Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zeuzzz said:
The courts.
Click to expand...

You mean the same people that are appointed and paid by the group bringing the case? A group that can make whatever laws they like and then use the courts to enforce them? You really believe that this is a good idea?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
My my, the story seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

Wonder why none of this was part of the original story and why it wasn't posted on the women's blogs and why they hung out with the guy after the alleged deed?

And about that virgin thing? Seriously? Is one of the women claiming he de-flowered her?
Click to expand...

Growing? That story was 14 July 2011.
 
Unfair news. You have got to be *********** kidding me! Go live and be a journalist there, you're not welcome in our countries where we allow unfair news.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I should say that George Galloway sums up the Chavez situation extremely well in this oxford union address. It seems that holding the press to account for unfair news is actually a rather good indicator of a successful and fair election, like Chavez is known for. And even with the corporate media always being on the side of his opponent and for the rich population he has a remarkable record.

George Galloway on Gay Rights and Hugo Chavez | Oxford Union


(yes, I posted a Galloway video, please don't whine about him in this thread, take it to the appropriate one if you want to do that)
Click to expand...

Bwhahaha!! Man, can you imagine being Julian Assange, and being reduced to being supported by George Galloway, Ecuador, and Chavez.

And Zeusss?

Assange, the man who "dedicated" himself to "freedom of information" being supported by people who think "holding the press accountable" is a good thing. What a scumbag.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Because of course you know he's guilty. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My interpretation of the available evidence, including his current behavior, body of work, and testimonials of close associates and acquaintances; and also my bias against the man, lead me to the conclusion that he's probably guilty.

However, I won't be much put out if, after dutiful consideration, a Swedish court of law finds him not guilty. It's not like he's OJ Simpson, whom I'm pretty sure is guilty of murder, regardless of what the courts found.

I mean, I thought he was an asshat long before these charges were brought. Right now, today, the most prominent evidence of his asshattery aren't the rape charges, which may or may not be true. Rather, it's his flight from justice, up to and including alliance with Ecuadorian government, a regime that suppresses free speech; and simultaneously his business arrangement with the propaganda arm of the Russian government, another regime that suppresses free speech. These are not things that may or may not be true. These are objective matters of fact. He's an asshat.

And I think he's probably also a rapist.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I could care less what Assange is doing to save himself from the same fate as Manning. At the beginning of the thread the argument was, the US wouldn't do that, Sweden wouldn't be involved, yadda yadda. Now it would appear the discussion has drifted to the rapist (despite the fact he's not been convicted and there is little if any actual evidence and many holes in the accuser's stories) is a commie.
Click to expand...

If he's only trying to save himself from "the same fate as Manning", then clearly, he must not be guilty. You know this, how?
I myself am perfectly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and let him argue his innocence under the Swedish legal system. If there's little evidence and many holes in the prosecution's case, then he shouldn't be convicted. It seems he doesn't believe there's little evidence and many holes.

My take is, if the facts are as reported, he probably didn't think he was performing a sexual assault. Nevertheless, if the facts are as reported, under the laws of Sweden, he was.
I think he didn't know that then, and has had it explained to him since.
 
theprestige said:
My interpretation of the available evidence, including his current behavior, body of work, and testimonials of close associates and acquaintances; and also my bias against the man, lead me to the conclusion that he's probably guilty.
Click to expand...
Mine says he's a creepy guy but so are the 2 women. Their stories conveniently changed when no one cared when they complained he boffed them both.

theprestige said:
...which may or may not be true. Rather, it's his flight from justice, up to and including alliance with Ecuadorian government, ....
Click to expand...
Given that the US has Manning incarcerated without trial, the history of special renditions that involved torturing innocent men and the current controversy that it's supposedly legal for the President to order assassination by drone, I don't think the supposed fleeing of justice is so unjustified.

Sweden could have saved a bundle of money and trouble by just interviewing the guy while he was in the UK. I'm sure an exception to their supposed law could have been made had they not really just wanted him in custody rather than just wanting justice.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Mine says he's a creepy guy but so are the 2 women. Their stories conveniently changed when no one cared when they complained he boffed them both.
Click to expand...
Addressed repeatedly in this thread already. You might want to pick up that line of discussion where you left off, rather than trying to reintroduce your desired conclusion tabula rasa.

Given that the US has Manning incarcerated without trial, the history of special renditions that involved torturing innocent men and the current controversy that it's supposedly legal for the President to order assassination by drone, I don't think the supposed fleeing of justice is so unjustified.
Click to expand...
And now we're back to the same old unsubstantiated supposition that Assange is fleeing from rape charges in Sweden because the US is out to get him.

Sweden could have saved a bundle of money and trouble by just interviewing the guy while he was in the UK. I'm sure an exception to their supposed law could have been made had they not really just wanted him in custody rather than just wanting justice.
Click to expand...
Also addressed repeatedly in this thread. Several courts have found that such an exception is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case. In addition, Assange attempted to dictate terms for this interview which were contrary to Swedish jurisprudence. This has also been addressed repeatedly in this thread. Once again you are trying to ignore the discussion that has already happened--that you have already participated in!--in favor of pretending the question has already been decided in your favor and all you have to do is reassert that decision.
 
theprestige said:
Addressed repeatedly in this thread already. You might want to pick up that line of discussion where you left off, rather than trying to reintroduce your desired conclusion tabula rasa.
Click to expand...
Addressed, yes, but it's your imagination that you or anyone else has proved my conclusion wrong.

You are asserting things with even less evidence.
 
Tolls said:
Well, let's be honest, he hasn't exactly given anyone the chance to prove in court one way or the other. Indeed his actions haven't really done him any favours in the "not guilty" front.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that assessment. If it's true that he can't be charged unless he is on Swedish soil, and the Swedish authority requires the option of charging him after questioning him, than he is evading prosecution by staying in the Embassy. He has made it impossible to defend himself in any meaningful way and be done with this already. He could be exonerated of these impending charges and walk away a free man, but he'll never know because he's scared to take a risk that may or may not include the US DOJ in the future. In the meantime, he has imprisoned himself in the embassy, and will never walk in the sun again, and the allegations of him being a rapist will remain unchallenged in a court of law. The victims will not have their day in court, and he will always have this question hanging over his head: Is Julian Assange guilty of raping those women?
 
The way I read it, Assange can be charged in absentia, it's the interview they supposedly need to complete the case, and the prosecutor has simply refused any semblance of a compromise.

Why would any country limit their ability to charge a crime in absentia?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The way I read it, Assange can be charged in absentia, it's the interview they supposedly need to complete the case, and the prosecutor has simply refused any semblance of a compromise.
Click to expand...

What you mean to say is that the prosecutor hasn't violated Swedish law on the whims of a suspect.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Why would any country limit their ability to charge a crime in absentia?
Click to expand...

Because Sweden has a very strong and stable justice system (among the least corrupt in the world, as it were) and we don't want to compromise that in any way. That includes compromising the rights of the defendant.
 
Silhouette said:
Is Julian Assange guilty of raping those women?
Click to expand...

Well there is only a single charge of rape, and I have not actually seen a denial from Assange to what happened.

I think that one of the issues here is that usually when people hear the word "Rapist" they get a picture of a miscreant dressed in dark clothing sneaking around in the bushes waiting to pounce on some unsuspecting woman, hold a weapon on her and proceed to violate her. Occasionally we might think of Jock that throws his girlfriend down and against her protests goes ahead anyway, or the sleaze that uses drugs or alcohol to incapacitate his victims and then uses them while they are unconscious.

The whole idea that sex in what seems like a consensual situation could turn into rape is often beyond us.

But that is the case here. There was no weapon, no threats, or violence, but what there was, was the deliberate ignoring of the woman's wishes and proceeding with sex in a way that violated her expressed desires.

She said no, and he did it anyway. Quite simply, that is rape. No it's not a violent rape, but the fact that he put his own narcissistic desires ahead of the expressed desires of the woman he was in and proceeded to have sex with her in a way that she had previous stated outright that she was unwilling to do is what makes it a rape. There are no ifs, buts, or maybes about this. The law is very clear on the matter.

The red herring that is thrown about that once aware of what he was doing she didn't try and stop him is totally irrelevant. He had already broken the law before this point, her actions do not, and cannot, retrospectively change that fact! Getting no objection after the assault does not suddenly erase the fact that the law was broken previous to that point. If I non-fatally stabbed you and you failed to object, that doesn't mean that I didn't assult you with a deadly weapon. If you make the choice not to press charges, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and if the police learn of it, and it doesn't mean that they should not take action, rather, they are duty bound to do so.

As soon as Assange put himself and what he wanted above the woman he was with, and ignored her stated desire in the matter of sex, he broke the law, it really is that simply. If there is any moral from this tale it is that men should actually listen to their partners and abide by their wishes. If he'd done what she asked and worned a condom, this would have been a total non-event, by not doing so, whether he likes it or not, and whether his supporters like it or not, he broke the law and commited rape.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom