Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
The original prosecutor declined to pursue charges then the women's attorney supposedly appealed.
Click to expand...
No. The original prosecutor (the duty prosecutor) decided to continue the investigation. The second prosecutor decided to stop the investigation, and the third (specialist) prosecutor decided to restart the investigation, and took the case to the situation it is at the moment.

And why do you say "supposedly" regarding the appeal - exactly what is unclear with regards to that action?

Skeptic Ginger said:
But it is possible there are political motives involved with multiple participants in the case.
Click to expand...
Could you spell out who those "multiple participants" would be, and what evidence you have for that statement.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Which makes it unfortunate the prosecutor wouldn't interview Assange in the UK.
Click to expand...
But as we know, the prosecutor are not aiming just to inverview, and the english courts have ruled that JAs legal team did not manage to show the court that the suggested alternative of interviewing in the UK would work.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Whether you agree with Assange's paranoia or not, it certainly explains his not wanting to go to Sweden.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't even do that. He is less likely to be extradited to the USA from Sweden than from the UK, since both the UK and Sweden would need to agree.
 
zooterkin said:
No, it doesn't even do that. He is less likely to be extradited to the USA from Sweden than from the UK, since both the UK and Sweden would need to agree.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Ergo (at face value anyway) not the actions of a man confident of his innocence.

Let the punishment fit the crime (if found guilty): Castration by rubber band.
 
BREAKING NEWS: One man, leader of wikileaks, startlingly reveals more classified information to the public than has ever been disclosed in over fifty years of mainstream news outlets. A real tribute to the people of the world against corporate and political power and secrecy.

PREDICTABLE NEWS: The man linked to the biggest release of data is having the law system used against him to shut him up and prevent further leaks and information, although exceptions have been made for extreme circumstances before in the law, this time the prosecutors seem perfectly happy with the stalemate situation.

As is explained here in this interview:

Zeuzzz said:
A highly relevant hour long interview about the very inner working of the world law and court systems, from an economic and international cultural power perspective. Assange speaks to world renowned journalist John Pilger.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/julian-assange-in-conversation-with-john-pilger/

Of course, I don't expect half the people here to give this interview any credence from the get go, despite it's overarching veracity.
Click to expand...
 
Zeuzzz said:
BREAKING NEWS: One man, leader of wikileaks, startlingly reveals more classified information to the public than has ever been disclosed in over fifty years of mainstream news outlets. A real tribute to the people of the world against corporate and political power and secrecy.

PREDICTABLE NEWS: The man linked to the biggest release of data is having the law system used against him to shut him up and prevent further leaks and information, although exceptions have been made for extreme circumstances before in the law, this time the prosecutors seem perfectly happy with the stalemate situation.

As is explained here in this interview:
Click to expand...
Which part do you find most interesting in that interview? What do you for example think of JAs comment at 07:10-07:20 when a bank tries to shut Wikileaks down through the US legal system, and succeeds (for a time) but they keep the operation going through Sweden?

0r maybe at 01:00:10 - 01:00:40 when JA says that it's dangerous for any in US intelligenge to try to investigate Wikileaks, since WL have dissidents that will step forward and expose the persons that try to investigate?

Or maybe at 01:02:45 where JAs says it's quite easy to stay safe even though he's under threat?

If there's something else in there that you find relevant to this thread, maybe you could point to that specifically.
 
Here_to_learn said:
No. The original prosecutor (the duty prosecutor) decided to continue the investigation. The second prosecutor decided to stop the investigation, and the third (specialist) prosecutor decided to restart the investigation, and took the case to the situation it is at the moment.

And why do you say "supposedly" regarding the appeal - exactly what is unclear with regards to that action?

Could you spell out who those "multiple participants" would be, and what evidence you have for that statement.

But as we know, the prosecutor are not aiming just to inverview, and the english courts have ruled that JAs legal team did not manage to show the court that the suggested alternative of interviewing in the UK would work.
Click to expand...
These nitpiks don't change anything, there's no apparent evidence except, he said she said. Let me know is some actual evidence turns up. :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
These nitpiks don't change anything, there's no apparent evidence except, he said she said. Let me know is some actual evidence turns up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ok, so you had no facts to back up your statements.

What actual evidence exist should be presented if this ever comes in front of a court, and should be judged according to the relevant Swedish laws.
 
Here_to_learn said:
No. The original prosecutor (the duty prosecutor) decided to continue the investigation. The second prosecutor decided to stop the investigation, and the third (specialist) prosecutor decided to restart the investigation, and took the case to the situation it is at the moment.
Click to expand...

Even this isn't entirely correct. The Second Prosecutor cancelled the Arrest Warrent and in one case dimissed the allegations, and the second case lowered them, but the investigation itself wasn't stopped as there were still active allegations. The third prosecutor revamped the case with new allegations based on the testimony of the women involved.
 
EHocking said:
That seems to be the sole purpose of the Oz senate farce.

Mr Assange believes "the building of political opposition to the persecution of a media organisation" will lead the US Department of Justice to drop its espionage investigation.
Click to expand...

And yet ironically, even if the US could charge him with espionage (they can't), and were still investigating him (there is no evidence of this), and it did convice them to drop the investigation (it wouldn't), he'd still be no better off because the Brits would still want him to extradite him to Sweden to face the rape allegations.
 
PhantomWolf said:
And yet ironically, even if the US could charge him with espionage (they can't), and were still investigating him (there is no evidence of this), and it did convice them to drop the investigation (it wouldn't), he'd still be no better off because the Brits would still want him to extradite him to Sweden to face the rape allegations.
Click to expand...

I guess the conspiracy theory espoused by Skeptic Ginger, John Mekki, Zeuzz, and others is that the CIA will phone Sweden and call off the rape thing, and Sweden will phone the UK and call off the extradition thing, and the UK will call Ecuador and let them know Assange is off the hook. Assange, now free to board a plane for Australia and take up his duties as elected representative of Bum Frack Oz, will walk out the front door of the Ecuadorian embassy... and promptly be assassinated in the face by the CIA.

Wait, what?
 
You know, just once I'd like someone to produce evidence of this so-called vendetta of the US against Assange that DOESN'T indicate some form of mental delusion on Assange's part.

Sure, there have been INDIVIDUAL politicians who have been calling for his head, but there is absolutely no indication that the US Department of Justice is currently involved in any kind of criminal investigation where Assange is named as a suspect. Investigating Wikileaks, sure; but last I checked, Assange is not the entire organization and in fact has little to do with the daily running of the organization, such as it is, and most of the people who have experience with the law have indicated that should the US attempt to pursue a case, espionage or otherwise, against Assange, they'd be chasing their tails. I think the worst thing we could possibly get him on is being an accessory to Manning's crime of allowing classified material to be released to persons not authorized to possess or view it, and that ain't exactly a charge that would end with Assange's death (or even much jail time, since it can pretty easily be proved that Manning gave the material to Wikileaks of his own free will and wasn't coerced by them to do it). I don't even think we have much of a case against Wikileaks itself. In reality, it's much easier for us to simply sit back and watch Assange implode from his own narcissistic paranoia. He's well on his way to showing just how irrelevant he is without any help from the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom