Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
When you talk about "[t]he way [you] read it", are you referring to a specific document or analysis that you have literally read? If so, can you share it with us?

Why would any country limit their ability to charge a crime in absentia?
Click to expand...
Why would any country allow a suspect to dictate the terms of a criminal proceeding?

But why not just go ahead and say what you mean: The Swedes are insisting on bringing him back to Sweden because that's where the CIA left their Black Helicopter, and they don't want to lose the parking space.
 
Last edited:
I still cannot understand how people who supposedly want justice in the world can be defending a rapist. If I were to do something like that for political "points" I wouldn't be able to wash the stench off. Sort of like Lady Macbeth...
 
Wash your hands, put on your night-gown; look not so pale. I tell you yet again, Julian’s buried; he cannot come out on ’s grave.
 
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.

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

The real question is why wouldn't you?

Swedish law requires that a trial is to be held within two weeks of the person being charged. If Sweden charged someone in absentia, that would result in them having to then find and get the person before the court in just 14 days. That is crazy!
 
He was on Real Time with Bill Maher this weekend. Only watched a few minutes of it as I can't stand Maher. Maher said to ASsange, "I'm on your side. Tell the American people why they should be too."
 
It also bears pointing out (and in fact has been pointed out at least a couple of times, just a few pages back), that the Swedish judicial process is somewhat different from the American one. The familiar US events of "charging" and "arraignment" don't have direct Swedish counterparts, and the Swedish terms for what they're trying to accomplish at this stage aren't directly translatable into English.

So expecting them to charge him in absentia the way a US court would doesn't make much sense; they're not a US court. But this is explained much better a few pages back--by people fluent in Swedish, no less! Maybe if we're lucky, they'll return to explain it yet again for the latest round of newcomers.
 
The funny thing is that IF there were some grand conspiracy to get him to Sweden to be spirited off to Gitmo, that conspiracy is stopped by him being in that building?

LOL!

Any real evil conspiracy would just arrange for there to be an electrical fire and of course the building would have to be evacuated, and of course Assange would be arrested on the spot.

Why is it that imagined evil conspiracies can be stopped by silly things like the FOTL rituals or taking refuge in an embassy?
 
BenBurch said:
I still cannot understand how people who supposedly want justice in the world can be defending a rapist. If I were to do something like that for political "points" I wouldn't be able to wash the stench off. Sort of like Lady Macbeth...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I can understand how people who believe themselves to be skeptics can be convinced a person is a rapist based on news accounts, no physical evidence to speak of, the word of a couple of accusers with questionable stories, and the fact the guy is "creepy".
 
BenBurch said:
The funny thing is that IF there were some grand conspiracy to get him to Sweden to be spirited off to Gitmo, that conspiracy is stopped by him being in that building?

LOL!

Any real evil conspiracy would just arrange for there to be an electrical fire and of course the building would have to be evacuated, and of course Assange would be arrested on the spot.

Why is it that imagined evil conspiracies can be stopped by silly things like the FOTL rituals or taking refuge in an embassy?
Click to expand...
What makes you think Sweden couldn't have pre-agreed to let the US extradite Assange while the UK said, not so fast? Is there not at least some evidence of a secret Grand Jury indictment?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Unfortunately I can understand how people who believe themselves to be skeptics can be convinced a person is a rapist based on news accounts, no physical evidence to speak of, the word of a couple of accusers with questionable stories, and the fact the guy is "creepy".
Click to expand...

What physical evidence is there when a guy date-rapes his girlfriend by pressuring her into it despite all her saying no until she feels unable to do anything but give in?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Way to cherry pick. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You claimed that there was no physical evidence of rape, from that I have to assume that you meant that rapes always have physical evidence. Did you not mean to imply that? if not, and we know that rapes can occur sans physical evidence, why does it matter that there is none?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What makes you think Sweden couldn't have pre-agreed to let the US extradite Assange while the UK said, not so fast?
Click to expand...

You mean other than the fact there is ZERO evidence for it?

Is there not at least some evidence of a secret Grand Jury indictment?
Click to expand...

No, there was an email by someone speculating that there might have been one. Nothing has come from it.
 
@PW:
Either it is within Swedish law to try people in absentia or it isn't. Obviously it is. Why would the cases have to be remotely similar?

You cherry picked one item when I listed 4. The strongest evidence against guilt is the inconsistent stories the women told.

Evidence of a secret indictment is more than zero, but believe whatever you want.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What makes you think Sweden couldn't have pre-agreed to let the US extradite Assange while the UK said, not so fast? Is there not at least some evidence of a secret Grand Jury indictment?
Click to expand...

Because you know that Sweden cannot extradite him to the United States without Britain's permission.

You KNOW that right? You are not just a Assange apologist, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom