Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Tolls]

And everybody closes their eyes about the possibility of having US Government pressure over Sweden Government and Judiciary due to the Wikileaks
Just not even considering the possibility, despite tons of evidence pointing in this direction
They just do not want to even consider the possibility

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that it is harder for the US to extradite him from Sweden, since that would have to involve the consent of the UK, than it would have been to extradite him from the UK?

The idea that there is some byzantine conspiracy going on is such a nonsense.

 

[John Mekki]

Aside from extradition issues, do you still believe the accusations are minor?

Do I "still" believe?
When I have said that an accusation of rape is "minor"?
Maybe, it is "minor" if compared to mass slaugther, yes..

 

[000063]

Do I "still" believe?
When I have said that an accusation of rape is "minor"?
Maybe, it is "minor" if compared to mass slaugther, yes..

Look at yourself.

 

[John Mekki]

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that it is harder for the US to extradite him from Sweden, since that would have to involve the consent of the UK, than it would have been to extradite him from the UK?

Already replied on this

The idea that there is some byzantine conspiracy going on is such a nonsense.

It is your opinion

 

[000063]

Already replied on this...

Where? Which post number?

 

[eirik]

And everybody closes their eyes about the possibility of having US Government pressure over Sweden Government and Judiciary due to the Wikileaks
Just not even considering the possibility, despite tons of evidence pointing in this direction
They just do not want to even consider the possibility

Er, you nor anyone else haven't produced *any* evidence for this.

Is your comprehension of the word "evidence" on par with your grasp on the term "trial"?

I don't think you understand the implication of a criminal court being pressured by a Swedish politician. It's a serious criminal offence you're accusing both the court and the politician(s?) of. And there haven't even BEEN a trial yet, and you have showed NO evidence of this happening in the past. You just conject, based on a theoretical possibility. And don't let me start on a Swedish judge being pressured to a certain verdict by an American politician. Hint: That's criminal treason. We're talking hard jail for a long time.

And for this you have ZERO evidence, you just want us "consider the possibility". You really have absolutely *no* clue at all, do you?

And for what? Money? They earn well, if you care to know, and they've worked their whole life to become a judge. It's not a McDonald franchise. They can't be fired, they are hired for life. Why would *any* judge in Sweden risk his job, name, freedom, and criminal charges on treason or corruption? Assange is most likely risking a suspended sentence, and he can't be extradited to the US on the rape charge, since it happened in Sweden.

This is absolutely crazy. Crazy in the truest form. Crazy I tell you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do I "still" believe?
When I have said that an accusation of rape is "minor"?
Maybe, it is "minor" if compared to mass slaugther, yes..

I don't believe that Julian has been accused of mass slaughter.

Unless you consider destroying Wikileaks's credibility because of he is so self absorbed, and because he is a rank sell out. I mean, I get that it wasn't enough that he slimed into the embassy of a country will a very well deserved reputation for press censorship, he is also practically an employee of the Russian Propaganda Ministry.

That had to be an eye opener for you.

 

[Tolls]

Already replied on this

No you haven't.
You've dodged the central point.
That extradition from Sweden to the US will require the consent of both Sweden and the UK.
Extradition from the UK to the US, prior to the EAW hearing, only required the consent of the UK.
Adding in Sweden to the equation does not miraculously make it easier for the US to extradite Assange.

And this is even before considering whether they would want to.

It is your opinion

No it's not just my opinion.
It's the opinion of anyone with an ounce of knowledge of how an EAW works.

And don't bother quoting some chap in the US about it...that did not do you much good last time.

 

[tsig]

Do I "still" believe?
When I have said that an accusation of rape is "minor"?
Maybe, it is "minor" if compared to mass slaugther, yes..

I didn't know he was accused of mass slaughter.

 

[babycondor]

He was either cluelessly careless without intent, willfully careless, or intentionally dismissive of consent. This is why a trial might be helpful.E

Edit:

Let me just be clear here, I believe the trial should be about whether he ignored the consent of the women involved, for whatever reason. I just think a trial might have the auxiliary benefit of clearing up some possible motives for those actions for the popcorn gallery.

Wouldn't it just come down to a case of "he said, she said" with no real evidence on either side?

First, let me say that I believe Assange has painted himself into a corner, damaged his cause and his organization (WikiLeaks), and behaved rather badly through all this. I believe he has become increasingly paranoid, delusional, narcissistic and megalomaniacal as regards his own significance in the tide of history. I believe his position would now best be served by giving himself up, returning to Sweden, and availing himself of the judicial remedies available to him there. He might also receive appropriate dietary and medical care, which would very likely benefit him.

That being said, I would recall that Assange was initially questioned in Sweden about the rape allegations, answered the questions, and was released because the prosecutor determined the case didn't appear to be strong enough to justify filing charges. Later, a different prosecutor decided more questions needed to be asked. The timing of that decision was suspicious, especially if you happened to be an internationally known collector and disseminator of certain politically sensitive (one might even say "incendiary") information.

 

[uke2se]

That being said, I would recall that Assange was initially questioned in Sweden about the rape allegations, answered the questions, and was released because the prosecutor determined the case didn't appear to be strong enough to justify filing charges. Later, a different prosecutor decided more questions needed to be asked. The timing of that decision was suspicious, especially if you happened to be an internationally known collector and disseminator of certain politically sensitive (one might even say "incendiary") information.

:facepalm:

CT forum is thataway ->

In the meantime, you're welcome to read this thread, in which we have already dealt with your conspiracy theory a number of times.

 

[BenBurch]

...

That being said, I would recall that Assange was initially questioned in Sweden about the rape allegations, answered the questions, and was released because the prosecutor determined the case didn't appear to be strong enough to justify filing charges. Later, a different prosecutor decided more questions needed to be asked. The timing of that decision was suspicious, especially if you happened to be an internationally known collector and disseminator of certain politically sensitive (one might even say "incendiary") information.

This has been addressed and is substantially incorrect.

 

[appalling]

Wouldn't it just come down to a case of "he said, she said" with no real evidence on either side?

It would just come down to whatever is actually presented at a trial, if that trial is allowed to happen.

Most trials are "someone says one thing, another person says another thing".

 

[appalling]

It might be considered prejudicial or at the very least in bad taste to describe Julian Assange as a disseminator.

 

[theprestige]

And everybody closes their eyes about the possibility of having US Government pressure over Sweden Government and Judiciary due to the Wikileaks
Just not even considering the possibility, despite tons of evidence pointing in this direction
They just do not want to even consider the possibility

Every time we consider the possibility, it turns out that your "tons of evidence" is really just the opinions of Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, and ex-president Lula. And none of them have provided any evidence to support their opinions.

And every time we ask you to provide evidence to support their opinions, you either ignore the request or try to change the subject.

How much more can we consider the possibility, when you can't even provide evidence to support it?

 

[000063]

It might be considered prejudicial or at the very least in bad taste to describe Julian Assange as a disseminator.

Nominated.

 

[appalling]

As far as the timing, there was no single point of time where a revelation that Assange was accused of sexual assault could not have been portrayed as somehow sinister or suspicious by Assange's defense team.

The women reported within days, they appealed the decision to consider it a lesser crime immediately (it was never treated as not a crime at all, so you are incorrect that charges were not going to be brought). The original prosecutor thought it was more likely a case of sexual molestation than rape, after an appeal with further arguments, a second prosecutor saw that it could be considered rape more than just sexual molestation. This appeal process is not uncommon in any way with sexual assault cases in Sweden.

Assange may want people to consider the "suspiciousness" that anyone would complain of his behaviour just as he was doing laudable things, but when would be a "good" time? A month after, two years after? If the women were genuinely specifically upset by his behaviour, as Assange has supported, then it is hard to find it suspicious that the complaints were made and appealed when they were.

 

[theprestige]

It might be considered prejudicial or at the very least in bad taste to describe Julian Assange as a disseminator.

LOL

Maybe I should accuse you of mass laughter?

 

[000063]

As far as the timing, there was no single point of time where a revelation that Assange was accused of sexual assault could not have been portrayed as somehow sinister or suspicious by Assange's defense team.

The women reported within days, they appealed the decision to consider it a lesser crime immediately (it was never treated as not a crime at all, so you are incorrect that charges were not going to be brought). The original prosecutor thought it was more likely a case of sexual molestation than rape, after an appeal with further arguments, a second prosecutor saw that it could be considered rape more than just sexual molestation. This appeal process is not uncommon in any way with sexual assault cases in Sweden.

Assange may want people to consider the "suspiciousness" that anyone would complain of his behaviour just as he was doing laudable things, but when would be a "good" time? A month after, two years after? If the women were genuinely specifically upset by his behaviour, as Assange has supported, then it is hard to find it suspicious that the complaints were made and appealed when they were.

Indeed, it is strange that Zeuzzz has said what they did was suspicious, but is largely mum on when they "should" have said something. And, of course, he's presented no evidence whatsoever.

 

[appalling]

Do I "still" believe?
When I have said that an accusation of rape is "minor"?
Maybe, it is "minor" if compared to mass slaugther, yes..

I am curious if your understanding of what Assange is accused of doing has evolved in any way from your earlier statements?

Sorry, I am new to this forum.
I just think Assange is innocent, I mean, the UK has protected Pinochet from being extradited and now they are prosecuting Assange just because he failed to put up a condom during sex.
Who is going to believe this?

I'd like to understand your thinking on this. It seems contradictory but maybe you have an explanation.