Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Just disputing something doesn't make the dispute valid.

As for realistic assurances, how about this?

1. Sweden is widely recognized as having one of the least corrupt, least politically-influenced justice systems in the world.

2. The Swedish government has guaranteed that Swedish law will be followed, and that the government will not interfere.

3. Swedish law safeguards Assange against foreign persecution for political crimes.

4. No foreign nation has accused Assange of any crime, political or otherwise.

5. While many people have disputed the above, none of them have provided any realistic evidence to support their claims.

Those are pretty realistic assurances, John. What else do you need?
 
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...

So if I am accused of a crime I should be allowed to avoid trial by claiming on the blogshere that any trial will not be fair or that the prosecution is biased?

Or do you think that I should actually have to prove that any trial will not be fair or that the prosecution is biased?


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...

So if I'm a public figure, especially involved in Politics, I should be allowed to avoid trial for my aledged misdeeds because I claim that the prosecution is politically motivated?

Or do you think that I should actually have to prove that that the prosecution is politically motivated?
 
John Mekki said:
What should meet the criteria of "not disputed"
Click to expand...

You tell me. It was you who raised this "disputed/not disputed" issue.
You said:

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...

I asked:
Hallo Alfie said:
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"?
Click to expand...

I am seeking clarification as to when (if ever) this takes place in your opinion.

I also note you did not respond to the first question either which was:

Hallo Alfie said:
"Are there any occasions that you can think of when a trial would be fair and prosecution not biased?"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Are you conceding my point that Sweden has a history of not extraditing anyone (including high-profile and strongly demanded individuals) to the United States when it involves political or military issues?
 
John Mekki said:
That is the same discussion as to say "how should it be determined if [you] are fairly prosecuted?"
Who decides that?
Same thing. :D
Click to expand...

Well you were the one that said I should be allowed to avoid a trial by claiming it'd be unfair, if I had valid grounds.

So how should that be determined? Who does decide that? Unless you can answer these questions, how can you say that it is acceptable to avoid a trial by claiming it'd be unfair?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Well you were the one that said I should be allowed to avoid a trial by claiming it'd be unfair, if I had valid grounds.

So how should that be determined? Who does decide that? Unless you can answer these questions, how can you say that it is acceptable to avoid a trial by claiming it'd be unfair?
Click to expand...

Please, I have opened a new thread to discuss the topic, as here all the allegations about Wikileaks are moved to AAH

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249818
 
John Mekki said:
All my posts have been moved to the AAH, as the mods do not like to have the Wikileaks thing involved.
See you in the other thread..
Click to expand...

Post 4164 is there.
You can answer the questions, they are directly relevant to the discussion we are having and the OP.
 
theprestige said:
Post 4124 is still in the thread as well. It gives two examples of American political criminals who were not extradited by Sweden.

John Mekki, when will you address these two cases?
Click to expand...

Sure.
There are also examples of car thieves who do not get caught.
I would not suggest you to go out and steal a car, anyways.
You may get caught.
As for the replies, please come to the other thread where we can also include the word "Wikileaks"
 
John Mekki said:
Sure.
There are also examples of car thieves who do not get caught.
I would not suggest you to go out and steal a car, anyways.
You may get caught.
As for the replies, please come to the other thread where we can also include the word "Wikileaks"
Click to expand...

I've been to that thread. You don't have any more evidence there than you do here.

Anyway, I'm a little disappointed. Previously you made a big deal out of giving examples of other cases (notably the Pinochet case), that you insisted should give us important insight into the Assange case. Now that we've brought your attention to two other cases that contradict your interpretations, suddenly those cases don't offer any real insight at all.

Instead, you brush them off and go back to "Wikileaks".

It's pretty obvious that your position, simply put, is "Wikileaks is Special". Cases that support Wikileaks is Special are worth considering. Cases that don't should be ignored. Politicians who say Wikileaks is Special must be taken seriously. Politicians who say it isn't, should be ignored.

Maybe we should go over to the other thread, so you can explain in great detail and with plenty of evidence, exactly how Wikileaks is the Specialest Most Special Thing Ever.
 
Women have complained about Assange's behaviour.

Assange is wanted to have a hearing about that behaviour.
 
Simple stories might make it harder to attract donations to pay lawyers for sexual assault charges.

But any conspiracy theory has to account for the fact that these women complained, Assange has admitted sleeping with them, and he has admitted they weren't happy with his behaviour. Whether that behaviour was illegal is something for a court to determine, unless the theorist is willing to ignore the women's existence entirely.
 
Ahem....

Hallo Alfie said:
Post 4164 is there.
You can answer the questions, they are directly relevant to the discussion we are having and the OP.
Click to expand...

You raised these in this thread. I await your response to the questions posed and discussion made in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom