausting a series of appeals, has chosen to break the law to continue that evasion.

better?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Just to butt in out of the blue and answer the title of the OP:

Not.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Has there been a trial clearing him of the charges?

Unless it can be proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well, the prosecution certainly thinks they can do so. Well, depending on the questioning he is wanted for. And it's their job to make that decision.

Which, so far, has not been done.
Click to expand...
Seriously. I don't believe you don't know why that is.

Sure, a woman thinks she may have been molested.
Click to expand...
And another one raped, don't forget.

Sure, Assanges sexual endeavors are sordid.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Yet the context for these charges behooves us to question the wider picture irrespective of the motives of individuals.
Click to expand...

Under a trial, Assange can use any form of defence he wants, including "the wider picture". But it seems even he himself doesn't believe that this defence would clear him. Hence his escape.
 
John Mekki said:
He can`t
Click to expand...
Actually I think this post has a lot of depth. Think about it. Assange can't do anything. He can't go outside, he can't see his kids, he can't think straight, he can't be a senator, he can't escape justice forever, I could go on...
 
Have either girl commented, on the public record, about what they think about the wikileaks information?

And yes I read one of their comments in the official police statements.

Arguments made in the company of authority are usually as bad as the arguments made from said authority.
 
LOL just read that back. Sounded clever in my head, till I saw it had become real.

Way too inebariated to use a forum for productive means. thats me d9one.
 
Just clicked, I prefferred the alliterative phrasing more than the meaning behind the words. the same word four times in one line. Drinking turns forums into scrabble for me.

(I cant even disacern if there is meaning behind them tbh)
 
Zeuzzz said:
Have either girl commented, on the public record, about what they think about the wikileaks information?
Click to expand...

Well, given that they both met Assange through organising wikileaks-related events, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they were broadly in favour of it being released.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Well, given that they both met Assange through organising wikileaks-related events, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they were broadly in faviour of it being released.
Click to expand...

And more than just that. One was instrumental in his going to Sweden in the first place, and offered her home to him to stay at, while the other was a volunteer at the meetings. It wasn't like they were strangers who walked in off the street to listen to him, but rather avid supporters.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, given that they both met Assange through organising wikileaks-related events, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they were broadly in favour of it being released.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
And more than just that. One was instrumental in his going to Sweden in the first place, and offered her home to him to stay at, while the other was a volunteer at the meetings. It wasn't like they were strangers who walked in off the street to listen to him, but rather avid supporters.
Click to expand...

And still that is of course irrelevant with regards to if the accusations can be trusted.

Anybody can claim to be a Wikileaks supporter even when you are not, and there is no crime involved so a statement about supporting or not supporting the leaks/publication really does not mean anything at all.

However, going to the police and giving a false statement against a person can be a crime.
 
John Mekki said:
Relying on what the police says as if it it were the “truth” is the same kind of fallacy that you accuse me of
Click to expand...

You misunderstand.

No one is saying that because the police have received complaints, those complaints must be true.

But if the police have received complaints that have a credible chance of being proved in a court of law, then there should be a trial to test those complaints. Do you not agree?

Are you arguing that the complaints should be dismissed without trial?
 
John Mekki said:
Yes, assuming that we can have realistic assurance that the trial will be fair/that the prosecution is not biased.
Which is something that is disputed
Click to expand...

Are there any occasions that you can think of when a trial would be fair and prosecution not biased?

John Mekki said:
Of course not, we need to have a fair trial and realistic assumptions that the prosecution is not politically motivated.
Which is something that is disputed.
Click to expand...

In any case that an accused is a public figure, are there any occasions you can think of that would meet your criteria of "not disputed"?
 
Last edited:
John Mekki said:
What should meet the criteria of "not disputed"
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose not having a trial at all could technically be considered "not disputed".

Otherwise, if the defendant is pleading anything other than "Guilty with no extenuating circumstances"*** then there is something disputable about every trial. The defense should always attempt to show how the prosecution shouldn't continue.

Hence, trial.

Do you think that Assange's defense team will not be given time to make arguments in his defense?

---
***
There are of course cases where innocent people plead guilty. If a judge doesn't believe them, or the prosecutor wanted to plead a different outcome you could still have a case that is disputed. In Assange's case it shouldn't, however, be that surprising that his defense would argue that the prosecution was wrong in some way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom