Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK here's my problem with this muddled discussion, probably won't help but I'll post it anyway. Maybe people could address the muddling?

Dismissing the US's desire to 'get' Assange. That's a whole thread in itself. It's not a crazy CT belief to address this issue, yet that seems to be the main counterpoint to a whole lot of very specific evidence.

Blurring the line between legitimate obstacles women who report date rape face, and these two women's stories. Again, the counterpoint to addressing the problems with these ladies' account seems to be, you must be dismissing all date rape complaints because you find these 2 particular complaints to be less than credible. At the beginning of the thread there was some discussion of why the two women don't have credible stories. Now it's just, throw ad homs at anyone who holds the, 'women aren't credible', position.

Failure among some people in the thread to separate their feelings toward Assange and the actual evidence. People who are otherwise more critical thinkers don't seem to recognize how much they are not critically analyzing the affect of their personal reaction to Assange is having on their beliefs.

In my defense of being accused of the same thing, I think Assange is creepy. I support Obama, but not the erosion of our Constitutional rights with this overstepping that started after 9/11. Yet I find the evidence is at least sufficient to say, I get it why Assange fears the US. I don't see that fearing prosecution for rape is his problem. And the women's stories are full of big holes.

 

[tsig]

OK here's my problem with this muddled discussion, probably won't help but I'll post it anyway. Maybe people could address the muddling?

Dismissing the US's desire to 'get' Assange. That's a whole thread in itself. It's not a crazy CT belief to address this issue, yet that seems to be the main counterpoint to a whole lot of very specific evidence.

Blurring the line between legitimate obstacles women who report date rape face, and these two women's stories. Again, the counterpoint to addressing the problems with these ladies' account seems to be, you must be dismissing all date rape complaints because you find these 2 particular complaints to be less than credible. At the beginning of the thread there was some discussion of why the two women don't have credible stories. Now it's just, throw ad homs at anyone who holds the, 'women aren't credible', position.

Failure among some people in the thread to separate their feelings toward Assange and the actual evidence. People who are otherwise more critical thinkers don't seem to recognize how much they are not critically analyzing the affect of their personal reaction to Assange is having on their beliefs.

In my defense of being accused of the same thing, I think Assange is creepy. I support Obama, but not the erosion of our Constitutional rights with this overstepping that started after 9/11. Yet I find the evidence is at least sufficient to say, I get it why Assange fears the US. I don't see that fearing prosecution for rape is his problem. And the women's stories are full of big holes.

Rape is the crime he's charged with and running from. A court is the proper venue for trying the women's stories.

All you're doing is chanting "the US is evil" over and over.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rape is the crime he's charged with and running from. A court is the proper venue for trying the women's stories.

All you're doing is chanting "the US is evil" over and over.

Your position completely ignores all kinds of facts in this case.

It fits in the category I described as: Blurring the line between legitimate obstacles women who report date rape face, and these two women's stories. Again, the counterpoint to addressing the problems with these ladies' account seems to be, you must be dismissing all date rape complaints because you find these 2 particular complaints to be less than credible. At the beginning of the thread there was some discussion of why the two women don't have credible stories. Now it's just, throw ad homs at anyone who holds the, 'women aren't credible', position.

The ad hom: "you're .. chanting "the US is evil" could just as easily be thrown your way: "you think the courts can do no wrong."

 

[uke2se]

Your position completely ignores all kinds of facts in this case.

It fits in the category I described as: Blurring the line between legitimate obstacles women who report date rape face, and these two women's stories. Again, the counterpoint to addressing the problems with these ladies' account seems to be, you must be dismissing all date rape complaints because you find these 2 particular complaints to be less than credible. At the beginning of the thread there was some discussion of why the two women don't have credible stories. Now it's just, throw ad homs at anyone who holds the, 'women aren't credible', position.

The ad hom: "you're .. chanting "the US is evil" could just as easily be thrown your way: "you think the courts can do no wrong."

You don't get to decide what is credible and not. A court gets to do that. Incidentally, the same court Assange is running from.

Now, let's have a look at the two conflicting positions you hold simultaneously:

1. The two women are lying. Their stories don't add up. This means that you believe the two women made up their stories about Assange for whatever reason. This also means that the two women can't be involved in a conspiracy with the US, the UK and the Swedish judiciary system, because if they were, their stories would be air-tight.

2. There's a conspiracy between the US, the UK and the Swedish judiciary system to first extradite Assange to Sweden and then whisk him away to the US. If this were the case, as noted above, the women's stories would be air-tight with no room for diverging opinions. Not to mention the oft repeated fact that this theory is insanely stupid for a number of other reasons.

Please realize the stupidity of your position. There are people in this thread who let their feelings (or rather, ideologies) get in the way of critical thinking, and you are definitely one of them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On what evidentiary basis is the assumption the courts and prosecutor are above suspicion based?

As for, "If this were the case"... I don't find what you claim must follow, must.

 

[Here_to_learn]

On what evidentiary basis is the assumption the courts and prosecutor are above suspicion based?

I've asked a couple of times, and you have ignored it. Let's try again.

Could you spell out how in your view it all holds together? For the sake of this question I'll accept that the US is out to get JA.

So what is the US role in this, which people have been affected by them?

 

[uke2se]

On what evidentiary basis is the assumption the courts and prosecutor are above suspicion based?

On the "there's no evidence to indicate they are suspect" basis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've asked a couple of times, and you have ignored it. Let's try again.

Could you spell out how in your view it all holds together? For the sake of this question I'll accept that the US is out to get JA.

So what is the US role in this, which people have been affected by them?

I've answered all this.

There's no discussion in this thread, just denial assertions.

I posted all kinds of evidence the US has publicly said they are after Assange and evidence the US is not respecting human rights currently. Instead of addressing the evidence, it's dismissed with a wave of the hand and an ad hom about CTs.

Got news for you, extraordinary rendition happened. The US has passed laws not yet reviewed by SCOTUS claiming the right to assassinate via drones and arrest without due process including indefinite incarceration. We aren't talking about claims the towers were imploded. We are talking about easily verified in writing legislation as well as easily verified treatment of Bradley Manning, Maher Arar, and Khalid El-Masri. Look them up.

I'm not paranoid they are coming for all of us. No one is going to declare Martial Law. But the McCarthy era wasn't all that long ago. Japanese internment camps weren't either. Hand waving dismissal of a US campaign against WikiLeaks and Assange are naive. It reminds me of Frank Zappa's satire, "it can't happen here".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On the "there's no evidence to indicate they are suspect" basis.

But there is. Just review the thread.

 

[uke2se]

But there is. Just review the thread.

No there isn't. Your pointless ad homs against the prosecutors have been shot down at every turn.

 

[uke2se]

I posted all kinds of evidence the US has publicly said they are after Assange and evidence the US is not respecting human rights currently. Instead of addressing the evidence, it's dismissed with a wave of the hand and an ad hom about CTs.

Jesus frigging Christ! It has been adressed. Every frigging time you or some other Assange sycophant has dragged it up, it has been adressed. Every time it has been shown to be vacuous conspiracy mongering.

I can only assume that you are trolling now, so *plonk*.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I've answered all this.

That's great, but since to continue to spend time in this thread, it would be really helpful if you could take just a little of that time and point me to a post where you connect the dots and tell us how it all holds together.

 

[uke2se]

That's great, but since to continue to spend time in this thread, it would be really helpful if you could take just a little of that time and point me to a post where you connect the dots and tell us how it all holds together.

She hasn't done this. She's lying through her teeth.

 

[zooterkin]

*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?

Whether you agree with Assange's paranoia or not, it certainly explains his not wanting to go to Sweden.

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.

 

[nathan]

Your position completely ignores all kinds of facts in this case.

No, that's your position.

The ad hom: "you're .. chanting "the US is evil" could just as easily be thrown your way: "you think the courts can do no wrong."

No, that's not an ad hom. An ad hom would be 'you're ginger, you have no soul'. What you're stating here is a straw man -- where has someone claimed the courts can do no wrong?

 

[nathan]

That's a real stretch.

a) No, no it's not.
b) It's for the courts to decide whether that evidence is admissible in this case
c) in the court of public opinion, one can decide on one's own whether to lend credence.

In cases of abuse (sexual or otherwise), it can turn out that the abuser had a history of unreported or unfollowed crimes. The abusees' claims (if reported at all) were continually discounted in favour of the abuser. Assange is on record as wanting to use women for pregnancy and a history of contraceptive failure.

Do I need to point you at Jimmy Saville?

 

[Tolls]

And still no explanation of how extradition to Sweden would make Assange more likely to be sent to the US than remaining in the UK would.

 

[tsig]

I've answered all this.

There's no discussion in this thread, just denial assertions.

I posted all kinds of evidence the US has publicly said they are after Assange and evidence the US is not respecting human rights currently. Instead of addressing the evidence, it's dismissed with a wave of the hand and an ad hom about CTs.

Got news for you, extraordinary rendition happened. The US has passed laws not yet reviewed by SCOTUS claiming the right to assassinate via drones and arrest without due process including indefinite incarceration. We aren't talking about claims the towers were imploded. We are talking about easily verified in writing legislation as well as easily verified treatment of Bradley Manning, Maher Arar, and Khalid El-Masri. Look them up.

I'm not paranoid they are coming for all of us. No one is going to declare Martial Law. But the McCarthy era wasn't all that long ago. Japanese internment camps weren't either. Hand waving dismissal of a US campaign against WikiLeaks and Assange are naive. It reminds me of Frank Zappa's satire, "it can't happen here".

Right!


McCarthy! Japanese internment camps! Any other boogie men you want to bring up?

Other than beating the Evil America drum you've contributed nothing but hysterical bleatings about your fear of the US.

 

[Sabrina]

It is true that immediately following the whole Wikileaks case there were definite calls for Assange's head on a platter by several well-known members of the US Government. However, you'll note that it's been three years since the scandal and Assange has yet to be actually threatened by US action in any way. The calls for his head are now limited to a few right-wing nutjobs (one or two of which are unfortunately still in some sort of political office) who apparently fail to understand that the DOJ at this point in time has no evidence to charge him with anything. If they did, they would have already; God knows they've had plenty of time to dig up enough dirt on Assange to make the charges stick.

The CT about the US being out to get Assange has about as many holes in it as most 9/11 conspiracy theories. Assange, while he has been called a "terrorist" by certain personages, does not fit the actual definition; Wikileaks has not been declared an "enemy of the US" by any legitimate government agency I am aware of (and bear in mind, I work within the structure of the US government both in my civilian and military careers), nor has Assange, and our extradition treaty with Sweden actually makes it MORE difficult to retrieve him from that country, not less, unlike our treaty with the UK, so the notion that we've somehow trumped up charges against Assange in Sweden solely in order to get him extradited to the US is ludicrous on the face of it.

I will not deny that there are elements within the US government who would love for us to get our hands on him; but they are an extremely small (albeit vocal) minority. The rest of the (sane) government realizes that right now, Assange is doing more to make himself irrelevant than any action we could take. It doesn't make sense to concoct some elaborate scheme to whisk him out of Sweden of all places when it's fairly clear that Assange's bleating about a conspiracy to get him does the work of making him irrelevant for us. Assange isn't worth the waste of funds it would take to either capture or kill him at this point.

In short, SG, I find your arguments to have gigantic, drive-a-truck-through-them holes, and I note that you have yet to respond to any of my requests for actual hard evidence (like the so-called "secret" indictment you referenced) to support the notion that the US even WANTS Assange. Again, the opinion of one or two politicians does not count, given that those one or two politicians don't have the power or authority to speak for the entire US government. Provide me with something concrete, please.

 

[Joey McGee]

Well, women who dare to use birth control are certainly at risk. The nerve of them, trying to sabotage the Assange master plan for superior seed distribution!

From the police report...

"He also said he often carried abortion pills but that they were actually sugar pills."

You just can't make **** like this up! I'm inclined to believe she is telling the truth because honestly, who would be able to sit around and think up something that depraved and moronic. Truth is stranger than fiction man, this guy is strange.